View Full Version : ETW PBM Think Tank
With the release of ETW getting closer, I've started thinking about how the Throne Room games will change to adapt to the new engine. It's obviously difficult to make any specific plans without being able to play the game, but we do know a few things about it. I've started this thread simply for brainstorming purposes, so feel free to add any ideas you have, or point out interesting info about ETW that might affect games here in the Throne Room.
It appears that family members are being completely split off from generals/admirals, which I gather will remove them from fighting battles altogether. This may mean that the series of 'mega-games' that have evolved from WotS onwards might be impossible to translate over. If they are possible to translate, they will require serious re-working to adapt to the new engine. However, the 1 vs. 1 multiplayer campaign map opens up interesting possibilities that might be worth exploring and could result in some very interesting games.
What I'm imagining is a combination between the classic succession game, hotseat games, and WotS-style games. Two factions are chosen to be the player controlled factions. Players then sign up to join one side or the other. The game then proceeds in 10 or 20 turn 'terms' with one person in complete control of each faction, and all that entails for a MP campaign. This is then spiced up by having the non-serving players from each faction act as the Senate/Parliament/Angry Mob that vote on who will serve in the next term, as well as voting on objectives that the elected player must accomplish during his term. Perhaps failure to reach these goals results in being barred from running for re-election.
One serious hurdle with this is that all players running for election would have to be willing (and capable) of playing online multiplayer. Hopefully there will be a lot of people up for this, but it could be a difficult obstacle to overcome.
Skullheadhq
01-26-2009, 16:36
The Creative Assembly makes online campaign in ETW. So we dont need PBeM anymore.
Blasphemy! :laugh4:
The campaigns are an excellent addition, but they're only 1 v 1. There's a lot of fun to be had with large groups of players, so there will be plenty of PBMing to do in order to make that possible. In a 1 v 1 game, you're just competing against one other player. In larger games, it becomes a very social experience and allows for interesting alliances and politicking between various groups of people. ETW will have just as much a need for PBMs to harness that aspect of entertainment as RTW and M2TW do.
GeneralHankerchief
01-26-2009, 21:22
I admit that, while majorly anticipating ETW's release, I really haven't followed its mechanics. Thus, I can't contribute to this brainstorming session as much as I'd like.
However, I do see a workaround to the splitoff issue: Perhaps a two-tiered system, with FMs on top and generals/admirals on the bottom. Each family member could sponsor a few generals, depending on the ratio. These generals would work to increase their FM's influence, thus in return getting them more rewards. The system could work a lot like LotR, in that a general needs to find a sponsor if they really want a say. In addition, that general could work to influence their sponsor's views about subjects and thus play an indirect role in the debating process. Each FM would also get one general/admiral under his direct control (i.e. they're played by the same player) in order to provide enforcement and such, in addition to getting that player some field action.
Basically, this system would offer something for everybody. The players that mostly want to fight battles and work the game could take generals, and the players that want to interact with others could take FMs.
This makes sense in my head but may not translate well to the forum, so I'd appreciate some feedback/clarification requests.
Ramses II CP
01-26-2009, 21:49
Why not let the family members vie politically for control of the generals to lead their armies, while the generals scheme from below. I can see Senate sessions where successful generals are assigned every ten turns by vote to 'houses' or 'families' or whatever. Force the family members to issue their orders 'in character' so that the general has flexibility on how he implements them, etc.
An added layer like that just makes things more interesting in my book.
:egypt:
GeneralHankerchief
01-26-2009, 22:01
That could work.
Maybe have a system similar to the current LotR rankings one in which the number of generals an FM can have is directly tied to the amount of land he owns. Generals have control, to a degree, of their army but are still somewhat bound by their FM's orders.
I still believe that whoever plays an FM should also directly control a general (RP it as that FM helping out with funds or something) just to enforce things and prevent rampant generals going rogue.
If we could mod the game to make generals become FMs under certain conditions that would be perfect.
-edit- Again, I'm just pretty much spilling out whatever comes out of my head with no thought to organization or anything.
Hmmm... those are interesting ideas. The two-tiered system worked will in WotS and provided a way for people who didn't have the game (or have the time to play it) to join in. If ETW really does split the roles in this manner, the two-tiered system might work well. Perhaps we could even split apart the duties. Maybe only family members get to be 'Chancellor' or something, but only Generals get to fight battles, though that would void the idea of family members not needing the game (or, at least, some of them would need the game).
The idea of one FM and one General each is interesting too, but it might be limited if the game doesn't supply us with many family members. We'll have to wait and see when the game comes out, but I have a feeling that the size of the family tree will be a lot smaller if they don't act as generals as well.
Skullheadhq
02-01-2009, 11:44
Perhaps we could mod the 1v1 campaign to be like...erm....1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1
Well, one of the more important issues with this idea of a two-tiered system is that fact family members are essentially exclusive to the "Monarchy" type government - Constitutional Monarchies and Republics will likely have elected or appointed officials that may exist solely on the whims of the Upper and Lower Classes. They will most likely fill a function as ever present governor of a Province, or as a Minister handling specific affairs such as the Navy/Military and Technology, providing continuous bonuses and penalties based upon traits.
Thus, it's quite possible that the only continuous roleplayable characters will be Admirals and Generals.
