Should BtSH call it quits?

[navarro951]

In light of the downtime that has happened i believe it is time to discuss the discontinuation of BtSH. I place the blame souly on myself, perhaps i could have done more to keep it interesting, but I enjoyed all of you who stuck it out with me to now. TCV, everyone, and Bean you guys are the greatest i have here and I appreciate your playing. Most likely i think this game will come to an end now, and i think it should.

[johnhughthom]

Just to let you know I have posted in my interactive AAR to try and get people to check this out again. I'm not sure if it will work as interest in the AAR seems to be dwindling but I didn't want this to die without trying to help out some way. Good luck.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

seems to be similar in the PBM's, at the begining they can drum up huge support and have tons of players, but eventually people just drop out or lose intreast until there is nothing left but just a few people.

[/Bean\]

Like I said in the OOC, I'd love to vote No, but I think we've lost it, to be honest. Lets cut our losses while it's still enjoyable, gather everything we've learned and use it in the future to create the best ever PBM ever ever.

[navarro951]

Just to let you know I have posted in my interactive AAR to try and get people to check this out again. I'm not sure if it will work as interest in the AAR seems to be dwindling but I didn't want this to die without trying to help out some way. Good luck.

i apprciate that very much and will tune into your AAR to support it.


Like I said in the OOC, I'd love to vote No, but I think we've lost it, to be honest. Lets cut our losses while it's still enjoyable, gather everything we've learned and use it in the future to create the best ever PBM ever ever.

i must regretfully agree...

[Ghaust the Moor]

I would vote no. You guys have worked too hard and too long to let this die. I think plenty of people like this. I think you guys should advertise more. Do more posting in all of the EB related forums, maybe that will get people intrested. It got me. I think its just people are busy and need to be reminded of the commitent they took when they sign up.

[/Bean\]

We've had loads of people sign up in the last month. About two actually remained active. With al our veteren players leaving or simply disappearing, and none of the new people making it up for it, we're on the ropes...I've been PMing every Rome enthusiast looking person I've seen in the EB forums, but I get so few replies its hardly worth the effort.

[everyone]

As far I would say, I wouldn't want this to end (not because my character is in a high position), but because playing as a Roman faction would require and allow lots of RPing; although there isn't much now because 'historically', it's in the wrong period, or we're playing too fast. perhaps we could change it to quasi-historical, like LotR (Byzantine, but feudal); so as to remove the high RP restrictions, or the rate of progress.

but if we are to start a new one, I would suggest a poll be set up to decide the attributes of it, as in how it is played. such as:
-gameplay speed (fast progression, taking things slowly, etc)
-Historical RPing (limiting how one's character behaves and thinks)
-Character's rank/social mobility (how easily/difficult it is to advance, and what opportunities are given)


right now I would say BtSH is:
-slow, because only the CoL could be on an 'official' campaign, and he selects his theatre, though it used to be fast, legions were allowed to be sent anywhere to conquer anyone for whatever RP reason made up.
-high historical RPing limits ("stop thinking from the point of mini but from the point of Quintus Aemilius Regillus" - swissbarbar) since we're still in the middle republic era and not late republic, where things were still relatively smooth.
-good rank mobility (mini's cursus honorum, since you don't necessarily need to lead an army to be promoted)

but even if more people vote for it to end, I would say update the FAQ, library, history (hasn't been done so in a long time, and probably few people are playing less often because of that), start a small advertising campaign (PMing, not posting, I think it's rather impolite to just post, unless we're allowed), go for a session, or half a session and see how things go.

and also, if nobody is really interested in continuing BtSH, may I suggest for a new game, I've already got a small draft (of a new gameplay) typed out (from a month ago, because I was thinking of making another PBM, but decided against it as there were too many).

edit: reading through this, I realised that my arguments are crappily-phrased and badly argued.

[mini]

I abstain on all laws!

Still, navarro you did a bang up job. Nobody is to blame and least of all you.

I think the activity in the throne room in general is dwindling..

Hopefully things will peak again in the near future, and that's when we will recreate this.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

you know what, navarro951 switch my vote to yes.... bean is right we had a good run and lets end it on a high note

[/Bean\]

@Everyone: I send PM's to every Roman looking enthusiast I could find on the EB forums at least once a night, to see if they wanted to join. Like I said, I got such little response that I practically gave up. I think Decimvs was the only one who actually answered and joined, though we only saw him once or twice.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Having watched this PBM progress for a few months now, I'll be sad to see BtSH go. For a while this game was the most active and compelling one in the Throne Room, what with the saga of Eprius and of course all the great storylines that went with Cotta's meteoric rise. There's something about playing Rome that just makes it more... special... than any of the other factions. If you can keep it going, I personally would like to see it continue.

However, as players, you would know better than me. If there's just not enough players, then there's not enough players. I think a big part of this is the triumvirate of Blasio, Cotta, and Manius Claudius that always manages to be in the power roles. In my experience, I've found that competition makes for a more compelling and interactive game. So my suggestion is to incorporate all three Consul roles into one general one: Consul. Now, instead of having three ultra-powerful Senators shifting roles and working together, you suddenly have three of them gunning for the the top (and only) spot. All of a sudden, we have plotting. All of a sudden, you have players working harder, now not only trying to defeat the AI but one-up each other as well.

This is just the two cents of an outside observer, but I think with a bit of rule tweaking, BtSH still has some life left in it. :bow:

[/Bean\]

To be honest, I'd be much more into restarting than continuing. We should take what we've learnt and initiate it from the beginning of the game, with new characters and plot lines, protocols of IC and OOC work, and someone to help Navarro. It's no fault of his, but he can't be expected to uphold all the different admin jobs by himself throughout the entire game.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I am up for that, should be fun to start over from the begining. And If you guys need help, I am always free.

[mini]

Having watched this PBM progress for a few months now, I'll be sad to see BtSH go. For a while this game was the most active and compelling one in the Throne Room, what with the saga of Eprius and of course all the great storylines that went with Cotta's meteoric rise. There's something about playing Rome that just makes it more... special... than any of the other factions. If you can keep it going, I personally would like to see it continue.

However, as players, you would know better than me. If there's just not enough players, then there's not enough players. I think a big part of this is the triumvirate of Blasio, Cotta, and Manius Claudius that always manages to be in the power roles. In my experience, I've found that competition makes for a more compelling and interactive game. So my suggestion is to incorporate all three Consul roles into one general one: Consul. Now, instead of having three ultra-powerful Senators shifting roles and working together, you suddenly have three of them gunning for the the top (and only) spot. All of a sudden, we have plotting. All of a sudden, you have players working harder, now not only trying to defeat the AI but one-up each other as well.

This is just the two cents of an outside observer, but I think with a bit of rule tweaking, BtSH still has some life left in it. :bow:

Well

I reformed the whole ranking system and basically created an entire new cursus honorum, which would work great with a sufficient player base.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Agreed, but the problem is we have to work with what we have. Right now, you guys don't have the base necessary for the reforms to be in full effect.

[Caius]

I could be in for this game, but I am not sure. I will try to appear here if possible.

