Out of character thread XVII

[Zim]

Ok, that makes sense. I was wondering what the influence system meant for 0 influence people. I'm glad to see they still get a vote.

deguerra, I think it's set up to represent that many Emperors had relatively little power to push through their agenda, while others were very powerful. Since there's no cap on the Emperor's influence, he can have anywhere from 1-10. Elberhard just has the disadvantage of some influence reducing traits (including lewd, I believe).

[FactionHeir]

Well, they do unless they are emperor.
If Elberhard gains another trait (or advances a current one) that reduces authority, he would effectively have no vote at the diet. Well, he could still vote, but it would be symbolic only and he would be laughed at.

[OverKnight]

Looking back at previous Kaisers, they usually benefit from the influence system. Heinrich maxed out at 5 authority, Henry at 10 (!), Jobst at 4 and Siegfried at 9. Elberhard is the only Kaiser who's influence has actually fallen over time.

[FactionHeir]

I'd relate this to several factors:
- Initially I had been too lenient with giving authority and the chances were slightly lowered over time. It is still possible to get 10 within a reasonable amount of turns, but not as easy as before
- Elberhard has always struggled with Feck, which reduces authority by 3 and is an antitrait to some authority raising traits
- (biggest factor) There has been little diplomacy/assassination/spying during Elberhard's reign

[econ21]

If Elberhard gains another trait (or advances a current one) that reduces authority, he would effectively have no vote at the diet.

He'll have one vote - his authority gives him bonus votes.

Initially I had been too lenient with giving authority and the chances were slightly lowered over time. It is still possible to get 10 within a reasonable amount of turns, but not as easy as before

Do you mean you had been more lenient than the vanilla game but aren't now? Or do you mean you are tighter than the vanilla game? If the latter, how does kotorfix differ from the vanilla game in assigning authority?

- (biggest factor) There has been little diplomacy/assassination/spying during Elberhard's reign

Assassination and spying seem odd things to give you authority. Both are supposed to be covert and so are not obvious ways of increasing your standing. And assassinations are something a chivalrous King would wish to engage in. (I know this a criticism of the base game rather than kotorfix changes.)

Elberhard's low authority is fine given the history of the cataclysm, but the more I learn of how authority is gained, the less I like it. It would seem better to tie it to losses or acquisitions of the Reich's provinces, plus some personal traits (either bad ones like feck or good ones from battles etc).

[TinCow]

YIKES! I was just wondering why Warmaster Horus hadn't fought his battle yet and I realized that I completely left it out of the battle list.

Friedrich Karolinger (Warmaster Horus):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Your army stands ready to attack the Byzantine forces guarding Venice. It will be a difficult fight. You cannot use a night attack and must therefore defeat two armies defending a bridge.

[econ21]

You cannot use a night attack and must therefore defeat two armies defending a bridge.

Two armies AND a bridge?! Warmaster Horus: you may want to pass on that and wait for the start of normal play next turn.

I confess discretion rather than valour was one reason Elberhard rode to help Austria not Bavaria.

[TinCow]

To be fair, he has a VERY powerful army and the Byzantine armies are not upgraded.

[Northnovas]

WH"Damn the torpedos, Full speed ahead!"

[Warmaster Horus]

"Damn the torpedos, Full speed ahead!"

My thoughts exactly.

Taking the save, and I'll tell you all about it later

Edit: Okay, logging off, and am fighting the battle.

[FactionHeir]

He'll have one vote - his authority gives him bonus votes.

Not quite. So far, the emperor's vote has always been equal to his authority without +1 I believe. We also clarified a few months back that the emperor is not an elector. As only electors receive +1 base, the emperor does not get this unless I missed something.

Do you mean you had been more lenient than the vanilla game but aren't now? Or do you mean you are tighter than the vanilla game? If the latter, how does kotorfix differ from the vanilla game in assigning authority?

Both actually. It used to be more lenient than vanilla somewhere in the second or third version and now is about equal to it (maybe a tiny bit stricter). However, the traits that give/remove authority have been increased slightly on the other hand, so that balances out.

Assassination and spying seem odd things to give you authority. Both are supposed to be covert and so are not obvious ways of increasing your standing. And assassinations are something a chivalrous King would wish to engage in. (I know this a criticism of the base game rather than kotorfix changes.)

See it this way: People might not know you are involved directly in spying/assassination, but someone is giving you that title "the Killer/the Watcher", right? So while you can hide clear facts that you were the conspirator, there are rumors and pointers that suggest they were ordered by you. So who would really dare oppose you openly if they know you make use of agents rather generously and accidents happen?

Elberhard's low authority is fine given the history of the cataclysm, but the more I learn of how authority is gained, the less I like it. It would seem better to tie it to losses or acquisitions of the Reich's provinces, plus some personal traits (either bad ones like feck or good ones from battles etc).