Yes, that's very true. One possible way around this would be to divorce players and in-game avatars. Instead of RPing a specific in-game persona, people could simply be a random nobleman or other prominent figure of some kind, perhaps a successful merchant, retired general, senior civil servant, etc. People simply make up the person they want to RP, without any pre-set determinations of any kind. Though these people wouldn't exist in the game, this only really impacts them living and dying. We could still let them own provinces and 'employ' generals and admirals, who would be theirs to control. We then allow acquisition and loss of provinces and ranks in a similar style to the curent system (though the feudal system will have to be completely overhauled to reflect the different political arrangements of the timeperiod). Influence already seems to rely more on the actions of the player rather than the stats of his avatar. It would be relatively simply to continue this evolution and remove stat influence from the game altogether.
Thus, separating the players from a specific in-game avatar will only really remove the life and death bit. This also has the added convenience of allowing players to be anywhere they want at any time. This could open up more options for easier PvP. Perhaps people with bordering provinces can attack each other even if a general isn't present. The two garrisons simply fight it out, and the winner takes the other's province, without any in-game movement necessary. We may even be able to add some kind of basic PvP system into the game that can be done in peacetime as well. Maybe surround another player's lands with your own provinces on multiple sides and 'absorb' his province? Perhaps put in some kind of monetary system that allows a player to actually purchase another's land, either willingly or as a 'hostile takeover.'
Actually, let me take a bit back about not being able to Roleplay administrators. It's highly possible that even in a Republic/Constitutional Monarchy, there would be a pool of Administrators to choose from or put up for election. If that is how it works, then it would be easier to Roleplay an Administrator, since the game mechanic for election and advancement would already be contained within the game, requiring less rules made by the players to govern it.
So then the basic idea already put forward of the people playing as Administrators as direct governors and those playing as Admiral's and General's as commander could work. The basic game structure could work like this -
First level - King/President/Chancellor/Prime Minister: Owns all Provinces at a start of game and hands them out to Administrators to govern. All Administrators owe some form of allegiance to the First Level, possibly in the form of payment or the First Level having the sole power of Impeachment of lesser officials without need of consent.
Second Level - Administrator/Official/Secretary: Own a Province given to them by the First Level. Based on income determined by whichever mechanic (possibly a Treasurer, since it would be even more realistic to have one at this point) to train officers and levy troops. Second Level would sponsor Generals and Admirals, and sponsorship can extend beyond their province, enabling them to offer better sponsorship to another Officials Generals and Admirals - however, there would need to be a mechanic to limit it's use.
Third Level - Generals/Admirals: Control armies, and are responsible for all defenses of the Province of their Sponsor. Can conduct offense actions with official sanction based upon degree of action. Able to levy basic non-state troops, but requires Sponsorship for state troops. This allows some degree of Freedom, enabling a Third Level player to go off on their own, but it is risky to do so.
Thoughts?
woad&fangs
02-07-2009, 18:56
Ministers govern your old world holdings. Governors govern your colonies. Ministers are voted into office but the player appoints governors. In a Monarchy the player can appoint both, there are no elections.
A 2 tiered system could work.
We could set it up in-game as a monarchy but role-play it however we choose. A new player would decide which province they wanted to govern(provided it didn't already have a governor-avatar), then the Monarch(GM or elected position or permanent position) would sack the AI governor and the player could pick which of the possible replacements he wants as his avatar. I think we would have to have an in-game rule against sacking Governor-Avatars for this to work.
If a player would rather fight battles he could choose an avatar on the second tier. On the second tier, people would roleplay generals/admirals. The less experienced G/As would attempt to woo governors into giving them good command positions, while the more established G/As will have multiple governors competing for their services.
With this plan I think it would be best to pick a country who focused a lot on colonization.
Hmm...a thought just occurred to me. in ETW we can name our units - shouldn't this allow for greater control over armies? For instance, you could truly loan someone an army of your own units, and not have to constantly keep track of them - you would name them something that would be an identifier, and viola, when it comes time to return them, it's a simple matter.
Ibn-Khaldun
02-15-2009, 14:32
That is a good idea! I like it! :2thumbsup:
Ibn-Khaldun
03-05-2009, 23:31
There are no cheats and no console in ETW! So, it would mean that it's practically impossible to run game similar to LotR in ETW!
It is possible but without the console we have to rewrite most of the rules!
GeneralHankerchief
03-05-2009, 23:34
I'm sure that someone will mod it to get one in.
Ibn-Khaldun
03-05-2009, 23:52
Check this post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2160619&postcount=1
In most games the console is incorporate in the game, but for Empire the console was run seperately to help aid us in developing and debugging the game. Unfortunately this does mean there is no way for you guys to use it.
This means no console. I doubt it is possible to mod one in unless CA itself gives console to us.
Cecil XIX
03-06-2009, 00:07
On an unrelated note, in Empire you can always recruit a general or admiral from any stack, anywhere for a fee. So it's basically what we have now, except we're forced to pay for it.
Ibn-Khaldun
03-06-2009, 14:40
Yes, but you can't get rid of them like you can kill generals in M2TW. At least I think so cause I don't have ETW:embarassed:
If you hire and fire generals when ever you want then that is not a problem.
ETW looks like it will require a completely new rule set, IMO. I don't think it would be practical to try and adapt the current LotR system for it. I think a new game will have to be written from the ground up.
Ibn-Khaldun
03-06-2009, 22:19
I agree. It would take at least half a year to get used to ETW and understand most of it's features and how to use them in LotR type game.
GeneralHankerchief
03-07-2009, 18:31
Has anyone given any thought to the faction we'd use? So far I've only played France, but I've been kicked around by the AI enough to know that it'd be challenging, and we have enough colonies to make things interesting enough for all players.
From what I've seen so far, the campaign will definitely be harder since we just can't point our finger at a territory and then own it a few turns later anymore. :yes:
my copy has finally arrived, so let the first PBM start!...
:p
pevergreen
03-09-2009, 13:35
There is no hotseat mode, no console...I just really dont see much awesomeness out of game happening. : /
I'm still not quite done with RoI, but I've seen enough of the game to know that the KotR/LotR system is DOA for ETW. I think ETW PBMs will work best with a simpler system. One of the basic problems with ETW is the avatar situation. No matter how I look at it, I don't think playing an individual avatar is going to work out so well in ETW. Governors can't do anything except govern. Agents are interesting but also very limited and can't be intentionally spawned. Generals work like they always have, but they are extremely expensive to recruit and there's no way to cheat in extra money to make it easier. It would simply be impossible to spawn 20 generals in a game starting as Prussia. Thus, the only option for avatars is to make use of all of them, which seriously stifle's peoples' ability to roleplay someone they like. It's no fun if the only avatar available is a government minister that you hate with little personality and no real impact on the game.
For this reason, I think for ETW we need to abandon the idea of tying players to in-game avatars. Instead, I think electioneering and internal competition should be the primary motivational factors. We should split the Chancellor/Megas role up into multiple roles and hold elections for each of them at every session. One person controls the finances; one person controls the armies; one person control the navies; one person controls the research, etc. As the nation grows in size, the military aspect could be increasingly diversified. For instance, one person controls the armies in the north of the country while a second person controls the armies in the south. They are responsible for all operations within their 'sphere.' This could make some jobs more interesting than others, since one side of a country could be invovled in a major war, while another could be completely quiet. The person who controls the war area would thus have more to do. Control of navies could similarly be split up between fleets based in different areas.
In order to achieve the proper flexibility in these roles, I think we need to first of all vastly simplify the rules. They need to be stripped down to a basic structure for communal governance and legislation. Everything else should be decided upon by committee. I also think we should vote on legislation first before the election. If we do this, we can create temporary positions for the coming term to deal with emergencies. An Edict could split control of a particular theater of operations between 2 or 3 people, rather than the usual 1. Voting on this first would then let people run for these temporary offices in the coming election held immediately afterwards. This system would rely heavily on many people running for different offices, but since holding office would be the only way to have an in-game impact, I would expect greater activity there.
As a final note, due to the lack of a console and the inherent nature of ETW, I think the first ETW games should completely skip any ideas of PvP. We need to develop a basic system for ETW PBMs first. We can work on adding complexity to them later. We need to look at the first ETW PBM as the WotS for the next game engine. Go for a very basic structure and get it to work. Then build on it in later games.
[edit]I just had an interesting idea based on the splitting of the Chancellor/Megas role. What if we made this into a political party system, like a Parliament. Each player can choose to align themselves with a particular political party. That party has a single player who leads it (like leading a House). During an election, you vote for the PARTY, not the person. The Party that gets 50% or more of the (weighted) votes becomes the Prime Minister/Chancellor. This person then has to fill all of the 'cabinet' positions by allocating them to others. If no single party gets 50% of the vote, then whichever parties form a coalition that totals 50% or more of the votes becomes the PM/Chancellor and delegates the roles. Maybe even make the number of 'cabinet' positions proportional? If your party gets 1/3 of the votes, you also get 1/3 of the cabinet spots?
Tincow
Your edit is how my real life government works ;)
Anyway, I think you're on to something there. But we might retard the whole party system based on player activity.
In the beginning we should proceed simple, as you first stated. I think the whole party-system is great IF we have the playerbase for it.
Whatever we do, I'm in.
Ramses II CP
03-09-2009, 17:02
I haven't played Empire, but on the combat front I would suggest that perhaps we should remove players from 'being' avatars and instead have them become a layer above the in game avatars. To gain control of an avatar or army for a particular battle you could maybe use a system similar to the Clan bidding in the Battletech universe, i.e. 'I can take Kiev with just five companies,' 'I can take it with four, etc.' This way there's no need for the generals to be especially recruited, and no worries over the boring role of being a governor.
A modified bidding system could be use as well, with either votes or the 'Megas' role ultimately making the decision. The benefit of the bid system is that it encourages risk taking and defeats for the player, making the AI considerably more challenging than it would otherwise be, which is important if PvP is being removed. With avatars not one to one with players the consequences of defeat are less as well, such that we may have to reintroduce risk of some kind other than just political fallout for a loss.
To try to put that in better perspective:
1. Players aren't avatars at all, they're completely invented characters 'above' the in game avatars who bid or politic for control of a particular avatar for a limited time. Bidding could be based on time, upkeep, total number of soldiers needed, or anything really.
2. This increases the challenge rating of the AI, which will surely be necessary given the lack of PvP. It also helps control spending and avoid the need for cheats.
3. Risk to the actual player may be reduced too much, such that we need to introduce some possibility of actual death back into the system (Perhaps a making the bid 'I'll lead the men personally!' have considerable weight in the process and run the risk of death).
4. Weighting the system so that votes and/or the Megas role is the ultimate decision maker, or maybe just selects who is allowed to bid in the first place, will maintain a strong role for politics in combat.