[TinCow]

It's worth noting that there are currently THREE EB-based PBMs going on. That is surely diluting the player-base a good deal. If you all assembled into a single game, you'd probably be able to sustain more momentum for a longer period. I understand that not everyone wants to play the factions chosen in the other games, but that's what compromise is all about. LotR's faction was decided based on a poll, and we all played what the majority wanted to play, even though a good number of us weren't keen on Byzantium.

[Iskander 3.1]

I agree that we should end this on a high note. Everyone here has made some good points, and I think that it would be best to wait a little while before implementing a new EB PBM. Maybe have a few people put their heads together and decide what might be best, and after a month or so we could see if there's enough interest to launch a new game.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

yeah, we have three diffrent pbms at the moment, and I can see how that many could cause problems. and I think taking a few months hiatus should be good, we might come back to find a batch of new people intrested in the game. (of course WotB will still be here, and we always need to new players! shameless advertisment I know, but its a council session and I think we have hardly had 10 posts in it.... and my own personal council hasnt had a response yet. hint hint mini, iskander and everyone)

[mini]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=116497

[The Celtic Viking]

First of all, thank you Navarro, and I think mini (I think? ~;p) is right: it's not a fault of yours, not yours specifically at least. If someone is to be blamed, I would look to blame everyone. (THAT JOKE NEVER GETS OLD, DANG IT!) Seriously though, no, there's no blame to be put on anyone.

I voted we should end this as well. It's not really because I wouldn't ideally like to see it continue, but I just don't see it.

[everyone]

ok on second thought, abstain my vote.
I'd rather the PBM restart, than we chose another faction, since we already have a system in place, but failed to get enough members/enthusiasm and also did not manage to clarify what exactly happens (up till now I'm still not sure about some stuff mentioned in mini's reforms).
perhaps since the EB PBM field is saturated.
but restarting may also be rather monotonous (repeating the first few boring turns where nobody other than the consuls and the commander of Legio I takes the save and conquers everything adjacent to the roman starting territory). perhaps the new GM should play a roman savegame (in the case if we are to restart) up till around the end of the 1st punic war (or maybe before it); like a succession game, then at that moment we the save up and continue with the PBM.

[johnhughthom]

Check out my Interactive AAR, I have a save at 240BC, Polybian barracks on the way and shedloads of cash. It's EB 1.2 H/M huge unit sizes. It sounds like exactly what you are asking for. http://files.filefront.com/Romani240BCsav/;12637822;/fileinfo.html
I would definately be up for a replayed Romani EB PBM if 1.2 was used.

[navarro951]

so i have decided what will happen, I will be closing BtSH but not entirely. I will play out the last turns until our next congressional council by myself. I will then update everything getting us back up to speed and include one long consul report as to what went down during my time playing. Then i will get back in touch with all of you who are till frequents to The Guild, and we will do a quick bit of re recruiting in ALL eb forums and continue on. If that doesnt work, then I will end this crusade. So from here on out BtSH is closed until its "Grand Reopening" :laugh4:

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

sounds good, I egerly await our grand reveal!

[navarro951]

i do as well.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Now I am regretting letting my little secret out.... ohh well I am still worth something as a tribune of the plebs atleast, and with swiss gone Bean needs a new right hand man!

[everyone]

and we need some new opposition. I'm beginning to suspect all selfish/disloyal characters.

[/Bean\]

Caivs Avrelivs might die, and I might restart as Titvs...

[Iskander 3.1]

Excellent, so I can continue to sleep with Sulla's wife.

[navarro951]

Excellent, so I can continue to sleep with Sulla's wife.

hhahaha thats cold

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

vengence will be swift, I promise you!!! and I will savor it forever!

[Iskander 3.1]

It's like season 1 is over...wait until the summer's over for season 2!

[navarro951]

It's like season 1 is over...wait until the summer's over for season 2!

lol nice way to look at it.

[navarro951]

The Legion Shall Return!
https://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z132/mstgnymike/WhyItsGoodToBeLegionStrong.jpg

[navarro951]

took this pic the other day and decide to have fun with Gimp

[everyone]

huzzah!
crap. for a moment there I thought you were done with the session and the game could continue.

[navarro951]

huzzah!
crap. for a moment there I thought you were done with the session and the game could continue.

almost

[mini]

just to let u know i'm still playing this.

I'm working in my new appartement,so haven't been around, and will not be for a week more or so.

But dont worry, i'll be here to wreck havoc! ;p

[/Bean\]

Wreak havoc...I don't think you're going to stop havoc.

[navarro951]

Wreak havoc...I don't think you're going to stop havoc.

lol ya nice

[everyone]

are there any updates navarro?

[navarro951]

are there any updates navarro?

lol i meant to tell you all this yesterday...


BtSH SHALL RETURN ON JUNE 1ST!

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

and lo there was much rejoicing through the land, and the senators did stop sleeping with there best friends wife in surprise!

[/Bean\]

We had better know what the deal is fully before that date...

indeed it will all be layed out for you by May 28th 29thish

EDIT (by myself): Agh god, that was freaky...I thought I had a double persona then...I was writing answers to myself in my sleep...

[johnhughthom]

Are you going to be starting the campaign over navarro, or continuing from where you finished? I hope you intend to use EB 1.2 this time...

[navarro951]

Are you going to be starting the campaign over navarro, or continuing from where you finished? I hope you intend to use EB 1.2 this time...

no i shall be continuing, first of all i want to see if we can play this thing out. Second i dont have 1.2 and my comp will simply not let me have both.

[everyone]

and also, EB 1.2's recruitable general traits screws up the traits of any RGBs to be used by players

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

we are getting close! its almost Like Christmas!!!!!!! I can hardly wait.

[navarro951]

we are getting close! its almost Like Christmas!!!!!!! I can hardly wait.

hehe indeed, o and because of a get together im having we will be back june 2nd not the 1st...:embarassed:

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

thats fine, we just waited like a month, whats one more day??

[/Bean\]

Aww thats not fair...King Cotta will not be able to make much of an appearance until after the 8th of June

[navarro951]

Well all updates to the game will be relayed today and libraries and all that should be updated by 2morrow so we can begin.

[The Celtic Viking]

What year is it now?

[everyone]

darn, these small delays means that I can't continue playing the game until I return from some cadet camp on the 12th of June.

[navarro951]

darn, these small delays means that I can't continue playing the game until I return from some cadet camp on the 12th of June.

ya ive been thinkiing, my scool ends june 12 and bean cant play till the 8th so we could push for 12th then ya?

[two people]

ah. I guess I can wait for that, it's only a week more.

[navarro951]

ah. I guess I can wait for that, it's only a week more.

okay i appreciate it.

[/Bean\]

Not to be pessimistic or anything...but whats going to make this time round different to the last time round?

[mini]

seems I havent missed a thing in my absence of late. cheerio!

more time to work on my roman aar!

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Not to be pessimistic or anything...but whats going to make this time round different to the last time round?

don't bring your pessimism here! we are going to have fun and we are going to LIKE IT! (this is a good question though, we really need to advertise, new flux of players would be really helpful and get things going, even if only a few stick around)

[navarro951]

don't bring your pessimism here! we are going to have fun and we are going to LIKE IT! (this is a good question though, we really need to advertise, new flux of players would be really helpful and get things going, even if only a few stick around)

ya ive been trying i have PMd a handful of Roman faction fans and i am getting some interest but not much, by the end of this week i hope to at LEAST get like three more maybe. So i can start it up on Friday with sum fresh role play.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

good to see you are thinking ahead of me then. great, some new faces to argue with! on that note lets try and keep things a bit more civil this time around.... :sweatdrop:

[Celtic_Punk]

I think part of the problem was that most of us were in WotB. Its hard to pay attention to this kinda stuff when you've got 2 diff things goin on ya know?

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Wow guys,

I'm so sorry to hear that BTSH is ending. I'm going to have to check out the library to see how far you went. I wish I could have stayed with you all to the bitter end.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

over? we are starting it back up in 4 or so day, we have not yet begun to fight!

[navarro951]

over? we are starting it back up in 4 or so day, we have not yet begun to fight!

haha nice quote, Nicholas right?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

John Paul Jones,

[Celtic_Punk]

well I want to participate but I don't think I'll be able to pay attention to this full force till things die down a bit civilwar wise in WotB...which probably won't be for some time.

[mini]

meanwhile, tune in for my aar ;p


i need views *greedy*

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

it would appear we have a idiotic spammer running around.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

I'm not seeing an "OOC" thread any more, so I'm posting here - What happened that caused the once mighty Legio III to suffer a clear defeat at the hands of the Carthaginians?????? I must say that's quite the shocking set back.

[mini]

I think we had to autoresolve it, cuz the legion legates were inactive.

[everyone]

yes, fortunately, manius claudius had managed to save the day with his awesome legion.
huzzah! I am back!

[navarro951]

Okay i hope to have things edited by today, then the save ready for 2morrow and we will start the council late tomorrow or early monday.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

great, lets hope we have more luck this time than last time....

[/Bean\]

Can this second go be like a second chapter? Because I have an idea how to begin this second 'chapter' so that it carries on from the first and gives an excuse for a whole new outlook for our second go.

I was thinking of making Cotta start a brief civil war or attempt to become Dictator, which obviously fails in whatever way we discuss to be fit, and then we begin afresh with new outlooks on Senators to stop any single one from beocming too powerful.

What do you guys think?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I like it, cotta tries to grab power and we all put aside the differences that had separated us to stop you. and then we go right back to bickering, but also keep a firm policy to stop anyone from getting TOO important.

I want an army darn it! need to fight me some battles! I want a campaign to raid through Spain!

[Iskander 3.1]

Sounds good to me! I'll stay active here, my mistake last time was getting involved in too many at once.

[navarro951]

hmmm, okay ive implemented alot of console use but there are so many unused avatars and alot of things to put back together its bothering me. Im thinking this:

1. We Start the game over entirely...

2. We, from the start, use the rank, rule, and career reforms of mini as well as my own.

3. From now on we will use a 2 RBGs at a time, so new guys have to takem or not play. For the most part we dont roll play our traits to the T. Exceptions will be made of course if you get traits that make the character utterly weak, dumb, etc.

4. Ill relay other new stuff if we all agree to start over.

So feed back friends...?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

ahh, I am willing to go with whatever everyone else wants, I just was really looking forward to the Polybian reforms. I just don't know If I am willing to trudge through the same old situations again.... (I have played so many roman campaigns the opening phases are just so boring to me) I think we could make it work though, if we could just get some more (active) players.

[everyone]

the idea that each rps 2 rgbs sounds interesting, I thought of something like that, just that we control 'made-up' characters, sort of like the representatives we have now, just that they play a more active role, e.g. being able to run for ToP/consul/etc.
but if we were to start over, I prefer that we start the game sometime historically after the 1st punic war. I don't think it would be very interesting if we start from 272bc again and bicker over whether to go north or south.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I dont know, I personally prefer the feel of controlling one avatar, it just helps me really get attached to the game. I mean I enjoy having my one avatar evolve over time, and yes sometimes the traits get in the way, but most of the time I just roll with the traits and make them work in my Idea of a character, I have to say I am going to miss Sextvs in that respect, just when I was starting to expand upon him his life is cut short.

[mini]

i have the savegame from my AAR we can use...

polybian reforms have just kicked in. Rome has only 5 homeland regions, the rest are all typ4 (allied rulers, so not-controllable avatars)

the limited homeland regions allows for much less governors, which means that the post of governor is much more competitive etc..


I have to check, but i do think it's 1.2

[everyone]

we can't use 1.2 for any pbm that requires rgbs, since its EDCT automatically gives any general you recruit (regardless of whether he's recruited from a type 4 gov or modded in) the "allied general" trait which leads to the client ruler/recuited general traits.
unless we mod out the triggers, but I don't know how.

[/Bean\]

Aww, starting again? And everyone loved Cotta so much! hehe...

I think, in order to make the game have a much more solid foundation, we need to write our own in-game constitution, so we don't argue about the rules all the time and so on. I also think we need to somehow add the roles of the People more, as these were often the deciding factor in many discussions, arguments and the basis for certain people getting into certain posts.

I also think we need, for roleplays sake, get into the idea of the families of Rome, so that we can play our characters liking and disliking other characters according to their ancestory. Plays shouldn't be offended if they a lot of stick about what their non-playable ancestors did in the past and are blamed themselves, because that's what happened.

Thoughts?

[navarro951]

Aww, starting again? And everyone loved Cotta so much! hehe...

I think, in order to make the game have a much more solid foundation, we need to write our own in-game constitution, so we don't argue about the rules all the time and so on. I also think we need to somehow add the roles of the People more, as these were often the deciding factor in many discussions, arguments and the basis for certain people getting into certain posts.

I also think we need, for roleplays sake, get into the idea of the families of Rome, so that we can play our characters liking and disliking other characters according to their ancestory. Plays shouldn't be offended if they a lot of stick about what their non-playable ancestors did in the past and are blamed themselves, because that's what happened.

Thoughts?

A fine point and good idea. I always wanted families to be more incorporated which is why im trying to word correctly a new type of way to create a family that doesnt require a player to necessarily have so much rank and what not.

[/Bean\]

Oh yeah, some more. I think we need to involve the city and the people in in the city more. I think we should follow the Roman ways and players should not be able to become Senators until the age of 30, and predating that age can serve in the military and conduct other business about the city. They can become just as involved in the game out of the Senate as they can within.

Followig on from that point, younger Senators need to (generally) have much less influence, and rely on patrons (another adition) until they can become their own man (usually when their patron dies or falls heavily out of favour).

We should also introduce wealth and property (a budget), to further aid the importance levels of players. It would cost a certain amount of money to run for most offices (and the more money you spend over the minimum amount required the more likely you are to succeed in the office elections).

I'll probs think up some more soon.

[navarro951]

Hmm it all sounds great, but what happens when the player base is to small and we only have say two or three 30 year olds?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

yeah, I just don't see something like that working when we only have 5 or so players..... which is almost all the time.

[/Bean\]

Just say those are the playable Senators, the ones that have the chance to become famous. History doesn't remember all 300 Senators at all times of the Republic; only a few notable names come up. We'll roleplay the other Senators as we've always done.

[Dafug3]

Hey, first time posting here. I read through the rules and was thinking I would love to join but then I read through this thread. Perhaps we could use Johnhoughtoms save in the 'Save Game Thread' in the EB forums. It has 7 family members, Southern Italy, Sicily and Northern Italy + Massalia as client states. The Polybian reforms have kicked in and there are no military troops except for Ligurians in Alpine border forts. I think it would be a perfect place to start.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

that might actually work..... :idea2:

[everyone]

if we're willing to forsake RGBs, I think it could work; or someone with experience with EDCT could help us to remove the trait/triggers that give any recruited general a "recruited general" trait. since johnhughthom's save is on 1.2

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

ahh that is a issue.....

[johnhughthom]

There is an even bigger issue, it was deleted after all that filefront upheaval a while back. I'm not sure why as it had quite a few downloads, but I understand a lot of stuff was lost then.

[/Bean\]

Thats not a new big issue, that solves the problems of the previous issue, restoring the situation back to pre-issue times. So really we haven't gained or lost anything.

[navarro951]

Thats not a new big issue, that solves the problems of the previous issue, restoring the situation back to pre-issue times. So really we haven't gained or lost anything.

lol...finely executed response. donno why i just laughed. anyway i do find that 1.2 is a good idea only because it attracts a larger fan base. everyone wants to play 1.2 now you know.

[mini]

There is an even bigger issue, it was deleted after all that filefront upheaval a while back. I'm not sure why as it had quite a few downloads, but I understand a lot of stuff was lost then.

i got the savegame somewhere i believe

[johnhughthom]

i got the savegame somewhere i believe

You wouldn't be so kind as to upload it somewhere, I plan to start a Romani campaign soon and it is a good place to start.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Hi,

I have a suggestion. Instead of trying to start a new game with Romani you could pic a new faction. Perhaps Carthage?

They have the Senate
No matter what units they have in their army they are all historical.
They don't have a complicated office system
You can fight against ROMANI!! ~;)
Spain, Africa, Italy will give plenty of directions to expand

[johnhughthom]

Or the Seleukids,

They have the Satrapal system,
Eclectic armies are historical,
Many different types of enemies in all directions,
Lots of roleplaying opportunities,
Big empire means more opportunities for players,
Eventually you can fight against ROMANI!

What? There is already one going? There you go, problem solved.:whip:

[The Celtic Viking]

I must agree with Ibn: a new faction, please. We gave the romans a try but it failed. It's someone else's turn now. :yes:

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I still say giving a barbarian faction like Sweboz would be nice. Could lead to a lot of conflicts, be really fun.

(I would be willing to help work out rule set)

[navarro951]

I must agree with Ibn: a new faction, please. We gave the romans a try but it failed. It's someone else's turn now. :yes:

Indeed, i suppose i could clear all the threads change up the rules to work with carthage. because when i made this game i battled between the two anyway so i can agree with carthage. what say all of you?. Also, if we do do carthage, TCV will you still be playing because id enjoy creating the game rules with ya!

[/Bean\]

Hmm...if we can be Sweboz, can there be several tribes at once, before we're united? Like, we cheat to get the whole of Germania, but there are several tribes, and we meet at certain times of the year for trade or battle or whatever. Then sometime in the future (hopefully not too quickly) we can begin to unite certain tribes. Perhaps far in the future someone will unite all the tribes, and bring destruction upon the entire world! It would be like a civil war straight away, and there would actually have to be a very strong leader to unite everyone, because if each tribe is ruled by a player they aren't likely to want to give up their power easily.

I think the Sweboz will make for a very unique PBM, where the point is to war against each other, and possibly unite in the future, rather than Carthage which I fear would be almost identical to the Roman one. We could either just be the Sweboz and split the income every turn, or we could move some of the more eastern factions that we are never going to come into contact with and make them into German states.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

thats a good Idea, actually
we could do something along the lines of V and V, where income is determined by settlements.
the players would be divided into tribes, and the entire point of the game would be turning the disparate tribes of Germania into a united world power.

Civil wars would definitely be common, and encouraged. Wars on the outside world would be used more to loot and gain funds for inter-tribal warfare. And if a tribe is defeated the leader could always choose to move his tribe outward. ( perhaps some kind of Horde mechanic? not the BI one, but something similar. We could spawn some troops for defeated kings and they could try and find a new home, like Teutons and other tribes that were thrown out in real life. nothing to fancy, just a bunch of levies)

I think it would be something definitely worth looking into, and if it seems like to much work I am always willing to help out :yes: (with getting economics and game rules)

(I even have a save on my EB game with the Sweboz after just uniting Germania. perhaps we could use that. Its 1.2, but I have plenty of Family members. At least I think I do, let me go check....)

[The Celtic Viking]

Sure I can help with the rules, but I love that idea for Sweboz and would much prefer that over Carthage. I'd almost sacrifice WotB for such a game! :laugh4:

It'll be the first time I play them since 0.8x (in fact, it'll be the first time I play them since the first time I played EB at all :sweatdrop:), even though I've tried to bring me to play as them again many times since. If for no other reason, we must do it to get me back them them.

A few questions though: how many are we who will play this, how many tribes will we have, and just how many settlements will we cheat ourselves in possession of? How do we decide who gets what?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Sure I can help with the rules, but I love that idea for Sweboz and would much prefer that over Carthage. I'd almost sacrifice WotB for such a game! :laugh4:


Sacrilege! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I have to admit the Sweboz Idea has been bouncing around my head for a while. ever since I started my Sweboz Campaign, (which has now been forgotten due to Empire..... :shame:). the sheer number of ways it could go would be fun. the amount of civil wars and backstabbing will be awesome, politics will play just as big a role as with Rome, but we can still act like uncivilized savages! :laugh4::laugh4::clown: Independent Income and such will mean that it is a free for all. And Raiding will be extremely important (how else are you going to fund that new building?). Your subordinates will have to be watched closely, you never know when one might decided they want to be chief.


edit: The more players the merrier, although if we could get together 8 people that would probably be best. (2-3 people in each tribe, makes things less boring)

my plan was having something like 3 tribes, but unless we can get more people together that really would not work out. like I said I have a save which has all of Germany under control which is about ten or so provinces. if we have three tribes that it 3 provinces per tribe, plus one with 4, (which would show the varying strength)

unless we decide to have a smaller area, in which case I could just let some of the border provinces of my campaign rebel, would lower us right down to a smaller number.


I would say that we some kind of Bidding system (perhaps based on Seniority, or maybe just each of us having a certain number of "points" to work with) to decide provinces, keeping in mind that we shall probably have real tribe names, so choosing areas in touch with said tribe would be great.

[/Bean\]

In line with what you said about hording, i think there should be choices upon the aftermath of a battle. Depending on the conditions, the tribe could, as you said, flee, move home, whatever. That would create a new area for players to set up and create some variety and a bit of change.

Another choice would be the victor kills the defeated king, and takes over his kingdom. This may or may not work depending on the conditions of the army and the people.

