WotB Ideas and suggestions [Archive]

Ibn-Khaldun

09-01-2008, 08:10

Suggestion: Wait a week to start the game. LotR has recently encountered problems due to the complexity of the Private Army system. Since your rules are based on ours, you'll probably run into the same roadblock eventually. We should have revised army rules ready in the near future which should solve this problem. I would recommend you use these new rules after they are published rather than going with the original LotR rules.

I keep a close eye on things in LotR. Currently we have 3 army types: Royal, Regular and Satrapal(kind of Private armies). Royal Army is led by Basileus and Heir. Regular army is led by a general who is appointed by Basileus. Regular armies are not private and the Basileus is the one that can give or take them away from people. Satrapal Armies are private but once they leave their Satrap they are at Basileus' mercy(unless Civil War is declared). They are meant as defensive forces and not offensive armies. So if people want to conquer other provinces then they should be loyal to Basileus and perhaps they can lead an army. Anyway this is our military system(at least I was thinking something like that when I wrote the rules).

yes i have an idea about private armies, since if you go to war with the king youd be cut off from the treasury, each Satrap should have his own budget, or have a limited amount of money to recruit more guys, and have a limited choice to the units he can mass. like only a few levy phalanx's or soemthing, since hed be paying out of his own pocket instead of out of the treasury.

I think that it is practically impossible to represent each Satraps own budget. When I wrote the Rules then I thought that one Satrap alone can never produce enough money to pay for some buildings or recruit new soldiers. Thus he will be cut off by any finances if Civil War starts. Also Satrapies are most likely inside the Arche and are surrounded by other provinces of Arche. So they don't have anyone to trade and this means that soon they will be out of money and will be bankrupt.

kingsnake

09-01-2008, 09:30

This is my response to Ibn-Khaldun's last post at the first sign up thread (An Eb interactive campaign) I thought the discussion should be transferred here.

What kind of aids? A whole satrap army? or a unit? what's the minimum?

So Satrap A is ally with Basileus and Chancelor, but Satrap B and C are not.
The Chancellor cuts Building/Recruiting in the enemy satraps, then Satrap B attacks A and wins with heavy casualties. Since he can't recruit I think at least he could receive some units from ally satraps.

The whole thing of the chancelor controlling building and recruitng on civil wars is also strange... I mean if some Satraps want to remove the chancelor and the basileus they are kinda isolating themselves from the empire and should at least have control of themselves.
Imagine there is a direct battle between a satrap army and the chancellors army. The battle ends with alot of casualties the satrap wins but the chancelor manages to retreat. The chancelor will then be able to recruit a new army and have an advantage over his enemies, as he can recruit new armies whenever his allies need until revolting satrap is finished.

So I guess, with these rules, the whole thing about a civil war against the chancelor is to kill them at the first battle?

-------------

Also when a new turn starts the WotB admin or whatever they are called, will post a savegame with the status then I should download it, play it making my moves and save it, then I post the new savegame is it?

From what I've seen at the temporary forum that's how you do it... :S

Next what sites are best to upload the savegames?

Ibn-Khaldun

09-01-2008, 10:05

What kind of aids? A whole satrap army? or a unit? what's the minimum?

So Satrap A is ally with Basileus and Chancelor, but Satrap B and C are not.
The Chancellor cuts Building/Recruiting in the enemy satraps, then Satrap B attacks A and wins with heavy casualties. Since he can't recruit I think at least he could receive some units from ally satraps.

Satrap C can send units or the whole Satrap army to help Satrap B. What Satrap C must remember that a general must be in command of those reinforcements since Basileus can move every Captain led stack that is outside of Satrapy. There is no minimum. But Satrap C must remember that sending his troops to Satrap B makes his Satrapy vulnerable.

The whole thing of the chancelor controlling building and recruitng on civil wars is also strange... I mean if some Satraps want to remove the chancelor and the basileus they are kinda isolating themselves from the empire and should at least have control of themselves.
Imagine there is a direct battle between a satrap army and the chancellors army. The battle ends with alot of casualties the satrap wins but the chancelor manages to retreat. The chancelor will then be able to recruit a new army and have an advantage over his enemies, as he can recruit new armies whenever his allies need until revolting satrap is finished.

So I guess, with these rules, the whole thing about a civil war against the chancelor is to kill them at the first battle?

Yes, you should try to kill Chancellor(or Basileus/Satrap) at the first battle.

I must point that Chancellor don't have much military power. Yes, he can command an army. No, Ex-Chancellor can not keep it. Chancellors army is more like a defensive army. Also, you can always wait the next elections and make sure that more friendlier Chancellor will get the job.

