Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Were the designers correct to allow such easy first turn changes as Angers to become English

  1. #1
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Were the designers correct to allow such easy first turn changes as Angers to become English

    Playing around a bit with Medieval II and taking a look at history. This is within the confines of a strategy and tactics thread, but first some obeservations about modification goals are in order to help explain what I am presenting as a strategy option. I have been posting in the Content forum as a blog on my personal search for how to approach this game via After Action Reports (Blogging the After Action Reports ). A little self promotion here cannot hurt. It may even be worth a read!

    I always thought it unreasonable that the computer factions were too willing to make a trade of their territory for some florins over time coupled with a royal marriage. I was quick to take this as a design error. I am now not so certain that is or was a design error. After taking a look at After Action Report writing and also many of the fine modifications of this game hosted on our forum, I am really no longer certain. It may just come down to personal preferences and not an error in the design of the game. I know that many members may have their prefences, but perhaps what is right for a specific modification need not be a generic truth for the game as whole.

    But even though this is a Total War game, that does not mean that there is or was constant warfare as we know modern warfare to be. A state of war may indeed mean no trade relationships, but it need not mean perpetual invasion until conquest or elimination of a faction. Thus why we see many a thread discussing that elimination of an established faction while at war means that state of war never ends. This may be a factor that the computer designers used to feed the war frenzy by the computer estaablished factions.

    This state of war exists between all factions and the provinces in rebellion. These rebelious independant settlements have no interest in trade with any of the established factions. The established factions have diplomacy as a tool with all the options available to diplomats (and the unattached young princesses): trade treaties, alliances, tribute, shared permision of territorial access, and promises of assistance against common foes. But diplomacy is only feasible between the established faction. This may be important as a design element. So perhaps the design intention (or just a goal) was to be at peace for at some of the time with neighboring established factions and to end the wars before any faction elimination occurs. So perhaps a few more diplomats should be recruited by the human player. Experience helps a diplomat as mush as a unit involved in combat. So perhaps diplomats should be a focus earlier and more often to buil up suc experience. Something I will consider for my future games.

    There are many modifications of the game that make it more difficult to allow the human player to make trades of territory for a royal marriage of a neighboring faction. There are also modifications that want to make it more difficult for an ally to 'stab' the human player by making alliances more durable. This is Total War. So I understand why the modifications would try and make this a more difficult action on turn one. Perhaps there is some sound reasoning for what the first designers of the game had intended. There should be a balance in royal marriages and territory. Durabilty may actually be what the original designers had intended as a fragile alliance that needs constant and persistant attention and even then the alliance may not last.

    Enough for the comments on design intentions. Let's take a closer look at our options at the very beginning of the game. Why not speed up history a bit and focus on an Angevan Empire that is William's domain and seperate from his kingdom of England? The focus of the future Enlish kings was on the mainland of Europe until King John pretty much lost it all. So perhaps the history of wanting to control what today is western France was both natural and a proper desire of the Duke of Normandy.

    Let's take another look at the first faction many of started with out of the box. England in history had William concerned with securing their borders with the Welsh and the Scots to the point of conquest being a preferred solution to constant warfare by his sons and future kings. Even the Saxons viewed this as all proper English territory for the Saxon crown. So it is natural that York be subued quickly. It is just as natural that the Council of Nobles are wanting to offer a reward for the conquest of Wales. But this constant warfare was not just for a turn or so in game terms. By quickly takng Wales and then eliminating Scotland, the human player is already changing the course of history.

    As an alternative to the Total War theme of eliminating Scotland, let's make peace with France via a royal marriage with Constance and Angers as a dowry with some nominal florins for a generation of tribute to the French king to assure the French that William is a loyal Duke. We can even move King William back to Normandy to take charge of a future empire as the later English kings did in history. The conguest of Rennes is simple. Conversion of Caen to the city line while Angers is now the base of castle power is natural. This makes 1080 the real beginning of the Angevan Empire. Now there is a good chance of the empire surviving with the necessity of doing what is needed and nessessary to assure the French of the Norman Duke's loyalty to the allliance. This would mean coming to the aid of the French in any conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire and also to support the French king if he aspires to expand against the Spanish or the upstart Milanese. Support with diplomacy, gold, and combat should be all in the mix. Future princesses should be first looked at for future royal marriages between France and England to further cement this alliance. This will take real effort on the part of the human player to keep this alliance viable. This real work is why the design of the game makes it necessary for the design to include the 'stab' as a computer option.

    Of course this will still leave the question of the Wales and Scotland undecided for the time being. We still have a future goal of the Angevan Empire to include Toulouse and Bordeaux (specially since this is France in the unmodified game) which may test the French layalty to an alliance. Can this be acquired and peace remain with the French? Will the French view the Germans as the natural opponant to French supremacy rather than the English (at least until it is too late)? How should the English approach this as a loyal ally?

    So have any of our members approached this as intentional rather than a mistake of the designers? Do many players to take advantage of early territorial changes for florins and royal marriages rather than going directly to a war frenzy? If so, do you then work to keep the alliances or choose to find a convenient time to 'stab' the computer faction? I know that even Youtube.com finds greater entertainment values in the Total War theme. The value of a video for me is on the tactics employed in a single battle, so I understand this with a single battle and even for the stategy a full 'Let's Play' campaign. For role play values, our characters and how they are used in the appoach of the game are not necessarily locked into the Total War theme though. It is tempting to create an After Action Report with this premise guiding the first 20 or more of the English turns. At least this could be a goal of William until he dies. Hmmm???
    Last edited by NorseThing; October 28, 2018 at 06:21 PM. Reason: spell check did not check

  2. #2
    King Athelstan's Avatar The Wheel Weaves
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nidaros
    Posts
    6,769
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Were the designers correct to allow such easy first turn changes as Angers to become English

    That's a very cool idea! I've never thought of playing England that way, and sticking with the French. It would make for a completely different aspect to a campaign, which would be a refreshing, new idea to try out, especially to see how any future conflict progresses. If you have the time, I'd be very interested in an AAR from you on this.

    As for myself, I've never tried to trade regions to myself, I've always gone the old fashioned take-em-by-force way. I have, however, actively used princesses to cement royal marriages, to grant myself a strong ally in possible wars. I have not however, thought of receiving a region as dowry, as I believe there's plenty of room to expand elsewhere and I'd like my ally to do as well as he can.

    I like to think of myself as a chivalrous ruler, and I always keep alliances. I've found that in the first few turns it's a lot easier to get alliances, trade rights and map information and all that, diplomacy is just easier. The alliances made in the first few turns usually last forever as well, or until the human breaks them. As the game goes on I've found that diplomatic actions are a lot harder, for example the good olde "map info for map info" is nigh impossible. The same goes for alliances. Alliances made later in the game I've found are quite unreliable and much harder to agree to.
    Therefore, I believe that if you ally the French early they'll stick with you for the duration of the campaign.

    Anyways, I'd be very interested to see how a campaign like that might go, so let me know if you do make it into an AAR
    Proudly under the patronage of General Brewster of the Imperial House of Hader
    Proud patron of 4zumi, Akar, CommodusIV ,Swaeft
    and Peaman






Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •