"spicing up" traditional PBeM campaigns

[Myrddraal]

I'll admit it, before recently I've never paid attention to what happens in the Throne Room, but when I released my MP campaign I posted here and as a result I was drawn to the other threads here, particularly "the will of the senate"

And I was wondering if the script used for my MP campaign couldn't be used to spice up the traditional PBeM campaigns. For example - Sicily has fallen, the Romans are expanding their power. The carthaginians have been insulted, but will the AI react? Who knows?

As an experiment, I propose writing a variation on the MP campaign script, which would allow users to control parts of what the AI does. I would leave to majority of the work to the AI, but if you are willing, I would be able to send you messages from Carthaginian diplomats, more complex treaties, threats and ultimatums, which would be carried out etc etc.

I haven't really explained this very well, but I hope you get the idea. Would you be willing to try this, as a test?

[shifty157]

Im very intrigued. But youre right when you said that you didnt explain very well. Please try to explain in more detail.

[Myrddraal]

I think this is best explained by an example:

This is an example and not part of the "Will of the Senate" PBeM campaign. (yet :evilgrin:)

Senators, a diplomat of Carthage has arrived on our shores bearing the following message:

As if the execution of your spies in our lands were not warning enough for you to keep check on your over ambitious policies, you then furthered your insults to Carthage by daring to invade our homelands. In the ensuing battles, you men savaged a noble man, King Hanno.

Such actions will not be tolerated. A battle has ended, but the war has merely begun. Now you surely realise the gravity of your errors. Barbarians come down on your undefended borders whilst the populace of Sicily, loyal to their people, shall cause unrest in the lands you have savaged.

There is no reason why your fate should be unknown to you. Like the barbarians you are, you have acted rashly; depending on the brute force of your armies to expand without considering the consequences. You shall pay the price for this with the starvation of your children. Our fleets are ready to launch an overwhelming attack on the scattered fishing boats you call a navy. No trade shall pass through your ports without carthaginian approval, no military or civil vessel will dock on Roman lands again. With only enemies bordering you directly, your nation will receive no trade, no customs, and no riches. Your cities will fall to disorder, your people will sleep in squalor.

You are nothing more than barbarians, and barbaric actions are what we expect of you, you surely did not consider the fate of your nation when you tested your own military strength. If you can see sense now, we shall be merciful. Only one course of action will compensate your actions and the death of our ruler. This is our ultimatum:

You shall leave sicily and hand control to our generals
For five years you shall limit the size of your military navy to no more than 4 vessels.
You shall pay Carthage the sum of 3000 florins.

We have no intention of negotiating this matter. If you think we are being overly harsh, consider the future you will leave your people with.

Carthage expects your reply within 3 weeks - any delay will seal your nations tomb.

And - simply put, I can make this happen.

[shifty157]

How is that possible? How can you get the AI to enforce such a threat? What new form of wizardry is this?

Very impressive example but I want to know how its at all possible. This seems way too good to be true.

[Myrddraal]

There are two ways I could force the AI to do these things.

One is to write a very simple script that moves the fleets for it (this method is slightly more complicated for me)

The second method is to use the work I've already done. The Multiplayer campaign script I've got hands over control of another nation to the player and disables that nations AI. It is possible to do one without the other.

Just before ending one of your turns, you send me the savegame, I take over carthage, move her fleets and leave the rest to the AI. Then I hand back control to the Romans and you play on. (I'd probably have to do this for a few turns to make sure the AI doesn't move it's fleets away)

[GeneralHankerchief]

I must admit, that sounds amazing.

If you could somehow make it so that it's multiplayer campaigns and battles, I shall proclaim you God.

[shifty157]

How could you just move the fleets and leave everything else to the AI? If you took control of the turn then I would think that if you only moved the fleets then the AI would essentially lose the turn.

I dont know if this would work without you taking over Carthage entirely.

[Myrddraal]

I assure you shifty it works :smile:

It really does. Tried and tested. I can move the fleets, hand control back to the romans, and as I hand control back, the AI takes over the carthaginians and finishes their turn.

Honest :grin:

(In fact the hardest part of making the MP campaign script was stopping this happening)

[shifty157]

Really? Thats very impressive.

Well the only thing that I am worried about now is the extra time needed to send the save ffile back and forth every turn. Especially as the empire continued to grow and more nations came in contact with our borders.

Well its up to the rest of the players. Im a little apprehensive about starting this now after we've already begun playing but i dont think anyone would mind if a new PBM was started.

[Myrddraal]

At the end of the day, I don't mind, but I think it would be a good addition to the senate deliberations. Do you try to raise a fleet? Accept the demands? Try to negociate? Do you have a choice?

[TinCow]

This is very interesting... it adds the one thing we have all missed in RTW campaigns... a true opponent. I too am cautious about messing with the already ridiculously complex system of the Senate campaign. We've only been going for a short time and there's already been a significant dropoff in the number of posts and votes.

However, this idea has a lot of potential and I would certainly like to see an attempt to structure a PBM around it. Maybe a faction could be picked and then the major enemies of that faction identified. Those enemies could be managed by Myrddraal or other individual players (i.e. for Rome one person is Carthage, one person is Gaul, one person is Greece) who give the orders appropriately.

