Should LotR End?

[TinCow]

This is an informal poll to gauge public opinion. Vote for everything of which you approve. As always, feel free to comment in more detail below.

[mini]

Well, mixed feelings:

I'm new, so I have yet not had the chance to 'matter' in this game. It's the only epic PBM around, so I do not want it to end because there is no alternative to turn to.

On the other hand, A lot of peepz are already much established and it's harder for new peepz to work their way up.
We're also dealign with less activity and even missing players.


In short: I don't want it ending, unless a new alternative pops up :D

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'd like to pose an additional question to all of you guys: Are any of you interested in stepping in as GM?

I think TinCow has made it pretty clear that's he's pooped from almost a year and a half of running a mega-PBM (ever since the Cataclysm in KotR) and he deserves a break. However, finding a new GM would be the best option as TC can get his much-needed rest and the players that want to keep this going can still do so.

[Zim]

If I avoided joining any new forum games, and there were enough players interested in continuing the game, and TinCow approved, I could do it, but only because much of the hard work (writing and playtesting the rules for example), has already been done by TinCow.

I would also require some assistance when it came to writing events...

I think the loss of players would be the toughest part. Let's say half of the players in the game now are interested in continuing. Then we have a huge Empire but relatively few players, and very few of the veteran players. This could be very good in that it would give new players room to grow or bad if the loss of activity had a rippling effect.

[flyd]

I voted for No, but resolve civil war with battle, although I don't know that a single battle will be possible to set up, since we have more than two sides and a rather complicated situation. I'm definitely for a quick and bloody resolution of the civil war, however.

[TinCow]

I would like to come to a conclusion on this one way or another before we continue play. So far we seem evenly split on ending the game or not. 6 want it to continue and 6 want it to end.

Zim, if you are willing, I am perfectly happy to hand over the GM position to you. You could easily 'reboot' the game with a smaller membership with an Event. First, we resolve the entire Civil War with a single battle where all 4 sides participate. Anyone who wants to bow out at that point could do so. An Event is then spawned which 'bankrupts' the Empire and resets the treasury to 0. The Event also gives the new Basileus the ability for a single turn to disband any units anywhere in the entire Empire. With this power, he should be able to balance the budget. Perhaps have several of the peripheral cities that are very far away from Constantinople rebel at the same time. The end result is a smaller Empire that will have a significantly reduced military, but will have a (hopefully) balanced budget. The size of the Empire will also be reduced and centralized, so that it is easier for a smaller player base to manage. The game could then go on from there and work could begin on regaining what was lost, dealing with the pending Mongol invasion, etc.

Thought?

[woad&fangs]

For sure the War of Marching Around A Lot should be resolved in either one large or a couple of smaller battles.

After that, I can't quite decide what is best for the game. The game is designed for lots of PvP conflicts. However, the large map has been shown to prevent these from happening. I don't think the game will continue on very long after the big battle.

Still, I am looking forward to fighting the mongols and being Basileus if I win. If Andy dies, I probably will not continue with the game.

edit: Can someone tell me how the mongol invasion works? That would help me make my decision.

[TheFlax]

Even if I voted to end the game, I'd continue playing once the Civil War is resolved. Even if my character does not survive, I don't mind much. An event to shrink the Empire would be the best since we will have at best 10 or so active players after the "reboot". You can count me in if this solution is chosen.

[Cecil XIX]

What I disagree with most is not whether or not we should end LOTR, but whether or not we should end it with one big battle.

Don't get me wrong, the Battle of Trent was great. But wars are not just decided by what happens on the battlefield. If the whole war is resolved in one big battle, that will remove strategy from the equation and make things revolve solye around tactics. I'd like to try something different.

[GeneralHankerchief]

The Battle of Trent was something of a unique circumstance because the person we were all counting on to work out the civil war mechanics, econ21, was faced with RL and was thus unable to do so. I recall that a lot of time was lost in waiting for him and then realizing that he wouldn't be able to help out, and by the point you guys decided to let me run things there seemed to be a general sentiment to just end it.

Here, the situation is different. We haven't lost time, the general sentiment isn't 100% that we should end things, and the sides aren't conveniently placed in one camp or another. I think an extended campaign, something like the Roman Civil War from Will of the Senate, would be more appropriate here.

[Rowan]

I was about to check all of the boxes above but in the end only voted for ending the game via event or battle.

If there is a "reboot" I might continue playing, if there's enough activity. I've noticed that I have too much real-life commitments to really contribute to the game but I can play a more supportive character.

[TinCow]

We haven't agreed on much, but a significant majority want the current Civil War resolved through a single big battle. I propose that we do this, and figure out whether we want the game to end after it's done. We can continue this discussion while the battle is going on as well. I'll give 24 hours more for discussion of this and unless I see a big swing in opinion away from the single battle, that is what I will implement.