Celtic_Punk

09-01-2008, 11:17

I think it would be more realistic if a satrap can recruit some levy troops (only levy quality) since they would be cheap enough to be paid for out of his own pocket, but he should only be able to do this once after every civil war battle (this could be revised of course) and only a limited number of regiments as well, like say 2 levy regiments of his choice. this would also balance the advantage given to the government against the attacker. You also said that
What Satrap C must remember that a general must be in command of those reinforcements since Basileus can move every Captain led stack that is outside of Satrapy. I think in the case of civil war, if that army has thrown their lot in with the Satrap, they wouldn't give a damn if the King sent some messenger to tell them to disengage or w/e. Therefore a rule stating the Basileus cannot move armies of the renegade Satrap, ONLY in the case of civil war.
Allowing the Basileus to move those armies is like when Caesar left for Greece, the senate ordered his other half of his army to go back north of the Rubicon or something. it just doesnt make sense.

Also since there is probably a divide in retraining on the players who are interested, (this does not necessarily pertain to civil wars) should armies be allowed to retrain to full strength?

johnhughthom

09-01-2008, 16:39

I may have missed something, but your rules don't mention how level 4 govts and client rulers will work. Will using a client ruler give you total control over your province's building queue?

Ibn-Khaldun

09-01-2008, 16:56

I may have missed something, but your rules don't mention how level 4 govts and client rulers will work. Will using a client ruler give you total control over your province's building queue?

Yes, it's not in the rules but I thought that we shouldn't build level 4 government.
It would bring too much confusion into the game. Also.. Only those who have Satrapy have to worry about the build queue and something like that. All other provinces will be under Basileus' jurisdiction. Basileus will post a build queue to all of the provinces that are not part of any Satrap. IF Basileus want's to share his responsibilities then he can do so by posting in public thread where he will say who will govern what province.
Anyway.. I don't see how we could use level 4 gov in this game:no:

johnhughthom

09-01-2008, 19:20

Would using one of the starting client rulers be ok? I was hoping to use the Babylonian dude, if no-one else picked him first of course.

Ibn-Khaldun

09-01-2008, 19:58

Would using one of the starting client rulers be ok? I was hoping to use the Babylonian dude, if no-one else picked him first of course.

I think it is OK. Since EB 1.1 have client rulers who can move then it is possible(correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't used level 4 gov in EB 1.1:shame:)

Roka

09-01-2008, 20:18

I think it is OK. Since EB 1.1 have client rulers who can move then it is possible(correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't used level 4 gov in EB 1.1:shame:)

they can move, but it's not advisable

i think it has a massive impact on public order if the client ruler is outside the settlement

Ibn-Khaldun

09-01-2008, 20:34

And they happen to get this 'Insolent' trait too..

Roka

09-01-2008, 21:05

didn't know that, i always just keep mine in the settlements unless i can guarantee theyll be back during that same turn

Ibn-Khaldun

09-03-2008, 08:14

I think in the case of civil war, if that army has thrown their lot in with the Satrap, they wouldn't give a damn if the King sent some messenger to tell them to disengage or w/e. Therefore a rule stating the Basileus cannot move armies of the renegade Satrap, ONLY in the case of civil war.
Allowing the Basileus to move those armies is like when Caesar left for Greece, the senate ordered his other half of his army to go back north of the Rubicon or something. it just doesnt make sense.

In case of a civil war you shouldn't send your Captain led stack to land that Basileus controls. Only then can Basileus seize them(can be roleplayed as troops were loyal to Basileus and left the Satrap they served). But if they stay in the borders of the Satrapy then the Basileus can't control them even if they are 1 tile away from the Basileus' land.
Also you have to remember that if Basileus sends some Captain led units through any Satrapy then the Satrap can seize those units himself. So becoming a Satrap of Susa or Persia is a chance to intercept and seize all units that are passing through those lands.

Also since there is probably a divide in retraining on the players who are interested, (this does not necessarily pertain to civil wars) should armies be allowed to retrain to full strength?

Yes, retraining is allowed.

I apologize for not noticing your post before. :shame:

Celtic_Punk

09-03-2008, 20:59

thank you, Ibn-Khaldun all is forgiven! :chinese:

how is the test game doing?

Ibn-Khaldun

09-04-2008, 08:09

Since some of the test gamers were not able to play as fast as I would have wanted WH and I decided to start the real game instead. We will see if that was a bad idea or not. :shame:

Celtic_Punk

09-04-2008, 18:11

I guess we will work the kinks out ourselves in the council meetings then?

