M2TW 1.3 Hotseat - Glorious Achievements (Completed, winner Silvershield)

[_Tristan_]

And nevermind the potential for contestation in enforcing that rule : I'm not even sure with the best will I would be able to recall just what armies of my enemy are "sanctuarized" and which are not, taking into account the number of days that might elapse between my turns...

It has always been a constant of hotseat which I'll admit gave 1st players in line a slight advantage but not one that could be circumvented by correct planning on the part of their "followers"...

The motto is "Don't over-reach !"

If you strike, strike powerfully and decisively so that the enemy cannot strike back (the more so if he's ahead of you int hte turn order...) Just my

[Visor]

Screenshots or telling the other player is a fix.

[barcamartin]

Kahvan rounded up my thoughts on the situation (regarding England, that is - I understand that Visor wanted to do his turn and don't object that at all). However, this is why I originally didn't want to vote. Since it hasn't been there from the start, introducing it when a player notices and sees an advantage in it seems slightly off. No offense to you Visor, I understand your proposition and see the logic behind it. As mentioned, had it been there from scratch it would have been awesome.

Not to mention the increased hassle with remembering who to move and not, who to attack and not.

Since you didn't think of this until you attacked me and noticed that you need(?) me to be stationary for one turn, my view is that it's slightly unfair. Once again, I am obviously coloured (in red and gold..) in my opinion and shouldn't vote really. But since Kahvan described it that well, I'll go ahead and vote NO or, alternatively agree with Thanatos's idea, 3 turn delay on the rule.

[SilverShield]

the movement rate just sucks a stupid sh

france
http://depositfiles.com/files/c14rxqvlu


im tired of rules. just let if flow

[phonicsmonkey]

It seems think the tide of opinion is against this rule change for two reasons:

- timing: it would have been better to suggest it up front instead of waiting until you are in a position to benefit. I wouldn't, in any case, bring in a rule like this without a couple of turns amnesty to allow players who are well advanced with their war plans to adapt.

- hassle: it's easy to say that people can take screenshots and send them to one another to provide the necessary information to abide by this rule, but to be honest it's hard enough getting people to remember to pm each other the turn link each time so I think from a practical perspective it's going to be difficult to manage.

Having said that I may consider introducing something like this for a future game if I can think of a way to make it easier. And if anyone who has not already said their piece has a strong argument to add please pipe up and I'll reconsider it for this one.

So, sorry Visor, I think you're out of luck here - I appreciate you are now vulnerable to an English counterattack but I think the rules of this game were clear from the start so I don't think you can have any real complaint about that. Let me know by pm if you feel aggrieved.

[Quirl]

I feel aggrieved!

... I don't know what that means, but it sounds like it'd be fun to be.

[Visor]

- timing: it would have been better to suggest it up front instead of waiting until you are in a position to benefit. I wouldn't, in any case, bring in a rule like this without a couple of turns amnesty to allow players who are well advanced with their war plans to adapt.

I see where you are coming from, but in all honesty that is a rather lame excuse, in the Epic hotseat over at the TWC (Currently 88 turns) that rule was implmented in the middle of a massive war between almost all of the players and implemented immediately.

- hassle: it's easy to say that people can take screenshots and send them to one another to provide the necessary information to abide by this rule, but to be honest it's hard enough getting people to remember to pm each other the turn link each time so I think from a practical perspective it's going to be difficult to manage.

Well then make a punishment that if they don't remind or provide information, the army can be moved, simple as that.

So, sorry Visor, I think you're out of luck here - I appreciate you are now vulnerable to an English counterattack but I think the rules of this game were clear from the start so I don't think you can have any real complaint about that. Let me know by pm if you feel aggrieved.

What is the problem with adding rules during the game?

So at the moment if England beats my army I can't help it or move it but if I beat his he can escape it or attack with it? (Swear deleted.)

However I will now go back to playing this game without anymore "complaints". Unless provoked.

[phonicsmonkey]

IWhat is the problem with adding rules during the game?

None, if the rest of the players agree. What I meant was that the rules have been clear since the start so I don't think you could have misunderstood them.

So at the moment if England beats my army I can't help it or move it but if I beat his he can escape it or attack with it? Bullsh*t.

The thing with the turn order is a hard-coded part of the game that everyone is aware of. It's the same for everyone (ie. everyone has the same opportunity to pick a faction and select someone at the start of the turn order if they like) - a level playing field. And there's no need to swear.

However I will now go back to playing this game without anymore "complaints". Unless provoked.

Excellent - enjoy the game, thanks for playing and genuine thanks for the rule suggestion. If you can think of anything else that will improve the game feel free to suggest it and I'll put it to the vote again.

[Visor]

None, if the rest of the players agree. What I meant was that the rules have been clear since the start so I don't think you could have misunderstood them.

The thing with the turn order is a hard-coded part of the game that everyone is aware of. It's the same for everyone (ie. everyone has the same opportunity to pick a faction and select someone at the start of the turn order if they like) - a level playing field. And there's no need to swear.