:egypt:
And what about less gifted generals among us? :)
Ramses II CP
03-09-2009, 17:32
That's why I'd modify the system to includes politics, finances, and etc. in the bidding as well. The 'less gifted' can scheme to have themselves selected by the Megas/vote system which should carry some weight in the bidding as well. After all if it's strict bidding then someone can simply bid the bare minimum and lose without much concern.
Also a possibility is limiting bidding to those whose cities or controlled zones contributed to the army, and further we wouldn't allow people to win bids across multiple simultaneous campaigns. There should be plenty of room for everyone to get in a fight.
:egypt:
GeneralHankerchief
03-11-2009, 19:15
In the meantime, we can always go back to the old-style PBM. I admit that the WotS-type of PBM has kind of shut out the sucession games, and deservedly so since they're more immersive, but I believe that ETW is naturally suited to people reigning for a certain period of time (10 or 20 turns - this would adequately be suited to a Constitutional Monarchy type of country), controlling every aspect of the game, and then passing it onto the next player, writing up a detailed report for everybody.
The last such PBM before Will of the Senate came out, Re-unification (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60372), is an excellent read of a bunch of players doing the Western Roman Empire campaign for BI and is what drew me to the Throne Room in the first place. I'm sure that we can produce a couple of PBMs of similar quality while we work out the kinks and either CA or a mod gives us better material to work with. :yes:
woad&fangs
03-13-2009, 05:08
I came up with a very rough rule proposal for an ETW PBM. I read about the political situation of Poland-Lithuania at this time and came up with this
ETW PBM Idea: Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth
In game avatars are purely optional.
GM plays the role of King. Because the king is “elected” by the slachta and magnates, he will be played weakly and will mainly be content to lurk in the shadows and let the magnates run the country. He does however, have the ability to appoint the secretaries (the senate can override his decisions at any session)
Speaking of the magnates….Each province is controlled by a magnate. Magnates were exceptionally wealthy and powerful men in the commonwealth. They generally controlled vast tracks of land and had a political and economic stranglehold over their area. Magnates are responsible for running their province. They can build or destroy any building they wish in their province. They make requests for soldiers for their personal general(s). They move their personal general(s). They control all rakes, gentleman, and priests who spawned in their province.
Szlachta: They are all nobles but less powerful than the magnates. Players who are szlachta will be able to vote and run for chancellor. Aside from that, their power is limited to how benevolent the magnate of their province is.
Chancellor is the one elected role. He is in charge of recruiting armies and generals and he is in charge of diplomacy. He may declare war at any time. The only other way to declare war is through an edict. He must ensure that each magnate has at least one general. Magnates may have more than one general but those are prioritized with the rest of the army. The chancellor must abide by all army requests to the best of his ability.
Conquering a new territory: If a territory is conquered, an impromptu senate session will occur. Ownership of a province is “decided” by the king. However, the king is easily bribed. Each magnate will secretly bid for the right to name the new owner of the province. They may bid up to the amount that is in their personal treasury. The winning bidder will decide who will become the new magnate. He can either name one of his own szlachta or another magnate’s szlachta as the magnate of the new province. Magnates are allowed to pool their treasuries to bid.
Wealth: Every turn, each magnate will be allowed to use a certain % of the faction’s treasury (above the “rainy day fund” and “chancellor’s fund” level) to buy new soldiers and build new buildings. The rainy day fund is the amount that can not be spent by anyone. This amount is set by an edict. The chancellor’s fund is the amount of money set aside for diplomatic transactions. This amount is set by an edict. The % that each magnate receives is equal to their wealth level. Their wealth level is equal to the economic capabilities of their province + money gained through agreements with other magnates. Money that a magnate could spend but chooses not to causes their personal treasury to increase by that amount. Money in a magnate’s personal treasury may only be used for bidding purposes. Personal treasuries are virtually represented. The actual in game money that is left over can be spent however the chancellor wishes.
Wealth agreements: Magnates may make formal binding agreements that distribute a certain # of their wealth points to another magnate. Theses agreements are binding for a length of time set in the contract (minimum of 5 turns).
How Wealth is determined:
Cities/Villages/ports- 1 wp for each +1 wp for each economic upgrade
Wealth points to % income ratio
3 =10%
4-5=15%
6-7=20%
8-9=25%
10+=30%
I won't be able to play ETW until I get my new computer in May so I know there are probably lots of issues with my idea. Its rather hard to come up with rules when one doesn't know the gameplay mechanics available.
Hopefully this will at least provide food for thought.
sounds good, and the mechanic is translatable to other factions.
pevergreen
03-13-2009, 10:19
The only problem is that Tax rates are set by theatre (europe, america, india) and the only changes are tax-exemption for a province.
woad&fangs
03-14-2009, 16:19
The only problem is that Tax rates are set by theatre (europe, america, india) and the only changes are tax-exemption for a province.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I didn't mention taxes at all in the rules. Could you explain what you mean so I can attempt to claryify the rules?
Cecil XIX
03-14-2009, 17:08
It was mentioned here.
Speaking of the magnates….Each province is controlled by a magnate. Magnates were exceptionally wealthy and powerful men in the commonwealth. They generally controlled vast tracks of land and had a political and economic stranglehold over their area. Magnates are responsible for running their province. They may set taxes however they please in their province. They can build or destroy any building they wish in their province. They make requests for soldiers for their personal general(s). They move their personal general(s). They control all rakes, gentleman, and priests who spawned in their province.
woad&fangs
03-14-2009, 19:37
Oops! I thought I had remembered to take that part out :boxedin:
There's another complication for ETW PBMs that I just notice: file save. The longer the game goes on, the larger the save game file size gets. After 40 turns in the Spain succession game PBM, the save game file is 74.6mbs. Even compressed it is 21mbs. Uploading and downloading multiple files of that size could cause problems for some people, and those files definitely cannot fit in the Org's file system.