Ibn-Khaldun

09-05-2008, 00:00

I guess we will work the kinks out ourselves in the council meetings then?

I think so. I want to think that I have thought about everything while I wrote the Rules but no one is perfect. So if some part of the rules are causing too much trouble it can be changed later in game via Charter Amendment.

TinCow

09-05-2008, 17:34

Here are the rule changes I mentioned before:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=107440

Celtic_Punk

09-05-2008, 19:41

I think we should stick with what we got for armies for now, then swap if we run into the same trouble. I like this idea of Royal armies and whatnot.

Ibn-Khaldun

09-05-2008, 22:16

I think so too. But just in case I'll rewrite the rules with the new army system of LotR in it and save them for the future. ~:)

Celtic_Punk

09-06-2008, 02:29

Thats a good idea Ibn.

I think a good way to track captain-led stacks is to literally write down the name of the bloke, and track his position, this would be up to the army owner. We could however create a council position that would be in charge of logistics. he would make sure reinforcements get where they need to, that armies do not get confused with eachother, and that they all find a suitable place to camp to prevent starvation. He wouldn't beable to override orders from superiors or the owner or the army, and he could still hold a rank of General or something, it would just be a responsibility or office that one would be elected to...

just an idea to bounce of y'all

THIS IS AND EDITED EXCERPT FROM A POST IN THE SIGN-UP THREAD:
I think since they are independant states you have to declare war on each settlement. Also if you want to make an expedition deep into enemy territory (and not just a raid or attack on a bordering settlement/province) you should require your superior's approval... not a vote in the council, but just "hey mr satrap can i go sack memphis?" "why yes you can mr strategos!" im paraphrasing and adding a bit of jest, but you get the idea....

kingsnake

09-17-2008, 14:35

Can I change the video options, etc at my will? Will they save with the savegame and annoy some people who want different specs?

The Celtic Viking

09-17-2008, 14:49

Yes, you can. No, it won't. Go ahead with your fine-tunings.

johnhughthom

09-21-2008, 12:15

Since we have more settlements than generals there will be a lot of adoptions offered. Phanias Laodikeias Lydikes got a man of the hour adoption after winning a battle and this is likely to happen to any RGB after winning a battle as long as there is a shortage of family members. Wouldn't it be fair to everyone then if all other adoptions were refused, giving everbody not on the family tree a chance to get on it?

Ibn-Khaldun

09-21-2008, 13:00

The thing with the RTW is that if you don't accept those 'A man of great potential' offers at the beginning of the game then you can't do it later after you have already saved the game and load it again. You get the message that the man have deceased. So I agree that all other adoption should be refused. in the next Council Session I propose CA with this.

johnhughthom

09-22-2008, 17:17

Perhaps those playing RGBs should put in their SOTs whether they want to be part of the royal family if offered so we wouldn't need to wait for them if the offer comes about in-game.

Ibn-Khaldun

09-22-2008, 18:03

Actually it's more the adopter who should put in their SOT whether they want to adopt anyone or not.

Ibn-Khaldun

12-30-2008, 11:25

Since we are waiting the new Council Session to start I would like to know what are your expectations, what would you like to see in WotB?

We've had defeats our defeats and victories. Our Basileus have changed. We finally got Chancellor elections.

So, what would you like to see in future?? Some good Event ideas are welcomed. ~:)

I'll give you some hints about things I have planned: Assassins, Akademia, Invasion. ~;)

SwissBarbar

12-30-2008, 11:46

In the future, when we control the war against the Ptolemys, I'd like to see an Invasion into Hellas, recapturing the Greek territorys who belong to us by right.

Idea 1: We could RP the Makedonian King who visits the Council and behaves not very friendly. We assassinate him and a war is started.

Idea 2: Found a Client Kingdom in the Norh or in the South or more than one, no borderline with our Arche (for now). RP those Kings in a special way. They manage their cities as Kings **, pay taxes to us (and they always want to have low taxes, and we want them to have high taxes....). They can have own Armies (max. X Units we allow).
When the Arche Seleukeia aproaches their Territory, they could fear to lose their Status (which could be the case, if the Basileus descides so) and even could declare themselves independent, what would cause a "Civil War", in which the AS installes another form of Governemet OR they defeat us *GGG*. The point is, that they could raise an army themselves, they can create units with the money their cities earn from Taxes each turn (f. example they earn 1000 mnai in their city / all their cities, then they could recruit units woth 1000 mnai per turn). ** This is also the way the can build Buildings... only with their own money. Or they can take a credit from the basileus, but then have to do sth. for him, whatever he wishes...