I would like that if it were possible. You cannot check for both factionleader and number of regions in the same trigger. Sounds silly, but its true. Of course you could work around this and give everyone the trait and then remove it off those who are not leader, but there's a lot of other problems with that (such as the problem with not being able to compare region count of a previous turn to this turn, so the system would break down after a while)

On a sidenote, the PoliticallyStrong/PoliticallyWeak and FactionKiller/FathersLegacy traits sadly don't work and cannot be fixed because a certain condition (LeaderDestroyedFaction and FactionDestroyed) don't work and are part of the hardcode. Those would add a lot of flair (the former for successful/failed diplomacy the latter for destroying factions and being the son of such a father)

You'll be happy to learn though that today I managed to fix up the AdoredByPope and PopesEnforcer traits without having to include the descr_missions file in the fix (although that would be useful for other reasons)

[Cecil XIX]

Elberhard's low authority is fine given the history of the cataclysm, but the more I learn of how authority is gained, the less I like it. It would seem better to tie it to losses or acquisitions of the Reich's provinces, plus some personal traits (either bad ones like feck or good ones from battles etc).

Indeed, I've found it odd that "Legendary Commander" gives no authority bonus.

[Ramses II CP]

Since I'm the one who mentioned scouting and such, let me be clear that I'm not scouting my own battles (In fact if you look at the ones I've fought since I came in there are 2 sieges and a bridge battle where scouting would be pointless, and 2 field battles, one of which I fought from the bottom of a hill because I didn't know the terrain ). Not offended, not taking it as AG poking me specifically, or anything, just putting the information out there.

I read a lot about KotR before I started and followed the early years of the Cataclysm, so I had a decent idea how things worked before I jumped in, and even so I didn't expect to be a character of any importance or fighting battles every turn. There were plenty of things that took me by surprise still. I told FH this initially, and I'll tell everyone; don't be afraid to pm me advice or correct me if I'm screwing something up. I'm not the type to have ego tied up in this game so it's all entertainment.

[FactionHeir]

Indeed, I've found it odd that "Legendary Commander" gives no authority bonus.

Personal preference.
Why should it give authority? You can be the greatest general and have no political influence whatsoever and can be stripped of command by the next higher noble.

[Stuperman]

Personal preference.
Why should it give authority? You can be the greatest general and have no political influence whatsoever and can be stripped of command by the next higher noble.

I thik that a "Legendary Commander" would/should have some influance bonous, name recognition alone should garner some influance (Hannibal In Antiochius III's court) and knowing fullwell that fighting a man known as a Legendary Commander will probably end in defeat should add to his influance.

[AussieGiant]

Since I'm the one who mentioned scouting and such, let me be clear that I'm not scouting my own battles (In fact if you look at the ones I've fought since I came in there are 2 sieges and a bridge battle where scouting would be pointless, and 2 field battles, one of which I fought from the bottom of a hill because I didn't know the terrain ). Not offended, not taking it as AG poking me specifically, or anything, just putting the information out there.

I read a lot about KotR before I started and followed the early years of the Cataclysm, so I had a decent idea how things worked before I jumped in, and even so I didn't expect to be a character of any importance or fighting battles every turn. There were plenty of things that took me by surprise still. I told FH this initially, and I'll tell everyone; don't be afraid to pm me advice or correct me if I'm screwing something up. I'm not the type to have ego tied up in this game so it's all entertainment.

Thanks for the information Ramses.

Your approach to the game and what you have said is "spot on" and I'm glad you didn't take my strongish comment the wrong way.

Cheers
AG

[Stuperman]

so, are all the re-conqured settlements automatically back in thier original Dutchies?

[AussieGiant]

Hi Stups,

We will have to work that all out IC in the Diet.

At the moment we have the legacy system which FH has mentioned. Once a province is conquered it must then be voted in using a 2/3 majority and then it's Imperial. Then it must be given to the various Houses by the Kaiser...which mind you is one of the MOST powerful relationship aspects of the game.

The Kaiser can "mess" things up by blurring the allocation lines this time around if he is so inclined.

[FactionHeir]

For provinces already incorporated they automatically return to the house when captured by any HRE unit.

[FactionHeir]

I thik that a "Legendary Commander" would/should have some influance bonous, name recognition alone should garner some influance (Hannibal In Antiochius III's court) and knowing fullwell that fighting a man known as a Legendary Commander will probably end in defeat should add to his influance.

Which is why it gives another command star (and that gives influence bonus in the diet as per stat)
As for reducing enemy morale. I wish there was a way of doing this without requiring that general to pick up dread for it.

[AussieGiant]

For provinces already incorporated they automatically return to the house when captured by any HRE unit.

Christ....I need a permanent lawyer in this game

[econ21]

For provinces already incorporated they automatically return to the house when captured by any HRE unit.

Well, that's more a pre-cataclysm convention than a rule. And it makes sense in a non-cataclysm context when only a settlement might be lost only very rarely.

In the context of the cataclysm, I had hoped to make recaptured settlements up for grabs, to make things more interesting politically post-cataclysm.

The Charter itself is rather ambiguous on the subject, as losing a settlement was frankly not something I had considered at the start of the PBM!