I wouldn't mind playing an admiral in an ETW PBM :D
The seas would be mine, yarrrr!
The savegame size doesn't bother me, I got several possibilities to upload these.
I hope somethign can be thought out to apply the current gamestyle to ETW.
Has anyone given any thought to the faction we'd use? So far I've only played France, but I've been kicked around by the AI enough to know that it'd be challenging, and we have enough colonies to make things interesting enough for all players.
From what I've seen so far, the campaign will definitely be harder since we just can't point our finger at a territory and then own it a few turns later anymore. :yes:
Prussia also gives a nice challenge.
However, If we have a big starting playerpool, we might go for a nation which has colonies to start with.
The UP would be cool, as they do have colonies but are still the underdog to GB/France/Spain.
As to actual game mechanics, it can be done. Although we will be facing a toning down of actual live players.
We can't recruit generals by the dozens (well we can, but wouldn't work well). But still, there are always a few generals playable.
We have rakes, I think it would also be nice to play a rake.
We have gentlemen, of course it's best to stay in school most of the time you can pick fights with nearby gentlemen if you wish. So it's rather cool for the casual pbm'er.
Admirals. Especially when we have colonies, we'll also have to tend a few fleets in each theater.
When it comes to ruling our nation, we can have a few players RP'ing the ingame Fl and ministers.
But we might have to face the fact that some will have to be content with RP'ing a char which has no relation with anything ingame (but if you count rakes, gents, generals, and admirals, atleats a decent amount of peepz get live chars)
Before we start we should have a poll about who gets to be king/ministers at the start of the game.
King is a lifetime tenure (unless there's a revolution) and ministers can be fired upon decision by king & council. If your char is a minister and gets fired, you'll have to start Rp'ing a made-up new char, while someone else gets to play the new minister. This is just an example.
It's best that we first see how many ppl are interested in an ETW PBM with a skeleton ruleset.
If we have a smallish base, we can give everyone somethign to do and see how far we get.
If we play a monarchy, much depends on who is the king.
Let's say he gets to chose who is minister.
The First Lord (prime minister) is the one who ends turns.
The financial minister is in charge of taxes obviously
The military minister dishes out the general jobs
Same thing for the naval one
of course, the military one wants troops for a war, so he has to convince the financial one to recruit troops, etc. That kind of dynamics.
I believe we can also get governors in the colonies? They can function in a sorta way like the ministers in their own theater. (even more playable stuff for peepz)
The ministers make up for the King's council. They meet at the kings behest. Ministers can make a petition to the king to call for a council.
That's all I can come up with atm, I should've been a sleep 2 hrs ago.
I've I think about this a bit more, surely more will come up.
But a lot depends on participation. With a select group, it's certainly doable. We can figure out a way to include people with fictive chars along the way. But the game certainly provides for enough possibilities to play something
-FL
- ministers
- governors
These are on the governement level, so they have no real chars to move etc, they just call the shots.
-rakes
-gents
-generals
-admirals
These are all playable. With generals frequently dying of age (average age of fresh recruited general is 32 and they dont become 65+ in my experience) we can work with a wait list.
You might have to wait until you get to play, then you get to play until your char is dead, and back on the list etc. While your on the list, you can participate in the council. You can debate etc. For actual proposals you'll have to petition a minister. Ministers who propose stuff will need votes, so they have to woo the people in the waiting lists, as generals/admirals and stuff do not get to vote (they're no politicians, they're soldiers). Favors can be done either way.
It's just mindless brainstorming by someone who's at zombie mode behind the pc, but it might give the more experienced PBM GM's somethign to chew on :)
I guess there isn't much want for an ETW PBM atm :)
I guess there isn't much want for an ETW PBM atm :)
I think there's plenty to work with for an ETW PBM, but it would probably be a good idea to wait for the game to be patched up a bit first. Since we won't have access to any console commands, there's not going to be any way to alter the in-game situation if we have problems or don't like it. Combine this with a lack of naval invasions, and you've got a major risk of an unchallenging AI. I personally think that the AI will be a much bigger factor in an ETW game than in the RTW/M2TW games, so this is somewhat important.
For the type of game created, I do like your suggestions. I think decentralized control systems like that will have to become the norm. I also think that we need to discard any internal PvP system at least for the first game.
Yeah, we probably will have to avoid pvp situations since we can't enforce the results without console.
I've only played a prussia campaign so far, i've been playing more MP at this point.
Though in the prussia campaign i'm 40 years deep and have faced some serious perils left and right. Though I tend to play slow and don't blitzkrieg, which may account for it.
I've now got about 4-5 regions, and had to fight tooth and nail for everyone, spending rounds and rounds on trying to negotiate my behind out of disastrous situations.
But the AI does need patching indeed. Unless you stir it up a bit, they tend to get static when it doesn't involve you.