YouHaveRecieved

12-30-2008, 12:39

Once the Arche has settled and controls it's backdoors I would like to see you give some terrortories back to the saptrapies in real life. So Baktria could make war and give them a few settlement and so on.

The Celtic Viking

12-30-2008, 14:42

Idea 1: We could RP the Makedonian King who visits the Council and behaves not very friendly. We assassinate him and a war is started.

I don't think that works out. I have been roleplaying Sarpedon as being friendly towards the Makedonians, aiding them personally against the KH and Epeirotes even before we ourselves went to war against the latter. I don't think their king would come to us now when I have come to the throne, and we're actively fighting their enemies as well, and behave in an unfriendly way that would warrant an assassination. :sweatdrop:

Idea 2: Found a Client Kingdom in the Norh or in the South or more than one, no borderline with our Arche (for now). RP those Kings in a special way. They manage their cities as Kings **, pay taxes to us (and they always want to have low taxes, and we want them to have high taxes....). They can have own Armies (max. X Units we allow).

So, with the exception of the "no borderline" part, they would be just like satraps so far, right? ~;)

When the Arche Seleukeia aproaches their Territory, they could fear to lose their Status (which could be the case, if the Basileus descides so) and even could declare themselves independent, what would cause a "Civil War", in which the AS installes another form of Governemet OR they defeat us *GGG*.

Still pretty much like satraps.

The point is, that they could raise an army themselves, they can create units with the money their cities earn from Taxes each turn (f. example they earn 1000 mnai in their city / all their cities, then they could recruit units woth 1000 mnai per turn).

But they also need to pay taxes to us, meaning they can't use their whole income. Since we would be the ones setting the taxes, it would effectively still be like satraps.

** This is also the way the can build Buildings... only with their own money. Or they can take a credit from the basileus, but then have to do sth. for him, whatever he wishes...

There's a few problems with this. The first thing is the whole hassle of keeping score of how much they have in their settlements. We would have to keep score every turn how much they make, then subtract the tribute and then their army. Then we will have to add the result from what we have calculated are currently in their coffers. There is only so many units a couple of settlements can support without having to pay a tribute - with it it would be even less, and a regular satrap would stand a better chance in a civil war.

SwissBarbar

12-30-2008, 14:49

Idea 3: What about an expidition (with spies) to the Islands Rhodos, Cyprus, Sicily and "check" if they're economically valuable. And if they are considered to be of value, we found/conquer a colony there (which will cause trouble, war and stuff, but of course....they're all jalous)

I find it very intersting, not to just expand one region after another, but to found centres of trade all over the world (and of course defend them against foreign intrudors). This is not only a challenge, but also cool to Roleplay since we would not only have Strategoi but also Client Kings, Tyrants, Governors, Stewards or whatever, with different characters, different responsibilities and desires.

Edit:
@ TCV: But as a Satrap I do not have the right to build buildings of my own, i just can ask if I may build this and that...??
Generally you're right, but my point is not at first place to have something that is extremely different to a Satrap, its that we do not have a borderline to those Satrapies and it makes it more interesting if not everyone is a Satrap but also have other "Names" (even if they do nearly the same" *G*

GMaximus

12-30-2008, 16:09

I don't think that works out. I have been roleplaying Sarpedon as being friendly towards the Makedonians, aiding them personally against the KH and Epeirotes even before we ourselves went to war against the latter. I don't think their king would come to us now when I have come to the throne, and we're actively fighting their enemies as well, and behave in an unfriendly way that would warrant an assassination. :sweatdrop:
Personally I'd like doing something like that very much, as he doesn't have to blatantly go 'Blergh, you guys are lame' - he could just be arrogant or understandably despise the Koinon Hellenon and the southern Hellenes in general, which would lead to some strong quarrel with Mikithion or any other Strategoi that hail from Hellas (don't really know if we have any more southerners than Mikithion), and then the death of the King. I'd be willing to sacrifice Mikithion and have him executed for that if neccessary, or additionally he could just be banished to the far east of the Arche (where he's going anyway), because that would be some fun RPing. Although the King doesn't neccessarily have to die, as methinks he could be offended or just injured, too.

The Celtic Viking

12-30-2008, 17:59

TCV: But as a Satrap I do not have the right to build buildings of my own, i just can ask if I may build this and that...??

True enough, but with Clients, we could demand so much tribute that you couldn't afford to build anything anyway. Satraps are actually more privileged, since their armies, buildings and recruitment goes on the Arche's tab and can thus do things that such clients as you proposed couldn't, because they would have little to no money.

