Out of character thread XIX

[FactionHeir]

Sorry - no proxying, AussieGiant should autoresolve the battle and move on to the next turn.

If players are on reserve duty, they should inform the Chancellor in advance and he will try to keep them out of danger. Warluster did not do that - he mentioned difficulties in the OOC thread last week, but then reported that they were being solved and did not update the active duty list. He also turned down both AussieGiant's and my suggestions for "safe" moves for von Salza this turn. I had a PM exchange with Factionheir in which I questioned whether Warluster could pull off the high risk move that von Salza has taken, but Factionheir went ahead and ordered it anyway.

I am loathe to have other players act as subs for army commanders. We allowed that with AussieGiant in the past because he contributed a lot to the role-playing without an avatar for months and then, when he finally got an avatar, had to go away on business for months. However, even then I felt uneasy about his avatar accumulating vast amounts of battle traits based in part on other players fighting the battles. At the time, we did not have many (any?) other Austrian avatars, so it was pretty much a necessity in game terms and not such a big deal OOC. But it does not seem right that we have players who can fight kicking their heels while players who can't fight have their avatars pick up the traits and players who may have armies and battles of their own also fight other people's battles.

Keeping the close bond between the avatar and the player adds a lot to the role-playing of the game, increases the challenge for the Reich and helps share out the battles to available players. I would only offer the deal we offered AussieGiant to another player reluctantly - much better, I think, to have their avatar find a replacement army commander, move to a safer spot and do some civic work governing a city. If you want to get lots of battle traits, fight the battles. I am not inclined to offer it just because a player doesn't install 1.2.

Placeholder reply. Need to catch a train first.

[AussieGiant]

Placeholder reply. Need to catch a train first.

[deguerra]

Fair enough econ, I did not know about the subbing rules. All good from my end.

[AussieGiant]

Fair enough econ, I did not know about the subbing rules. All good from my end.

Subbing rules a very important deguerra, and my situation last year was pretty unique in this game.

[deguerra]

As I said, I have no complaints with either the rules or how they are and were implemented. I don't really know the situation you were in, but I'm happy to take your word for it. As I said, all good from my end.

[FactionHeir]

Meh, didn't use the placeholder afterall:

Anyway, three things that should be considered before making a hasty decision:

1. The OOC CA econ wrote and linked to in the old OOC thread yesterday is vaguely worded as he suggests.

Originally Posted by Post #1
OOC Charter Amendment:
(a) Where there are multiple player controlled generals in a stack, then the player who plays out the battle is determined by who the computer designates is in command.
(b) An exception is that Household Armies (and the Army of Outremer) are always commanded by the designated Commander of said army.
(c) The commanding general may allow another player to fight a battle by mutual consent for OOC reasons.

As you can see, both points b and c could apply to this situation.


2. Whether Warluster can be subbed for depends on how long he wont be able to fight battles. If it is above the limit set (3 weeks), then anyone designated by him should and will be able to play his battles.


3. By precedent, players who had not been away for extended periods of time nor were otherwise eligible to be subbed for have been subbed for by other players not in their stack. This means that not allowing it in this (more legitimate case) we are disadvantaging Warluster. All of this happened after the CA regarding proxying has been passed AND outside the cataclysm period. Post battle results have always been accepted as well even when the issue was pointed out to econ.

Therefore, I would say subbing should be allowed for this particular case.

[Warluster]

May I add to said things; If I had the option of installing 1.2 I would; the only thing stopping me is that it is MASSVIE to me. Downloading it will take at least 9 hours for me, and I don't have 9 hours to download a Patch. There is a slight chance a known company over here in Aus might put it on there Cd, or Kingdoms will work for me, but neither are happening.

If I could install 1.2, I would! I love playing KOTR! But my old game was stuffed so I reinstalled and had to delete my old 1.2 Setup (Had a virus in it) If I manage to find time I will download it but I forsee it will be qutie a while before such a thing as Spare Time comes along. Sorry for the incovenience but a string of bad luck has happened.

[deguerra]

once again, Warluster, if you let me know where you live I might be able to work something out...

[AussieGiant]

Dear All,

On a related note, I'd like to request that all players update their Duty Roster as it is vitally important. The Chancellor then has at least a fighting chance to avoid Auto resolves.

I was under the impression I knew who was available and who was not.

Thanks everyone.

Cheers
AG

[econ21]

1. The OOC CA econ wrote and linked to in the old OOC thread yesterday is vaguely worded as he suggests.

As you can see, both points b and c could apply to this situation.

The OOC CA was intended to deal with controversies over who is in command when several generals involved in a battle want to fight it - not to deal with cases where none do. As I explained, it was loosely worded and I am sorry for that. But clause (c) - "The commanding general may allow another player to fight a battle by mutual consent for OOC reasons. " - was meant to qualify clause "(a)Where there are multiple player controlled generals in a stack, then the player who plays out the battle is determined by who the computer designates is in command" . That is to say, if there are two generals in a stack, one is the boss but he can allow the other to fight the battle for OOC reasons. That's what has just happened with GH. If the CA is not read in that context, it would allow anyone to fight anyone else's battles, which is not something we have ever allowed.

As for clause (b), I never envisaged two commanders for one army and certainly one that was not even stacked with it. Frankly, I don't like that arrangement at all. An army commander should be stacked with the army - it's not remotely plausible that Ruppel besieged in Dijon can command the SHA. And there should only be one commander per army. (what's next? two heirs? two Dukes?) I can't think of a military that would tolerate two commanders with equal standing of one formation - it sounds like a recipe for disaster (as here).

2. Whether Warluster can be subbed for depends on how long he wont be able to fight battles. If it is above the limit set (3 weeks), then anyone designated by him should and will be able to play his battles.

I am reluctant to allow subbing in this context. One issue is the lack of notice. The subbing was not arranged in advance. We have an active duty list to sort this kind of stuff out. If players can just change their status when faced with a battle and then immediately find a sub, then the whole system of 48 hour deadlines and the threat of autocalc is undermined.

More importantly, as explained, I am reluctant to allowing people to remain on active duty with a sub unless there are very strong reasons. And not patching to 1.2 does not seem like a good enough reason to warrant an indefinite proxy. IMO Warluster should be on reserve duty, not active duty with a sub. I don't want to sound too harsh, but if he wants his avatar to fight battles, then he should patch his game and fight them himself.

3. By precedent, players who had not been away for extended periods of time nor were otherwise eligible to be subbed for have been subbed for by other players not in their stack. This means that not allowing it in this (more legitimate case) we are disadvantaging Warluster. All of this happened after the CA regarding proxying has been passed AND outside the cataclysm period. Post battle results have always been accepted as well even when the issue was pointed out to econ.

I don't know of the specific cases you are thinking of, but I fear you are right. We have not been consistent about subbing, but we did try to tighten up on it a while back. I know I have a tendency to rule "play on" if a save is uploaded despite some rule being broken. However, we are not faced with a fait accompli here. And I would like to adhere to a together standard on subbing.

Right now, no player should expect to be able to stay on active duty with a sub unless they can make a very good case for it. Not being able to patch until June just does not cut it.

I realise this leaves Ruppel (and Swabia) in a bind, but he still has 8 turns to be relieved and if the Kaiser/Bavarians can assist, the situation looks salvageable. If there was only one turn left before Dijon fell, I would cut you a break and allow a sub. But where we are now, I would rather we play out the challenging situation we will be presented post-autocalc rather than effectively allow Ruppel to sneak across Dijon's walls and lead the SHA into battle.

[FactionHeir]

The issue is not that Warluster does not want to patch his game but that he does not have the means to do so in the near future, meaning he is prevented from doing so.
That and he needs 1.3, meaning double the size of 1.2

You are correct that it would be unrealistic for Ruppel to fight it, so deguerra can do it. Distance has not played a role in past subbing.

[econ21]

The issue is not that Warluster does not want to patch his game but that he does not have the means to do so in the near future, meaning he is prevented from doing so.
That and he needs 1.3, meaning double the size of 1.2.

I know - I am not unsympathetic. If von Salza's life (or Ruppel's) depended on it, I would compromise. I don't want any player to lose their avatar because of OOC technical problems, still less becase of a disputed ruling by me. But we are not in a life or death situation here (yet). Bear in mind we are not talking about Warluster being unable to patch in the near future - we are apparently talking about not patching until June.

Subbing was considered for situations where people were away for long periods of time. Not patching your game is not being away. Kotr switched to 1.3 a long time ago and having a properly patched version of the game should be a requirement of full participation in the PBM.

By the same token, I am not going to allow Roadkill to use a sub if he is still without M2TW. When Roadkill was new to the PBM, we allowed that to cut him a break but it does not seem a proper long term solution. Now he has a new avatar, and given the current Swabian case, he should be considered to be on reserve duty unless he confirms he has a fully patched and kotorfixed game installed.

At the time of posting, there are no players with arrangements for proxying in place. If a player's avatar is involved in a battle, they or another player whose avatar is in the same battle, has to fight it within 48 hours or it will be autocalced. This has quite serious implications for the game - not just for Swabia, but also for the Magdeburg three (who might all be killed if an autocalced siege assault leads to their defeat) and also the Kaiser's army (which seems now to have no commander who can fight Monday to Thursday). Personally, I think the constraints introduced by the risk of autocalc go some way to offsetting the weak AI and add some needed tension to our game.