I suppose by the rules, the interpretation could be decided by the Council (the four Dukes) that is called when rules disputes directly concern the Kaiser's power. However, I rather suspect they would all prefer the conservative interpretation that they can keep what was once theirs. I guess we will play it that way unless I hear from two of them that they want the Kaiser to allocate recaptured settlements. (One can live in hope ... )

[FactionHeir]

Third, Emperors allocate newly captured provinces to the Ducal Houses. When a province is captured, it comes under the direct control of the Emperor, who can control them in the same manner that the Dukes and the Counts can control their own lands. The Emperor may allocate any of his lands to any of the Ducal Houses. Once allocated, they cannot ever be returned to the Emperor. House provinces where are re-taken after being occupied by an enemy do not count as being “captured.”

Charter Amendment 10.2:
(a) No settlement will be captured without an Edict authorising its acquisition in advance.
(b) Captured settlements will be abandoned or given away unless, at the next Diet session, a Charter Amendment incorporates them formally as part of the Reich.
(c) The 33 existing provinces of the Reich are exempt from (a) and (b).
(d) This amendment overrides the constitutional right of Household Armies to conquer one neighbouring province.

I think the Charter is actually quite clear on this. It would also mean that Nuremburg cannot be Imperial.

[TinCow]

The first thing you quoted is the FAQ I wrote, not the Charter. It is for guidance only and is not legally binding. It specifically states that in italics at the top.

[Stuperman]

Well, part of me is glad that all previous settlements are returned to thier respective houses, but there could be some really interesting politics assosiated with re-distrobuting them. (imaginary: "Loyal Franconians I do bestow on you Naples, good luck defending it!)

[FactionHeir]

Ugh, I'm going to get killed by arguing with a lawyer, but here goes:

If anything in these paragraphs conflicts with one of the Game Rules, the Rule takes precedent.

Since there is nothing in the rules conflicting this information, the FAQ content in this particular case would be in effect and binding until the rules (i.e. charter) are amended.

[econ21]

I think the Charter is actually quite clear on this. It would also mean that Nuremburg cannot be Imperial.

Your first quote is not from the Charter - it is from TinCow's preamble that is to provide a "simple understanding" of the rules. In this particular case, I think the preamble goes quite a bit further than what I can find in the rules proper.

Your second quote does not seem to bear on the issue.

As I said, I am not going to push this unless two Dukes back me up. Returning everything to it's House makes my role IC much easier. The only province Elberhard would really blanche at returning to its owner is poor Stettin.



On another subject, a battle report for Palermo is up. I can start to see Zim's point about the timer when it comes to siege assaults. Mini-Econ was really fighting against the clock - if you look at the last screenshot, there is no shaded area on the hourglass at all. However, we struggled to find an in-character rationalisation of why there was a need to hurry. (The best we could come up with was possible outside reinforcements and unrest within the city).

I still think we should keep the timer, but agree it can seem gamey in some situations.

BTW: the battle reports thread is getting rather full of screenshots, so takes a while to load. Please split your reports up into multiple posts if you are going to post a lot of screenshots. That way we will fill up the 30 posts/page quota without readers having to load over a hundred images. The WotS battle reports thread became unreadable to people with slow connections because of this problem.

[TinCow]

Since there is nothing in the rules conflicting this information, the FAQ content in this particular case would be in effect and binding until the rules (i.e. charter) are amended.

Possibly, but it's a pointless argument under the circumstances. Lothar wants to give Nuremburg to Elberhard until Rome is recaptured. If he needs to, he will point to the following rule language and say that this authorizes it:

4.4 Dukes can then grant a settlement to a player, making him Count of that settlement. The settlements remain nominally within the relevant Duchy.

If you argue against that, he will say that the rules are unclear and ask for the Kaiser to mediate. Since the situation directly involves the Kaiser, it will then turn to the four Dukes to decide. Lothar knows that Arnold will support his decision, thus meaning that at worst it is an even split. In the event of a tie, the Kaiser's vote is the deciding factor. Thus, there is no point in arguing that Lothar can't give away Nuremburg, because even if you are right he will do it anyway.

[econ21]

Since there is nothing in the rules conflicting this information, the FAQ content in this particular case would be in effect and binding until the rules (i.e. charter) are amended.

I don't think TC intended to "legislate" with the FAQ. If he thought he was creating new rules, I suspect he would have proposed a CA. (He has proposed "tidying up" CAs before for more minor things.)

[FactionHeir]

Alright, I'm going to argue this for the point of arguing

Possibly, but it's a pointless argument under the circumstances. Lothar wants to give Nuremburg to Elberhard until Rome is recaptured. If he needs to, he will point to the following rule language and say that this authorizes it:

4.4 Dukes can then grant a settlement to a player, making him Count of that settlement. The settlements remain nominally within the relevant Duchy.

Except that Emperors cannot be made counts, so this wouldn't be possible.

Anyway, need to be off to a charity event now.