Generally you're right, but my point is not at first place to have something that is extremely different to a Satrap, its that we do not have a borderline to those Satrapies and it makes it more interesting if not everyone is a Satrap but also have other "Names" (even if they do nearly the same" *G*

If it's a satrapy, call it a satrapy.

Look, I would want something like that as well, where satraps have their own coffers and can use them for themselves, I really do. I just don't see it as realistic within the confines of the game.

The only way I could think of would be if we could come up with a reasonable way to make up how much a satrapy would gain each turn, and then use the add_money cheat to do that. I have tried coming up with a good system for that, but... :shame:

Personally I'd like doing something like that very much, as he doesn't have to blatantly go 'Blergh, you guys are lame' - he could just be arrogant or understandably despise the Koinon Hellenon and the southern Hellenes in general, which would lead to some strong quarrel with Mikithion or any other Strategoi that hail from Hellas (don't really know if we have any more southerners than Mikithion), and then the death of the King. I'd be willing to sacrifice Mikithion and have him executed for that if neccessary, or additionally he could just be banished to the far east of the Arche (where he's going anyway), because that would be some fun RPing. Although the King doesn't neccessarily have to die, as methinks he could be offended or just injured, too.

Just badmouthing would not be enough. If Mikithion (or anyone else) would do that in the Council, Sarpedon would immediately ban him from the Council and punish him in some other way, and with the ill-needed aid we're giving them, it's extremely unlikely he wouldn't forgive.

As for assaulting physically, at worst to his death - how would you do that? In the middle of the Council floor? There are guards, other strategoi and Sarpedon close by who would stop anyone walking up to him with the intent to harm. It could only lead to bad IC consequences for the one making the attempt.

SwissBarbar

12-30-2008, 18:07

mhyeah, you're right, unfortunately it really would be too complicated, i see that problem. Was just an spontanious idea, maybe we find something else which makes it all even more interesting

Ibn-Khaldun

12-30-2008, 18:20

@SwissBarbar - The idea is good and I have thought about it myself but just like TCV here I also tried to find a good system for that but I couldn't. That's why I left the idea of each satrapies own budget. It can be done but is it worth all the trouble??

GMaximus

12-30-2008, 18:36

Just badmouthing would not be enough. If Mikithion (or anyone else) would do that in the Council, Sarpedon would immediately ban him from the Council and punish him in some other way, and with the ill-needed aid we're giving them, it's extremely unlikely he wouldn't forgive.

As for assaulting physically, at worst to his death - how would you do that? In the middle of the Council floor? There are guards, other strategoi and Sarpedon close by who would stop anyone walking up to him with the intent to harm. It could only lead to bad IC consequences for the one making the attempt.
Well, if it was a particularly arrogant king... Though I'm just making up excuses now, so yeah, insults wouldn't work.

As for the assault, of course not in the middle of the Council. The unnamed king wouldn't live there, so there'd be a chance to challenge him to personal combat sooner or later without any other Strategoi and, if this was the arrogant southern Hellene hating king he wouldn't likely pass up the opportunity. At worst Mikithion could ambush him outside the city with his bodyguard, because we must remember that following my IC he's more of a general for hire than a devouted Strategos, and all his bodyguards are kinsmen from Athenai. I do understand it'd be the end of Mikithion as a Strategos anyway, but I'd be willing to sacrifice him. He's not like the character from completely text-based RPs that are my flesh and blood, so to speak, and even though I like him I don't realy feel as bad about having him die/disappear than the guys I thought up myself.

Although if you don't want to do it, I won't insist particularly.

SwissBarbar

12-30-2008, 18:38

yes, lets find some other ideas. what about having a war (started by the other faction), and we don't take their land, but just sack their capital citiy to revenge, and offer them peace after that. An expedition.

Ibn-Khaldun

06-02-2009, 19:47

After I read TVS rules I saw this:

7. Teleportation

The “move_character” console command can and will be used when needed for character movement. When a character has to go to a specific city as soon as possible (without an army), but movement points do not suffice, he will be teleported by Maion Maroneios, Emperor of Graal, or anyone else they chose. This is mainly to represent the fact that moving from one point of Hellas to the other (for example), would take much less than even 1 turn (3 months), especially for one persononly.

Teleportations will only occur for very specific reasons and will only be done by the aforementioned persons and none other by any means.

I would propose that we could use this in our game as well. It's a pain moving from Mikra Asia to India because it would take too long. So, we could use this.

I would suggest that if a character is inside a city and haven't moved during that turn then he can be teleported to another city held by us. The penalty would be that he can not move the next turn either. I still think that 2 turns where you can not move your avatar is a good price if you can go from Ipsos to Hekatompylos without risking an attack from brigands or hostile AI factions.