A third choice would be that the victorious king tries to persuade the defeated king to join him, as a client tribe, thus creating the beginnings of a unified state. This should be less common and less likely to succeed, however, and only happen with extraordinary characters and/or situations.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Those seem like great Ideas, if they chose to flee we could spawn some levy spearmen and archers to simulate all able bodied men leaving their old homes and taking up arms. They could go in whatever direction they want to and try and find a new home region to create a new tribe, (can you say sacking Rome?). :yes: leaving a way to create a unified state will definitely make things interesting, as many players will no doubt resent having to give up their power, leading to a fragile alliance that could fall apart at any time, which seems pretty historical :yes:

The only foreseeable problem I can see would be PVP battles. Multiplayer battle can be done pretty quickly. But Tabletops take quite a long time to complete. during which people are doing pretty much nothing if they aren't involved in the battle. we would have to make sure everyone is OK with this if we want to have battle like that. (which personally I do, Tabletops are great fun!)


thinking about it, perhaps expanding the number of tribes to 4 would not be out of the question. would keep people on their toes, (as it is with three tribes things would get pretty typical) and perhaps allowing people to form new tribes if they so choose. would keep things interesting.


as it is we should see if we cant rope in some new players, TVS managed to get quite a few, I am sure their is plenty of Sweboz Fans out there. :yes:

[johnhughthom]

The Sweboz idea is sounding pretty cool, count me in.

[/Bean\]

CDF, we could have 4 main tribes, each with a territory, and the rest could be lesser tribes (the Eleutheroi). That gives room for expansion, and perhaps once expanded there is the possibility of the conquered tribe breaking away and forming their own, if the situation seems plausible. This means once our player base expands there are oppotunities to create a new tribe every so often, without starting out with too many or too few and with too little varitey in opportunities.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

thats a excellent Idea! I like it! :yes:

[/Bean\]

Can we start writing up a game plan, then, gents?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I have been using the "yes" smiley WAAAAYYYY to much.... :sweatdrop:. But yeah, we could definitely get started on the game rules. Though perhaps we should wait and see what navarro thinks about the idea.


what do you think about rankings (really it could be simplified far more than BtSH, at its basest it could be two ranks, chiefs and tribesmen. Or do we make it more in depth than that?) ? What should the faction leader represent? I was thinking of having it be something along the lines of having a "royal" tribe, which would control the capital and would be considered the greatest tribe of the area. (thus if you can kill and destroy the current royal tribe your tribe takes over) To provide some concrete benefits maybe the "royal" tribe controls all diplomats and gets a small bonus to income, it would make being the royal tribe more coveted.

I think we also need to find a way to make council sessions useful. As it is I feel that there won't be much point to proposing edicts...... Any suggestions? perhaps adding in some kind of Chancellor role.

[/Bean\]

Rankings

I would suggest having the Chief and his family, going down in importance considering how close a relation and how much in favour you are with the chief.

Then below that would be the officials, such as the diplomats and so on. That doesn't need much explaining.

Then the Thanes, or lords, the noblemen of the tribe. These would all hold the same rank of Thane, but would differentiate in importance due to their holdings and how much in favour they were with the Chief and other members of the tribe. Therefore most players would have the same rank, and would have to rely on accomplishments, bravery and favourtism to advance in importance. Those who cannot gain that are the more likely to want to try and kill the Chief, and the less important they are the less chance of success.

I wouldn't bother with having players as tribesmen. What's the point? That would be like having a character as a Hastati or something in BtSH.

We'll come up with a more detailed ranking thing later, I would expect.

Royal Tribe

Personally, I don't agree with this idea. I don't think that one tribe should start off as already looking to be the ultimate winners of the civil war, and the favourites from day one. That would be like playing to an agreed goal, and just making up how we got there. Thats not so fun. I would personally say ignore the ingame faction leader/heir. The diplomat at the beginning can be given to one tribe as a bonus, while other tribes gain a different bonus. I'll move onto that idea now.

Bonus'

Say we are having 4 initial tribes. Well, we could make a list of bonus', and each tribe picks one. This is just a list of 4 off the top of my head, so don't take them as set in stone:

1: The initial diplomat, so that that tribe can gain an early trade/alliance/etc agreement with a nearby faction or tribe. (This makes me think of a good idea: A tribe needs an official diplomat to make inter-clan alliances and so on, more about that later).

2: Maybe the initial spy, so that that tribe can gain an early advantage in other tribe assessment. This would probably lead to the tribe that picks the spy to be aggressive very early on, at least until other factions gain spies.

3: Maybe some extra troops, or a bonus of some more unique troops, such as cavalry or elites. This would make this tribe initially stronger than the others, though not by too much or there is already a winner.

4: Maybe 2 starting provinces, giving this tribe more land, income, manpower in the early future. A tribe to look out for.

All would have their strengths and weaknesses, and must be employed correctly in order to have the best effect.

Council Sessions

I assume you are relating this to what we had in BtSH. Of course that arrangement is almost necessary in order to have a good PBM, though we should not have it in the same way. There are two types of 'council' sessions I think would be useful:

1: The tribal council; one (thread) for each tribe, where the chief and the thanes of the tribe would meet to discuss politics and so on. This would act like the BtSH (or more likely the WotB) council sessions, where the thanes discuss their ideas with the Chief, and the Chief decides what to do. This would include domestic and military ideas. Of course there is the problem of players from other tribes reading all the different tribal threads and gaining advantages. We cannot hope to stop this from happening, so we would have to be more cunning; perhaps not everything said in the council can be trusted...

2: Trading points/markets; this is where tribes would meet a certain number of times, maybe once every 4 turns or so on, giving all the characters chance to come together. This would be a time where tribal fighting was prohibited, where wars had to stop for a certain period of time. This SHOULD be the time when talk and ideas are swapped between tribes, which is a bit more realistic than messengers passing between tribes everytime they wanted to talk to each other. Trading, bartering and so on would also happen between tribes here, giving players chance to earn some money (I'm looking into the idea of giving players the chance to own assets and land and so on, giving them materials as well as money, which would increase their tribal worth).

Phew...I think thats all for now.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Brilliant Ideas, Much better than anything I could come up with! I was being vague when I said Tribesmen, I realized we would probably change the names around.

The idea of two councils is great, and if people want to have a secret place for their tribe they can always set up a quicktopic or forum somewhere else.
great Ideas bean, :bow: You probably have a better grasp on this then me.

[/Bean\]

I think anyone should right down any ideas they have, no matter how far fetched. These can always be rethought or inspire other good ideas. The more we get down now the less problems we'll have later. It shouldnt be one person thinking up everything, as the more people the graeater the range of ideas and inspiration.

I just reread that and it sounds strange. Basically I'm agreeing with you :D

[The Celtic Viking]

IMO the "faction leader" should represent someone chosen during these meetings to hold the meetings and perhaps also as the chosen commander if we need to band up against a common threat. I don't think it should represent any actual lordship over other tribes (or even necessarily his own).

IMO Council sessions should not be held on any specific regularity so long as we're not united, but can be called by the "faction leader" (and the chiefs of each tribe can request one to him). It should be about things that concern all tribes, like banding together against a common foe, unification attempts or perhaps an attempt to get to some general agreements like "don't exterminate the populations" or whatever.


1: The tribal council; one (thread) for each tribe, where the chief and the thanes of the tribe would meet to discuss politics and so on. This would act like the BtSH (or more likely the WotB) council sessions, where the thanes discuss their ideas with the Chief, and the Chief decides what to do. This would include domestic and military ideas. Of course there is the problem of players from other tribes reading all the different tribal threads and gaining advantages. We cannot hope to stop this from happening, so we would have to be more cunning; perhaps not everything said in the council can be trusted...