Bring on those patches, cuz i'd love to see an ETW pbm ^^
Your observations tend to mimic my own. ETW is definitely MUCH more challenging in SP than the last few games, even with the AI in its current state. If the game starts with a nation without overseas provinces (i.e. Prussia, Sweden, Poland/Lithuania, Austria) it will probably be decently challenging at the start. Our old problems of massive initial expansion due to everyone conquering whatever is nearby with a 3 unit army is no longer a concern. With a decent rule system that allows for effective internal 'political' competition, the AI could well be enough to keep us occupied with fun ETW PBMs for a good while. Not all PBMs have to last 1+ years, after all.
Perhaps we should create various governement system according to the possibilities ingame.
That way we can cope with ingame revolutions.
So, if you read my big post above, that spares me half the explanation.
For absolute monarchy, we place all authority with the king in theory.
He will be able to select 5 players to act as his ministers (just like the ones ingame). These players will stay ministers until a new king comes to power, or until the king decides a new minister is needed (thus if the ingame minister dies, this does not effect us. Lets say the ingame ministers are the right hand henchmen for the IRL ministers)
Discussions take place in the Council of nobles but it does not have any power. But everyone is allowed to IC there, and the purpose is that the 5 ministers will take the discussed topics into consideration to present to the king, who eventually gets to decide. Of course, disregarding the advice of ministers too much, will have effect on the power of the king.
As I stated in previous post, ministers will be able to appoint stuff in their jurisdiction. Military ministers get to appoint players to generals, same thing for naval minister and admirals.
Taxes will be done by the financial one.
troop recruiting is co-junction of military minister and financial one, etc etc.
The prime minister ends the turns and provides turn reports.
Of course, when/if we ever switch to republic system, things change.
A parliament will be created, where everyone can get a say.
players will have to roleplay the ingame ministers now (who the lucky players are might be decided by ooc elections aswel?) and they will change when dying or with new elections.
The only big difference is that the ministers now have to put their proposals to the vote in parliament, instead of letting the king decide.
The prime minister will still end the turn. What exactly will be the role of the president, I haven't figured out yet.
Perhaps give him veto power, and the ability to fire ministers.
Like I said in the previous post, if we have a large playerbase there will be a lot of people forced to roleplay a character which has no physicial representation ingame. But I think there are people who are ok with that.
I think that the last 5 posts by tincow and me are sufficient to build a skeleton of rules, on which we can build a test game.
We could start out with Prussia as it is smallish without colonies.
I'll make a new thread to see how many people are willing to participate in this testcase, if noone replies to this thread in a few days.
internal competition is necessary of course, but it's harder to implement since many players will be forced to RP imaginative chars.
Until we find a way to track internal competition with a mathemathical system, I suggest we can base this on personal feelings. We can all try to make a fair judgement of anothers effort and contributions towards the game.
People who actively RP'ed imaginitive characters deserve a chance to assume control of something physical ingame when the next chance comes around.
You make a very good point about the different government systems. Like you suggest, it would be wise to create basic rules about how the game is run depending on which of the 3 systems are currently in effect. However, this means the rules will also need some kind of mechanism for determining when a government system can be changed. Whoever is playing the King is not likely going to approve of a switch to a Republic, so there's got to be some method of determining which side wins.
how about an unweighted poll?
As to when it is to happen:
when it happens ingame + when a vast majority of players are calling for it (this will press the ones currently in power, to atleast pay sufficient attention to the wishes of the rest :) )
I have never had a change of government in-game myself, so I'd like some clarification on how it works. When the option is presented in-game, is it true that there's a pop-up message box that asks whether you want to support the old regime or the revolutionaries? I understand that if you pick one side and that side loses the subsequent battle, the game ends. Is it possible to save the game with that pop-up box still open, or will the person playing have to make the choice right then and there?
GeneralHankerchief
04-23-2009, 15:09
I have never had a change of government in-game myself, so I'd like some clarification on how it works. When the option is presented in-game, is it true that there's a pop-up message box that asks whether you want to support the old regime or the revolutionaries? I understand that if you pick one side and that side loses the subsequent battle, the game ends. Is it possible to save the game with that pop-up box still open, or will the person playing have to make the choice right then and there?
I do confirm the mechanism (I tried to see if a Russian revolution would bring out the Soviet Union 200 years early), but I'm not sure if you can save beforehand. I imagine you can, though, as it lets you save before other critical events like battles.
About saving, I do not know.
I'll have to try that tonight.
I myself only had 1 revolution so far.
My Prussia Campaign, the revolution started in capitol region brandenburg. I sided with the revolutionaiers and attacked brandenburg immediately. I won that battle, and then I was a republic, with the current german flag and all.
I'll have to test the save thingy though.
If we can save, that's probably a good place for the transition mechanism. If people want to act in a way to push the country towards a rebellion, that should occur under the normal rules. Once the rebellion pops up, the game is saved and the mechanism for determining which government is supported then goes into effect.
It's tempting to allow the minority to resist the change with arms, but it's still probably best to avoid PvP in the first version of the ETW rule set.
What we CAN do is this:
if the decision on change is close and thus unclear, both parties selection a 'champion' and they battle it out in pvp.
Winning champion decides whether the gov changes or not.
But this is probably for when the change-poll does not meet a specific majority.
for instances 2/3rd or 3/4th majority not reached by either side => champion battle.
Hrm... perhaps. I would recommend developing the draft rules without PvP first. Let's see how complex they are before we toss any PvP on top of them.
If you want, I can create a seperate thread with the skeleton rules, extracted from this thread and just see how many ppl are willing to spent time on a test case
Hold on a new thread until you're actually ready to start a game. If it's still drafting and tweaking rules, this thread is the right place for it.