Excellent - enjoy the game, thanks for playing and genuine thanks for the rule suggestion. If you can think of anything else that will improve the game feel free to suggest it and I'll put it to the vote again.

But what is the harm of fixing something that's broken? It seems that some of you either don't want to get rid of your advantage or don't want to bother with this for some reason or another.

I cannot see any valid reason why it should not be allowed, but as most people don't seem to want it, I guess I have to play it that way.

On the subject of rules, are we allowed to attack fleets in ports? And if not, are we allowed to store armies in ships in ports so they can't be attacked? And are we allowed to surround armies completely so they have no chance of retreat and as such die?

[Thanatos Eclipse]

'no surround and destroy' is stated in the rules, the rest are not.

[phonicsmonkey]

Good point, I neglected to include the rule about navies in ports. I think attacking ships in port is an exploit - because the AI doesn't do it and because of the weird way you have to select unit cards to get it to wiork which suggests it's a bug. However as I didn't dmake this clear at the start I'm willing to put this to the vote too. Let me know what you think.

[_Tristan_]

To be honest, I would have voted against the possibility of attacking navies in ports as it seems both lame and a bug as you described, Phonics. But seeing how it might be possible to use those same navies as impregnable forts, I'm all for allowing it or placing a restriction on the number of units possibly transported by ship unit (say, for example 2 ou 4 units per ship unit...) but even so a 5-ship naval force would allow you to make a whole stack of troops unattackable... If that is what we want, then fine but I'm not sure it is "realistic" nor far from an exploit...

[EDIT] : In my opinion, the unit per ship restriction should only apply to ship in ports. Otherwise, it would be too much of a disadvantage to those nautically-oriented factions (Sicily, Venice, England, Denmark and Scotland maybe...)

[EDIT 2] Will have the save posted tonight (GMT +1)

[barcamartin]

I'm out of town until Sunday evening, so i can't take the English turn until then. It should be within the timelimit though. Otherwise I request an extension, since the Scots seem to have a blade in the vicinity of my throat.

Oh yeah, on the ship thingy, storing troops on a ship, in a port, is quite odd anyhow. I'd say forbid any storage of troops on ships in ports.

[_Tristan_]

England !!

[Kavhan Isbul]

I do not see storing troops on a ship in a port as an exploit for the following reasons:
- First, you need a port and at least one ship, which is not cheap, except of course for those factions that get it at the start of the game, such as Denmark or Milan. But it is a much higher expense than building a 500 florint fort.
- You still need to control the settlement, and so the port is far from impregnable.
- Everyone can do it and it is not a bug, just part of the game mechanics.
- Your troops stay idle, so while they may be safer, you are paying their upkeep and they do not do much for you.

As for whether attacking ships in port should be allowed or not, I do not have an opinion - I do not know how to do it anyway.

[phonicsmonkey]

I agree, I don't really have a problem with storing stroops on ships. Firstly, another player can always blockade them in there rendering them useless and secondly you can still wipe the faction out by taking all their cities, so it doesn't make the player invulnerable.

[Quirl]

Can troops not undock from ships that are in a blockaded port?

[_Tristan_]

Yes, they could very well be unloaded... IMHO, it has a high potential for abuse... Storing a family member into a ship "sanctuarized" by making them inviolate in ports is a good way of keeping your faction alive.

Moreover, ports are often within a turn movement range from the city they depend, thus offering an opportunity for quick reinforcement that cannot be deterred...

But I don't mind going either way... Let's just keep in mind the tactical options involved (the above being only part of it...)

[barcamartin]

Turn done. Slight reservation for Tristan wanting to replay his turn, since he seems to have screwed the save-upload up slightly. I have contacted him, and if he wishes to replay it I am fine with redoing mine.

[Visor]

Am I dead yet?

[phonicsmonkey]

Yes, they could very well be unloaded...

Can't you blockade them in from the land by sitting an army on the port?

[barcamartin]

Am I dead yet?

Haha, I don't see how I could have killed you. But the future should prove interesting. ;)

Also, I should add, I am good on the implementation of the defeated-army-rule with a few turns delay, and don't really care about the army-port-ship-rule.

[_Tristan_]

I'll be checking my save up tonite (I can't fathom what caused the differences between what I did and what Barca witnessed...)

Sorry, mates...

[barcamartin]

HRE for real !!

[TriforceV]

Spain!

Spain Save

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Sicily

http://www.mediafire.com/file/u3pstl...A-4-Sicily.sav

Hey Zim, couldn't PM you cause your box is full

[Quirl]

Sicily

http://www.mediafire.com/file/u3pstl...A-4-Sicily.sav

Hey Zim, couldn't PM you cause your box is full

Poop.

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Poop.

Well, that could be the reason his box is full... but I'm really not seeing the connection

[phonicsmonkey]

Poop.

As in: he needs to

(I guess)

[Quirl]

As in: I was very hyper yesterday for no reason.