Sounds more like TVS.

Anyway, two different sorts of councils seem natural enough, but I don't agree about that last part. What's the point with having a place to discuss things in, if that place can't be trusted for any meaningful discussion? Just take it away and hold the whole thing in a private area then, and lets not bother with the puppet show.

If we're going to have these, it's better to make it clear that whatever is said in there cannot be used by anyone not part of that tribe. They should preferably not read it at all, but if they do, must not take it into account when making their own decisions.

[mini]

we should steal the 'duel engine' that is being constructed in KOTF and modify it.

I think the strongest warriors were the leaders, so 'the king' must be challengeable at all times ;p

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

IMO the "faction leader" should represent someone chosen during these meetings to hold the meetings and perhaps also as the chosen commander if we need to band up against a common threat. I don't think it should represent any actual lordship over other tribes (or even necessarily his own).

IMO Council sessions should not be held on any specific regularity so long as we're not united, but can be called by the "faction leader" (and the chiefs of each tribe can request one to him). It should be about things that concern all tribes, like banding together against a common foe, unification attempts or perhaps an attempt to get to some general agreements like "don't exterminate the populations" or whatever.



Sounds more like TVS.

Anyway, two different sorts of councils seem natural enough, but I don't agree about that last part. What's the point with having a place to discuss things in, if that place can't be trusted for any meaningful discussion? Just take it away and hold the whole thing in a private area then, and lets not bother with the puppet show.

If we're going to have these, it's better to make it clear that whatever is said in there cannot be used by anyone not part of that tribe. They should preferably not read it at all, but if they do, must not take it into account when making their own decisions.

I feel like what goes in the tribes council should be up to each tribe to decide. if they want to set up a separate forum for themselves then more power to them.
(you don't happen to want to be the faction leader again do you TCV? :laugh4::laugh4:)

[The Celtic Viking]

Well, I do have that Royal aura about me. :saint:

As for private forums, sure. I have no objection to that. You shouldn't have to do that to keep the tribal councils from the other tribes' IC eyes, though.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

so what else do we need to figure out? heres soem things we have to discuss


Are we going to use a system thats the same as WotB and BtSH for PVP?
and do we all agree on a system of ranks that is similar to what Bean suggests?
what 4 starting provinces are we going to have for the tribes, and do we want to give each tribe a "bonus"
do we want to use TCV's suggestion on Faction leader and councils?
what do we want for a economic system?
do we want a duel system similar to KoTF's?

[navarro951]

i like the whole idea, but i dont think you guys are taking into account what this means as far as work and players. If your going to have actual tribes it means more players, more console use, more well everything. Im totally up for it but the work involved in making this game would be its downfall i would unfortunately bet money on it im so positive.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

You have a point, that may be the biggest problem we have. It is going to take a lot of console work to get this going, and we REALLY need to find more players if we want it to work. :no:

[Azathoth]

Well, I've "technically" been with BtSH since the very beginning, so you have my sword.

[/Bean\]

IMO the "faction leader" should represent someone chosen during these meetings to hold the meetings and perhaps also as the chosen commander if we need to band up against a common threat. I don't think it should represent any actual lordship over other tribes (or even necessarily his own).

IMO Council sessions should not be held on any specific regularity so long as we're not united, but can be called by the "faction leader" (and the chiefs of each tribe can request one to him). It should be about things that concern all tribes, like banding together against a common foe, unification attempts or perhaps an attempt to get to some general agreements like "don't exterminate the populations" or whatever.

That's kinda exactly what I didn't want the faction leader to be. Why should the chiefs of seperate tribes answer to this one guy? It ruins the point, surely. The leaders of events should always be choson on the spot considering strength and importance rather than them being the in-game faction leader.

I agree council sessions shouldn't be regular, but it does give a place where players can always talk to each other, and gives a regular time when all players should be active. So maybe introduce some regularity just to oil the machine, if you see what I mean. But once again you say all the chiefs need t request the 'faction leader' to hold a meeting. The point was each chief is their own faction leader. I don't think we should use the ingame faction leader at all. If that character also happens to be the best candidate for a chief, then good. But he shouldn't automatically be in a position of power.

And we can always gain a decent player base by recruiting in the EB forums just before we're about to start. IF we can sort out the way the game is going to work, then I think it should supply some new interest, as it should run differently from other PBMs, thus being more interesting. I envisage this game as being kinda like a PBM/hotseat combined, so it should gain interest from both forms of players.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Here is an Idea, how about have councils of all the tribes be called if Two tribe chief call for it, like each tribe can call its own councils, but to get a council with all the tribes then two Chiefs have to agree to it.

also for things like Economics I believe we may have to have each chief responsible for their own Income and upkeep (similar to WoTB rebels) then we can have one player be responsible for sorting out how much money each tribe gets (and if we have to use the console).


Really I think that the system we are working out will be similar to KoTR, but with no king. And we will have to use the Personal income system of TVS. This new game will just be smashing all these features together (Each tribe will have its own income and upkeep) If we just pick and choose from those two we have the basic rule structure. Although we will have to work out how we choose each person tribe. (do we follow the family tree or allow everyone to choose the tribe they prefer)


So do we want to have some kind of elected position to deal with all economic issues? Or should we have each tribe elect their own?
Do we want some kind of dueling system? (That is going to be a B!t<h to write, with EB’s trait system.
We need to actually make the rankings. How much power should each chief have. How influential should Thanes be?
How are we going to handle the creation of new tribes? How will we allow rebellions?
Do we allow each chief to handle their own console work or have the GM do it?


sorry if I sound stupid, but I think these are a few questions we need to get out of the way.

[navarro951]

Here is an Idea, how about have councils of all the tribes be called if Two tribe chief call for it, like each tribe can call its own councils, but to get a council with all the tribes then two Chiefs have to agree to it.

also for things like Economics I believe we may have to have each chief responsible for their own Income and upkeep (similar to WoTB rebels) then we can have one player be responsible for sorting out how much money each tribe gets (and if we have to use the console).


Really I think that the system we are working out will be similar to KoTR, but with no king. And we will have to use the Personal income system of TVS. This new game will just be smashing all these features together (Each tribe will have its own income and upkeep) If we just pick and choose from those two we have the basic rule structure. Although we will have to work out how we choose each person tribe. (do we follow the family tree or allow everyone to choose the tribe they prefer)


So do we want to have some kind of elected position to deal with all economic issues? Or should we have each tribe elect their own?
Do we want some kind of dueling system? (That is going to be a B!t<h to write, with EB’s trait system.
We need to actually make the rankings. How much power should each chief have. How influential should Thanes be?
How are we going to handle the creation of new tribes? How will we allow rebellions?
Do we allow each chief to handle their own console work or have the GM do it?


sorry if I sound stupid, but I think these are a few questions we need to get out of the way.

see this actually would be a good system. good show. again tho if were gonna put this through i will need you guys help in recruiting a larger player base.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I think Bean had a good point when he said that this is pretty new. it is a completely different Idea to most of the other games out, and I think we should not have a huge problem recruiting from the EB forums. (perhaps Choosing Rome, the MOST hated Faction in the game, led to a problem finding Players... :p )


(I am going to try and figure out the basics for a dueling system, in case we do want to use it. Dont expect much, I dont have the time to really go through all the traits and assign bonus's....)

