The restarting of the three Kingdoms HS games

[Myth]

Hello guys. So it seems that the Kingdoms games will soon need to be restarted. Here's what we have so far:

1st Britannia game - winners England + Norway. AR game.
2nd Britannia game - winners England + Ireland. AR game

1st Teutonics game - winner Denmark. AR game
2nd Teutonics game - possibly to be won by TO + Poland, lead battles game

1st Crusades game - likely Antioch to win. AR game

What are your thoughts on those mods and the way games have turned out? I personally think that all three mods call for lead-battle games only, unless it's a deathmatch between two players who pick roughly equal factions.

Britannia is the only mod that is likely to do somewhat OK in forced AR, but that requires research into the specific factions. Ignoramus pointed out that Scotland is sub-par in AR. I know England is beastly with it's mass heavy infantry, and Ireland can do OK with ugprades, medium infantry + muire + strong economy. Norway starts strong but unless it can raid it will be reduced to povery if it loses even one major AR engagement. Ultimately though, the feasible thing to do is either everyone gang up on Egnland, or someone allies with them for allied victory. Monkey had proposed to play this in team games from now on. However, if it's lead battles, suddenly Ireland's jav-cav, heavy cav and jav infantry become deadly, and Wales's hordes of longbows and hybrid units become the stuff of nightmare for England. Would you give team battles a try? AR or LB? Keep in mind that there are permanent forts on the map but we can't build more. Will this turn the game into a trench war?

Teutonics is definitely lead battles material. Without LB, Lithuania and the Mongols are food, and Novgorod, Poland and Norway are not going to do much. However, even in LB, some factions are a mission impossible to win with alone. In this game I think diplomacy has a great deal of importance. How can the issue wit the weaker factions be resolved? Having a player like Tristan or Monkey take the Mongols sure helps, but we can't force our best players into playing factions with sub-par starting positions and/or unit rosters just for the sake of balancing the game.

The Crusades game seemed interesting for the duration of me participating in it. I'm sure NB, Cecil, Thanatos and Monkey will agree. However this definitely needs some lead battles, as I mentioned in that thread. First of all, the unique abilites for the FLs can only be used on the battle map, and those are interesitng though quite differing in power and usefulness. Second of all, the HA armies need LB to stand a chance versus the otherwise beastly Catholics. The issue with the Mongols still stands though. The eastern factions are definitely disadvantaged when they come. Anyway, with forts costing 2500 gold I think this can be a super LB mod to play on. Surrounding an enemy army with forts now will cost a lot more, and can't be done with impunity at least early on.

Thoughts?

[Myth]

[Thanatos Eclipse]

I think you're right about the Kingdoms mods, LB is probably the way to go. However I really don't see the mongols being much of a problem in Crusades. I don't think they came in till around turn 60 and they spent a least 10 turns just sitting around in the desert outside of Baghdad. The real problem to settle is the Venetians. They spawn early in the game and at Greeces backside, more then likely forcing the Greeks to maintain a large force far from the front line during an important time of expansion.

I think a way that might make the Venetian situation interesting (although I don't know how easy it would be to do) is to have them player controlled and spawn in boats in the middle of the Mediterranean so that anyone could be fair game for their invasion ;)

[Nightbringer]

I think you're right about the Kingdoms mods, LB is probably the way to go. However I really don't see the mongols being much of a problem in Crusades. I don't think they came in till around turn 60 and they spent a least 10 turns just sitting around in the desert outside of Baghdad. The real problem to settle is the Venetians. They spawn early in the game and at Greeces backside, more then likely forcing the Greeks to maintain a large force far from the front line during an important time of expansion.

I think a way that might make the Venetian situation interesting (although I don't know how easy it would be to do) is to have them player controlled and spawn in boats in the middle of the Mediterranean so that anyone could be fair game for their invasion ;)

I think that would be pretty easy to manage if the gm just takes over the venetians for a turn or two and moves em out there. It would slow them down some, but would create a much more interesting situation for them.

In general though, I definitely agree with you myth. LB seem far better for all the kingdoms mods as there is a great deal of disparity between the AR success of the different factions. The different fort mechanics in both the crusades and Britannia games should also make them play out very differently than most LB games.

[Cecil XIX]

I think a way that might make the Venetian situation interesting (although I don't know how easy it would be to do) is to have them player controlled and spawn in boats in the middle of the Mediterranean so that anyone could be fair game for their invasion ;)

This is very good idea, and fits well with history since the Fourth Crusade did not decide to attack Constantinople until after they had already set sail.

[Myth]

OK here's what I propose:

Ballistae can't open anything.

Britannia lead battles game - catapults allowed to open stone walls, due to permanent stone forts on map. One faction + England vs the rest in a team battle.
Teutonics lead battles game - Trebuchets/Gunpowder needed to open stone, catapults/mangonels needed to open wood. We pick our factions and are allowed the duration of one week for the settling of secret (and/or open) diplomacy.
Crusades lead battles game - trebuchets needed to open stone walled settlements, catapults can open wooden settlements and forts (which have stone walls in this mod). Venice set to player lead. When they spawn, the admin spawns some ships for them and moves their stacks in international waters. This can be done in a single turn via the console AFAIK.

Seem OK? I'd want to participate in all 3 games btw, with MoT and WotK2 seeming to go into decline for me.

[Nightbringer]

OK here's what I propose:

Ballistae can't open anything.

Britannia lead battles game - catapults allowed to open stone walls, due to permanent stone forts on map. One faction + England vs the rest in a team battle.
Teutonics lead battles game - Trebuchets/Gunpowder needed to open stone, catapults/mangonels needed to open wood. We pick our factions and are allowed the duration of one week for the settling of secret (and/or open) diplomacy.
Crusades lead battles game - trebuchets needed to open stone walled settlements, catapults can open wooden settlements and forts (which have stone walls in this mod). Venice set to player lead. When they spawn, the admin spawns some ships for them and moves their stacks in international waters. This can be done in a single turn via the console AFAIK.

Seem OK? I'd want to participate in all 3 games btw, with MoT and WotK2 seeming to go into decline for me.

I'm getting a couple of these started up. @Myth, I've never been great with the console, so could you explain how exactly I would do the moving armies etc... with venice. Also, do you know if Venice can simply be selected as player led, or does it require some file modification.