Maybe a good way to explore this would be to do a 'test' campaign. Nothing complex, just a couple people running through 20 or so turns of a game like this.

[econ21]

I agree with Shifty157 and TinCow - my first instinct is not to complicate the Will of the Senate campaign with this. The campaign is far from traditional as it is.

However, the multiplayer campaign mod ability that Myrddaal has created does sound very interesting for the next PBM campaign. It certainly opens up new possibilities.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Just like to note that a human player can wipe out Rome very easily if they wish. Especially if they're playing Carthage. I think the multiplayer campaign mod of Myrddaal is brilliant, but not well suited for PBeM. For hotseat, or a very small number of dedicated players, it would rule in think.

But then, what do I know, this is my first PBeM game :)

[Severous]

Hi

Succession campaigns attract interest but only one player is in the hot seat at a given time. Can takes weeks, nay months, for interested players to get their turn. They can peter out.

Will of the senate...as an outsider I am daunted by the complexity. So havnt seriously sat down to try to work out what you do. Barrier to entry for new players is high ? Effort required to participate seems high with lots of wordy posts...of course thats its own reward for many.


What I have looked for across the forums and havnt found is something along the lines I have organised in other game forums. (different game completely)

- Competitive element
- Multiple players doing the same thing solo.
- After x days, compare results(pictures perhaps), ranking and scoring
- Move on to new objective
- multiple rounds. Cummulative scores, overall winner
- designed so players can drop out or join at any round (at a disadvantage in cummulative scoring but could be 'champion' of a round)

Might go: (each turn has to be a fixed game term)
Turn1: 5 years. Most regions
Turn2: 2 years. Biggest battle won
Turn3: 3 years. Best General
Turn4: 2 years. Most Protectorates
Turn5: 2 years. Worst General
Turn6: 3 years. Biggest city population
Turn7: 2 years. Biggest naval battle
Turn8: 2 years. Best General under 20 years
Turn9: 2 years. Least regions
Turn10: 2 years. Most cash

Could have bonus tasks...like first to do something in particular.

Order of events could be planned or random. Players go from turn to turn continuing the playing on their own campaign, or asking for someone elses. There are loads of things we might have as turn objectives.

Ive not thought it all through but the core is anyone can play for any period of turns. Many can play at the same time. More the merrier. Ideally we swap experiences during each period..how do you get protectorates etc. So we together concentrate on certain game features whilst at the same time giving us a structure that will take a campaign in directions we might not go when left to our own devices.

[Mount Suribachi]

Myrddaal, like TinCow said, what your mod has the potential to offer is a truly challenging opponent, and I also agree with him and Simon that for TWOTS its a complication too far, but I certainly think it has potential for a future campaign.

[shifty157]

What I was thinking was beginning a PBM using your multiplayer script generator for about 5 - 8 people. Each person could choose their own starting country. After a set number of turns, countries would be reassigned at random and the game would continue where it left off. At set intervals throughout the game, countires would continue to be reassigned. This would hopefully keep the game very interesting as no country would ever get into an incredibly dominant position before its player is reassigned.

If anyone is interested in something like this then PM me and ill look into setting it up.

[Myrddraal]

At the moment some players have organised a MP campaign. (see the diplomatic thread in this forum and the organisation thread in the campus martius).

At the moment we're not swapping factions or anything. The only rule we have of that sort is that if a player takes too long to play his/her turn, the AI will be made to play it for them.

[Braden]

Correct me if I'm wrong but your scripting does not allow the players to physically play any battles does it?

They have to be autoresolve I believe.

[Silver Rusher]

Sounds good. If they implemented this into Will of the Senate and allowed other people to play other factions (as soon as they come into contact with the romans) it could make the game very interesting.

[shifty157]

Correct me if I'm wrong but your scripting does not allow the players to physically play any battles does it?

They have to be autoresolve I believe.

Players can play the battles. However they would be playing the battles against the AI putting the defender at a huge disadvantage. To avoid this it is suggested that players autoresolve battles so that no one can get angry.

[Myrddraal]

Exactly right Shifty

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

I'd just like to point out that autoresolve is hardly fair either. Any nation with phalanx units would have an enormous advantage, while any nation with cavalry based armies would be wiped out in no time. And then there is the fact that generals and elephants count very heavy in autoresolve.

[Myrddraal]

I'd just like to point out that autoresolve is hardly fair either. Any nation with phalanx units would have an enormous advantage, while any nation with cavalry based armies would be wiped out in no time. And then there is the fact that generals and elephants count very heavy in autoresolve.

True, but it's the fairest system we've got

[RickFGS]

I'd just like to point out that autoresolve is hardly fair either. Any nation with phalanx units would have an enormous advantage, while any nation with cavalry based armies would be wiped out in no time. And then there is the fact that generals and elephants count very heavy in autoresolve.

hu..as for the cavalry armies against phalanx, it would be even worse if you played against a phalanx army manually...so in that point autoresolve is better....but i agree in general....chariots and elephants and others special units will tend to snatch victories out of hopless situations....