[Azathoth]

I wouldn't be able to do console work on my own.

And what if two chiefs decide to form an alliance, or if three chiefs gang up on the remaining tribe?

Would it be decided through PMs?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

That is all up to each player and Inter tribe politics are not actually Binding, so yeah go ahead and go through PM.


It is perfectly acceptable to gang up on other tribes, but Trying to keep this alliance together is going to difficult. Most tribes are going to want to have things divided, as it means each chief will get to keep their huge amount of influence. But I can see two tribes ganging up to take on a larger tribe :yes:

[The Celtic Viking]

That's kinda exactly what I didn't want the faction leader to be. Why should the chiefs of seperate tribes answer to this one guy?

... because they chose him to have the honour of mediating the major councils?


It ruins the point, surely. The leaders of events should always be choson on the spot considering strength and importance rather than them being the in-game faction leader.

Then you elect the 'faction leader' according to strength and importance. I don't see how that 'ruins the point' (what 'point', exactly?).


I agree council sessions shouldn't be regular, but it does give a place where players can always talk to each other, and gives a regular time when all players should be active. So maybe introduce some regularity just to oil the machine, if you see what I mean.

That's where the tribal councils come in, isn't it? If it helps you understand my point, you can see the tribal councils as "regular sessions", and "inter-tribal councils" as "emergency sessions".


But once again you say all the chiefs need t request the 'faction leader' to hold a meeting. The point was each chief is their own faction leader. I don't think we should use the ingame faction leader at all. If that character also happens to be the best candidate for a chief, then good. But he shouldn't automatically be in a position of power.

I'm not using the faction leader to be a "faction leader" of any kind; if you think I do then you don't understand what I've been saying at all. He's not any leader that the chiefs are subordinate to, he's just a guy all tribes trust enough to hold the inter-tribal councils fairly. He has that power thanks to general elections, so it's not exactly 'automatically'.

[/Bean\]

Okey dokey, thanks for clearing that up. However, I don't like the idea of these large meetings concerning all the tribes during an emergency session. What I meant by all the tribes meeting was at a market gathering/trading sesh, which I'm pretty sure they had. To me, it sounds like these emergency sessions would be a very unlikely thing to happen of it involved all the tribes. I think it could happen during the game, should a faction (such as the Romans) invade Germania, publicly announcing they are planning to wipe out all German tribes, then maybe then we band together, But it shouldn't be a planned thing. Stop me if I'm barking up the wrong tree. We can always wait for the rules to be drawn up and revisit the issue.

I wouldn't worry about a player base yet, Navarro. Plenty of time to sort that out, and I'm pretty sure we can get a decent one up.

Azathoth, I believe the long post I made on 07-05-2009 19:59 answers most of your queries.

I think if we get a good, solid system of doing things, then we can set up an easy and simple way of each tribe getting their seperate income and console work. The console work won't be too much if we split it up between ourselves. This of course means that one person (aka: Navarro) won't be able to keep everything under wraps himself, thus not being the omniscient GM. However, I think this will allow the game to move quicker, smoother and heep less pressure on one person. Not that I doubt you could handle it, Navarro, but whenever you were gone for more than one night in BtSH, the whole system stopped. I think we have a core of solid, loyal players now, in Navarro, TCV, Everyone, myself and CDF, and some commendable players like Swiss and Mini. If we all work together, then we can create an efficient and fast flowing game, creating more interest and player numbers. That will also be quite different from the other PBM's, adding to the originality of our game.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Once again Bean shows his brilliance, if we split up the work (perhaps each of us could start off as the chiefs? it would make things go much faster while we get into the feel of things) we can make this work.

all we have to do is get all the rules together :sweatdrop: a task I dread.

[The Celtic Viking]

Okey dokey, thanks for clearing that up. However, I don't like the idea of these large meetings concerning all the tribes during an emergency session. What I meant by all the tribes meeting was at a market gathering/trading sesh, which I'm pretty sure they had. To me, it sounds like these emergency sessions would be a very unlikely thing to happen of it involved all the tribes.

Gah, you're misunderstanding me again! I must learn how to communicate my thoughts better. :shame:

All I meant when I said they would be like emergency sessions would be that they're 'secondary' sessions that are called when needed but not on a regular basis. Like emergency sessions in BtSH and WotB, in that sense. Anything beyond that would be taking the... whatstheword... simile? too far.

My idea of inter-tribal councils would not preclude such a market (indeed, what I think you intend should happen at that market is not covered by my suggestion of the councils at all). I very much agree with that idea.


I think it could happen during the game, should a faction (such as the Romans) invade Germania, publicly announcing they are planning to wipe out all German tribes, then maybe then we band together, But it shouldn't be a planned thing. Stop me if I'm barking up the wrong tree. We can always wait for the rules to be drawn up and revisit the issue.

You're definitely barking up the wrong tree - I'm not saying anything should be planned. (If you don't remember, I was fiercely against going against the Carthies just because that's what happened in history. I don't want anything planned like that.) If you re-read what I said here, you'll see that I said "uniting against a common foe", meaning an enemy they shared. That's not unrealistic, is it?

Even in the scenario you paint up, a case could be made that the Romans wouldn't be satisfied with just one tribe's possessions, but would continue with the others once the first tribe is down. Together they'd have a better chance than each tribe for itself, one at a time. I'm not saying it they should be forced to do it, but the choice should be there. It was one of the examples I used for what could be done in the inter-tribal councils.


I wouldn't worry about a player base yet, Navarro. Plenty of time to sort that out, and I'm pretty sure we can get a decent one up.

I think if we get a good, solid system of doing things, then we can set up an easy and simple way of each tribe getting their seperate income and console work. The console work won't be too much if we split it up between ourselves. This of course means that one person (aka: Navarro) won't be able to keep everything under wraps himself, thus not being the omniscient GM. However, I think this will allow the game to move quicker, smoother and heep less pressure on one person. Not that I doubt you could handle it, Navarro, but whenever you were gone for more than one night in BtSH, the whole system stopped. I think we have a core of solid, loyal players now, in Navarro, TCV, Everyone, myself and CDF, and some commendable players like Swiss and Mini. If we all work together, then we can create an efficient and fast flowing game, creating more interest and player numbers. That will also be quite different from the other PBM's, adding to the originality of our game.

I certainly hope you're correct here, and I'm actually semi-positive. I think it will be easier to have more players come and stay for a new game too, since it's easier to be in from the beginning than to jump in somewhere in the middle of the action, when there's so much to learn about the relations between the pre-existing players, general history and what-not.

[johnhughthom]

I take it the Germanic tribes of this period wouldn't have had a monetary system and most tribes would have become wealthy through raiding/conquering other tribes. How about a system where a tribe can only build something in their territories depending on how many battles they have fought. For example, a small battle against less than 200 rebel troops will let you build something that costs up to 800, whereas defeating a full Roman stack will let you build something costing much more. Or you could use the battlepoints (or however you wanted to describe them) to build more troops, bigger armies would require constant battles to keep the army together. This would encourage players striking deep into enemy territory, I think the Sweboz have raiding traits which makes this less of a problem than with other factions.