[ULC]

I personally like the idea of a big battle and the "reboot" - a possible explanation that natural discontent, coupled with a severely reduced treasury and military, has forced the Empire to break into smaller states, giving independance to places such as Egypt, Armenia, Georgia, and the Balkans, while keeping something akin to "watchdog" states (those still directly under control of the Empire) next to them or, if say WF wins the battle, two Empires, one centered around Georgia/Armenia and one in Greece/Thrace with much of Anatolia and Outremer falling back to the rebel's. I don't know really, but that's what I am seeing and it's not like their isn't a historical precendt to it, and it may get House competition back - the Two Empires still have the same Megas, and still share the same Senate.

[Cecil XIX]

And what if I win? Everyone goes "Pfffff yeah right" and rebels?

[woad&fangs]

I think we should have at least 2 battles instead of one big one. Currently, the sides aren't very well defined.

I propose...

Battle 1:

Cecil+Ramses VS. Ignoramus+flyd+Zim

This will knock one of the Basileis out.

then Battle 2:

Battle in the Levant! Komneni supporters VS Tagarian supporters. Everybody's invited

If Iggy won his battle then him and any allies he has can either A) stay neutral in the battle B) Choose a side or C) arrive late to the battle like Fritz and turn the tide however they want. Maybe he'll even try to take on both weakened armies and become Basileus of the whole empire.

Cecil could do the same thing if he wins.

``````````````````

I think that both me and TheFlax are okay sharing power with Ioannis III, at least in the short run. If not, a third battle could occur.

If Cecil wins and stays neutral in the Levant battle, a third battle would probably have to occur.
```````````````````

Any other ideas?

[Cecil XIX]

I like that idea, but I think it would work better as sort of a tournement. We fight the two battles that woad&fangs suggested, and then the winners of those two battles duke it out.

And the winner will be crowned Gundam of Gundams!

I still prefer an event though. It'd be nice if we could determine under what terrain the battles are fought ourselves.

[flyd]

That's the sort of an idea I like. However, the problem with Battle 1 is that that battle could have happened already, but Cecil and Ramses backed out of it, probably because they were outnumbered by a large margin.

[TinCow]

What if we did a short table-top campaign in addition to the table-top battle? First, we generate a rough hand-drawn map of the area. Second, everyone in the game declares loyalty to one of the four Basileuses. Third, everyone submits movement orders by PM, indicating where they would go. Since these would all be done secretly, no one would be able to look at what other people had already done before making their own moves. When all orders are in, the moves are made on the tabletop campaign map. All players can move much farther than they would normally be able to in-game, and they can take any units they own from anywhere on the map. No construction or anything else is done this entire time, it is just movement for a PvP campaign. When armies converge, a battle is fought with the units they have with them and in terrain that is similar to that in the spot where they meet.

This could take a while to pull off in real time, but when it was all over it would have all happened within the 1.5 year span of the current turn. Thoughts?

[Ramses II CP]

I'm fine with any solution at this point. It would be interesting to have increased movement rates, it opens up the possibilities at least.

[ULC]

I like the idea a lot, but what if someone, such as me, doesn't wish to give up the siege of Zagreb (needed for my chance as Megas) but does wish to support his Lord in battle? Can I have the resolved quickly if say, I move my infantry out ahead, force a AI sally, then catch up with my cavalry? Is that acceptable?

[TinCow]

Well, if we played it out entirely in a tabletop manner, the only impact on the siege would be the disbanding of any units you lost in any of the PvP battles. If you survived relatively intact, you would still have a large enough army to take Zagreb (since in the game you wouldn't have moved). Of course, if you lost a lot of units (or died yourself) the city probably couldn't be taken. If we instead just kept the game going and increased movement rates (not the ideal solution, IMO) you could assault Zagreb and then continue about your merry way.

[ULC]

Thats fine with me then, but a quick question via PM - check box please.

[Zim]

I only problem I could see is that the hopefully small chance of armies swarming the map completely missing eachother (while possibly ravaging/taking the cities of the other factions...). That, and some of the efforts made, like Andronikos' apparent effort to isolate Tagaris and achieve local superiority, could be ruined, especially as the majority of players seem to be aligned against him (with an edict to kill him and all).

[Cecil XIX]

I only problem I could see is that the hopefully small chance of armies swarming the map completely missing eachother (while possibly ravaging/taking the cities of the other factions...). That, and some of the efforts made, like Andronikos' apparent effort to isolate Tagaris and achieve local superiority, could be ruined, especially as the majority of players seem to be aligned against him (with an edict to kill him and all).

Agreed. From a strategic viewpoint, it's really quite impressive and exciting how Andronikos managed, through skill and luck, to acquire more soldiers than everyone else south of Antioch combined. Makes things nicely desperate and dramatic for the Loyalists.

I really do wonder what would have happened under normal rules if Andronikos killed Ioannis Tagaris. People would have to choose between a seccesionist, a usurper, a man who's killed two of his fellow senators, and whoever the new Caesar would be. Perhaps the Caesar would be strong enough to rally support, but if not then who knows what would happen?

[ULC]

The New Caesar should be either Apollanas or Ioannis III...then um...me...