So, an effort into bringing all discussed items into a rule draft.
playable ingame avatars
First off the bat are the dtermintion of what is playable and what not.
Generals
rakes
gentlemen
admirals
These are the only ingame figures who can be chosen and played.
They will form the bottom tier of our 2tier system
Generals
These guys do what they have to: lead armies into war. They will receive general objectives from the people in the upper tier, but can independantly decide how to reach this objective without interference.
Generals do not interfere with politics, unless they wish to rebel. (will not be a viable option until we have a console and pvp options, so I will not explain this for now)
Rakes
These guys are rogues, and take orders only from the prime minister. As long as they have no orders, they're free to roam the world and do as they please.
Rakes therefore can stuff up a lot of politically plans if they get caught in actons tha weren't orders.
So whoever is prime minister has to be in control of the situation or risk everything.
gentlemen
These guys are in total control of themselves. They can duel as they please and roam around.
When they are in schools, they get to decide what is to be researched in their school.
If multiple gentlemen are in the same school, they have to poll about the next research withing the 24hrs of the save game.
Poll will be held by the gentlemen with the most stars. Poll will be in weighted votes: each star counts as a vote (someone with 4 stars has thus 4 votes in that poll).
The governement can request a technology to be researched, but no more than requesting. Gentlemen decidefor themselves.
admirals
Same principle as generals, but on the sea.
If you chose to play a har from the lower tier, you chose to abstain yourself from any politicl participation in the game. You cannot influence political machinations by any (official) way.
The only time you get to post something IC in the roycal council thread (or the likes) is when some politician asks you to comment on somthing, in the like of professional advice.
Those are the lower tier, the easy tier. Now onto the difficult part.
Governement!
Governement into ETWPBM, will have to foresee a rule set for each possible governing system available.
Though the core of every ruleset can be maintained I believe. In previous posts I've already spilled some ideas:
no matter the governement type, we will need to elect players to fullfill some of the available functions in the ingame system. Of course, the number of these are limited, and will result in the others having to roleplay in imaginitive character. Let's just get on with the examples
Absolue monarchy:
player is elected t play the king, and will remain in power for as long as his character is ingame.
He will choose 5 players to fullfill the minister roles that are ingame. These 5 players stay minister until the king dies, or the king removes them from office (ergo, the ministers are not bound to the ministers ingame. The ingame ministers will act as the IRL players right-hand)
The king has absolute power, and the last say in anything. The only exception, is a decree that is signed by all 5 ministers. This decree will always be implemented. Of course, ministers who go against the will of the king, are open to get fired.
A king can be removed of power if all 5 ministers and the majority of generals agree to revolt (ingame revolution will be machinised)
As the king is in total control, the official politics thread will not be in the usual manner. There will not be councill sessions. Best way to describe it is as follows: in an absolute monarchy, the politics thread will be a continous councill session. Discussions will take place anytime, people can suggest all sorts of thing all the time.
It will be up to the ministers to decide which proposals they shall present to the prime minister. It will be the prime minister who in the end wil ltake the proposals to the king as thé advice.
And it will be up to the king to choose whether he takes it or not.
Republic
Every election ingame, we do an election on the forum. Available positions are president, prime minister and the 5 ingame minister posts.
The president will call for councill sessions, and retains veto powers. Any proposal by the president will automatically be voted upon, will not need seconding. He will also be able to use presidential privilege to push 1 decree through without votes.
in this councill session, everyone is allowed to spill ideas. Each ministers can choose which ones are to be taken to the vote (when the proposal lies within their minister domain), and the prime minister must approve of everything (which comes down to having veto power) except the presidents proposals.
Obviously, it will be the republic in which people playing in amiginitive charater, have the biggest say in things out of all possible gov. types
... monarchy
I forgot the full name, but in the normal monarchy, it will be a mix of the previous types.
The king will call sessions. Ministers will present their selected proposals out of the suggestions from the crowd, to the prime minister, who will take them to the king for ratification.
The king has veto power.
THIS POST WILL BE EDITTED SOON, AS I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO COMPLETE IT RIGHT NOW, THOUGH I AM OPEN TO COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
I like the basic layout, but I'd like to suggest some changes. First, I don't think anyone should play the 'agent' avatars. They die easily and the trait system in ETW is extremely cut-down, making the RPing benefits of a particular avatar pretty much pointless. I don't really see any benefit to having individual agents controlled by a player, especially since agents like gentlemen and priests generally spend their lives sitting in one spot.
Instead, I think it would be better to focus more on delegating responsibilities to different players. I like the idea of the ministers being chosen as players, but let's go further and give each minister specific powers. For example, the Navy minister is responsible for all naval recruitment and repair, and he also gives command of the various fleets to whoever he wants. The Army minister is responsible for all army recruitment and retraining, and gives command of the various land armies to whoever he wants. The internal affairs minister is responsible for all domestic construction and european taxation. The various colonial theater governors are responsible for taxation and construction in their provinces. Etc...
The Prime Minister/King appoints other players to these positions, based on whatever reasoning he wants. PM/King also is responsible for all foreign diplomacy, determines when the nation goes to war, etc. The army/navy ministers then in turn appoint other players to take control of specific fleets or armies. Essentially, it's an entire game of RPing the government. The top level make the big choices, but they have to rely on those lower down to carry them out.
Overall, I think the player base in this game would be smaller than the previous games, but that might not be a bad thing. A game like this could run very well with 12-15 players, which is very sustainable. There's no rule saying that the PBMs have to handle 40+ players all the time. Smaller can be fun too.
that's what i said in previous posts aswel
there are 5 different ministers ingame, with each their own jurisdiction. Players should act within it.
So, the question then becomes how to add in some kind of conflict into the scenario. If it's just a hierarchy of job assignment, it's little more than an elaborate succession game. While that's not a bad thing, I think a lot of people would be interested in a ETW version of the current mega-PBMs. So, how do we create (or at least, allow) inter-player conflict in this system?
johnhughthom
06-22-2009, 09:15
With the imminent arrival of the new patch I was wondering if there is any interest in an ETW PBM still alive?
Reading through the thread there are still a number of questions to be answered as to how to proceed, I'm not sure the E:TW government system lends itself well to this type of game, but I'd certainly be willing to take part in a test game based on mini's rules if anybody is interested.
edit: of course I mean after a few days of playing with the new patch...
got a link to the patchnotes? i havent played in 2 months really :p
johnhughthom
06-22-2009, 12:59
http://blogs.sega.com/totalwar/2009/06/18/update-13-features-list/
Haven't played in two months myself.
Cecil XIX
06-26-2009, 06:21
For the record, when we do have an ETW Mega-PBM I must insist that we play as Austria. :yes:
i was planning on Prussia.
The problem with my rule-set is, that it doesnt provide a 'drive' to every participant as it doesnt entail a ranksystem of any kind.
This is due to the lack of avatars which are controllable. Most of the rules above are usable, we only lack a system of rewards and incentives.
I've thought about it, and I can't seem to find any decent system to regulate who gets to play what, and how one can progress throughout the game.
I'm hoping that when it is released the multiplayer campaign will open up some more doors as far as ETW RPGs go.
yeah, i dont think the game is feasible in its current state
Ignoramus
07-01-2009, 11:34
For the record, when we do have an ETW Mega-PBM I must insist that we play as Austria. :yes:
I object, Wurtemburg is far bettter! :laugh4:
Cecil XIX
07-03-2009, 17:18
I object, Wurtemburg is far bettter! :laugh4:
Maybe I can get AG to agree with me if we have a big portrait of Arnold in Austria's Diet chamber...
AussieGiant
07-23-2009, 20:34
Maybe I can get AG to agree with me if we have a big portrait of Arnold in Austria's Diet chamber...
Then I'm in!! :laugh4:
Ha, you never thought I'd look in this part of the forum.:balloon2:
As far as I can see there are limited options.
If multiplayer is enabled then we have a solution.
The best bet would be to have PC's take to the roles of the rule and ministers in an individual nation, with additional players playing the opposition who are also represented in the game.
You then represent the type of government in an overlaid voting system.
With this you could have 2 or 3 nations controlled by Player character groups of about 5 to 8 people.
You then let them talk IC about the in game options and decisions, with the ruler actually operating the turns.
IC agreements could be made about who fights battles both land and sea.
The five ministers would then divide up the in game tasks and make recommendations to a monarchy. Vote in a CM and do it themselves in a republic by taking the save.
It would seem to work if I thought about it all a bit more.
---------
Actually, admirals and generals could also be player characters and remove the need for PC's to play the opposition. Fighting battles is extremely critical and provides a nice division of labour.
So you would need about 6 to 9 people per faction. Those that play
---------
I'm all over the place.
Or you could have all players playing one faction. You have the national leader, then the characters in cabinet and then all other players playing opposition parties outside of the game. if and when a cabinet was sacked or voted out the opposition players would choose who held the new minister, general and admiral positions.
ah jees I'm going to blow a fuse thinking about this.
Bottom line, it seems feasible...somehow :beam:
A lot of problems would be solved if the AI were improved enough to be a significant challenge. If that happens, we can comfortably play a single faction with no PvP rules of any kind, just like in WotS and most of KotR. As long as the game is challenging enough on its own, squabbling over what to build, when to go to where, what provinces to conquer, etc. should be enough to keep it interesting. I'm hopeful that after the modding tools are released, a 'major' mod will be developed along the lines of Stainless Steel or Broken Crescent which will sufficiently improve the game to give us what we need.
AussieGiant
07-24-2009, 10:15
A lot of problems would be solved if the AI were improved enough to be a significant challenge. If that happens, we can comfortably play a single faction with no PvP rules of any kind, just like in WotS and most of KotR. As long as the game is challenging enough on its own, squabbling over what to build, when to go to where, what provinces to conquer, etc. should be enough to keep it interesting. I'm hopeful that after the modding tools are released, a 'major' mod will be developed along the lines of Stainless Steel or Broken Crescent which will sufficiently improve the game to give us what we need.
Im pertty sure with the direction the latest updates have been mentioning that on VH/VH we'd be pressed nicely as one faction. Especially so when there is a nice threat of competing for limited resources. I was never rolling in money until around the late 1770's. But by that time I was a dominant force on the planet so it did fit nicely.
I just finished a Prestige campaign, which is what I recommend we should play as it forces a balanced approach and not just a military slant to what you need to do to win.
This then means the minister positions have an even level of relevance and significance.
I'm not sure how we would accommodate 20 players though.
However, with the Leader, 5 to 7 ministers and 5 opposition ministers PLUS generals and admirals then you have about the right number for one faction.
I'd say it would work.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.