This would probably need the whole monetary system to be controlled by a game-master and a lot of console use to control the more abstract system in-game. I could draw up a proper set of rules if anybody thinks it could work.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

ugghhhhh, I don't know, I think a rule system like that would be a nightmare. It would be murder for the GM. I just don't think that putting that much pressure on the GM is the best Idea, we all have real lives, and if something happened everything would fall all out of wack.

as it is we wont have to do much console use, and we can have each tribe responsible for their own economics. Plus I believe that even as it is we will see tribes having to rely heavily on rading if they want to be able to maintain any kind of army, (I can tell you from experience, keeping even a stack of levy troops around with only 3 cities out of a faction is murder, and don't even get me started on buildings...) they are going to HAVE to raid if they want to get enough money for any kind of building.

[/Bean\]

@TVS: I wouldn't worry, I've misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing that all up. If i understood correctly....we agree. Yes?

@johnhughthom: The Germans may not have had a system of money like the Mediterrainian civilisations did (which is why I was toying with the idea of land and assets rather than money wealth for the Thanes) but unfortuantely the EB engine does not see the difference, and it costs gold to build and recruit no matter what civilisation you are. So we really have no choice but to use money.

Now, I hear you say, why not do as you suggest and build due to victory points, and add a certain amount of money per victory point? Well, that would be more historical, but its also an unnecessary middle man, that would do nothing but annoy the GM as he has to monitor it all, and should he be absent or miss any it would create problems. So it may not be historical, but we have to get the balance between historical accuracy and easy gameplay. Because ultimately it is the ease of the game that keeps it fun to play.

@CDF: I agree, we should choose the initial tribe chiefs from our core player base, and either assign, let the chiefs or the players choose whatever tribe they want to join. There should, however, be a certain amount of slots per tribe, so that there isn't a risk of a huge inbalance of players:tribes.

Raids

Now, I like the idea of raids, but these should not be the primary or the only way of obtaining wealth. It should cost something to conduct a raid, either money or some other resource that we use. Otherwise, come spring/summer of each year every tribe is going to be conducting large raids on the others with little or no consequences, and nothing gets achieved.

Obviously we can gain bonus' from successful raids, or lose something from unsuccessful raids. That would initiate the sense of risk when conducting these activities. We can also use them to give our younger players (tribal warriors/thanes) experience in the field, which should be valuable in some ways.


Now then...



* So do we want to have some kind of elected position to deal with all economic issues? Or should we have each tribe elect their own?


It is going to be difficult, and we need to decide as a group whether we are going to basically be like the American governmental system, where each state (roughly, I know its more complex than this, but hey) controls themselves (in other words, let each tribe, led by the chief, control their own incomes and so on), or a more autocratic style, where the GM controls everything, making it a bit fairer and evenly run, but ultimately slower, more stressful and in my opinion less fun?

We could go for a counterbalance, where each tribe runs themselves, using a certain amount of resources and console work that is controlled by the GM, and each tribe reports back (OOC) to the GM, who can then decide whether each tribe is being fair and so on. This might need more work later.




* Do we want some kind of dueling system? (That is going to be a B!t<h to write, with EB’s trait system.


I haven't really read into KotF and it's system of running things yet, so I can't comment. Maybe that can be your job to decide, CDF. Is it good? Does it work? Can we use it? Is it worth the work?




* We need to actually make the rankings. How much power should each chief have. How influential should Thanes be?

Well, I think this needs revisiting once we decide (or know) how many players are going to be in each tribe, but the way I see it we are not going to be needing many ranks, and they won't be ranks in the same way as in BtSH, WotB and the like. They were more offices, if you see what I mean.

In this, I see ranks as being exactly that: how high does the chief (and the rest of the tribe) rank you as a member of the tribe. Your power, prestige and popularity rests solely in your relationship and respect of and with the rest of the tribe and the chief.

Therefore, there will be no need for more than two main ranks (with some subdivisions, I'll get there).

1: Chief

2: Thane

The chiefs family (namely his sons, as these will be the playable characters) will probably be of high importance, or a subdivision of the chief. However, I do not have the necessary knowledge to decide whether the tribes of the time respected a chiefs son would naturally take over from him, or the next strongest warrior would take the 'throne', for want of a better word. If someone could find that out for me, with evidence or assurence from, maybe, an EB team member, I would be very grateful, and we could decide whether to class son's as thanes or royal family.

The Thanes would obviusly be the noblemen of the tribe, and thus would lead by example, bravery, and hold riches such as gold or resources. These would be the majority of the players' positions. Each holds the title of Thane, but their rank is decreed by several things:

- Wealth/assets/land titles, that sort of thing, giving them material importance
- Bravery/skill in battle, giving them the respect of the warriors
- High intellect/power/trust from the tribe
- Favourtism by the Chief or other important Thanes.

Therefore there is no high or low rank to be written down. Players must make their own ranks based on the respect of other tribe members and the Chief, and could lose it through inactivity or a false move. This should boost activity, as players who just pop on from time to time and do not put much into the game should not expect to get as much out of it as others who work their way up themselves. Thanes' influence should coincide with their gameplay effort and stance within the tribe.

Now, I do not know how much power chiefs had; whether it was completely autocratical or if (like in Makedonia) they were kept in line by the Thanes. I think a balance between the two would be the best for gameplay, but I would like to know for historical accuracy as well. Being the Chief should be the ultimate aim of the players, but they shouldn't be spending the entire game fighting with the other members of their own tribe trying to kill of everybody until they are chief. That's pointless. The Chief should make decisions, be respected and be in charge of the tribal movements etc., but he should know that, if he makes several extremely unpopular or bad moves, he may be removed. However, this should not be easy, and we may have to set up a system of bodyguards and stuff to make sure we don't have too many deaths.

Phew, that was a long one.



* How are we going to handle the creation of new tribes? How will we allow rebellions?

Hmm, a difficult one, and one we need to discuss. However, I think we should leave this for the time being, make sure we are happy with our inital tribal set ups, make their foundations solid, before thinking about how to make new ones. Fair? Otherwise we start down too many paths and never reach the end of any. The same goes with rebellions for now. We will deal with them, though.


And finally, for now:


* Do we allow each chief to handle their own console work or have the GM do it?

Ah, I've mainly already given my point on this one. Yay.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Raids

Now, I like the idea of raids, but these should not be the primary or the only way of obtaining wealth. It should cost something to conduct a raid, either money or some other resource that we use. Otherwise, come spring/summer of each year every tribe is going to be conducting large raids on the others with little or no consequences, and nothing gets achieved.

Obviously we can gain bonus' from successful raids, or lose something from unsuccessful raids. That would initiate the sense of risk when conducting these activities. We can also use them to give our younger players (tribal warriors/thanes) experience in the field, which should be valuable in some ways.



I believe that raiding will be more against AI tribes, such as a group of thanes crossing the Rhine and rampaging there, or perhaps going south to Italy. Things like that
The price will be simple, they are going to lose men, and because of that it is likely that the army will have to be retrained, which will decrease the amount of loot they get from their plunder. and of course, if they fail on a raid, then they will most likely end up dead :skull:

The only problem from that I can see is that it may stunt the growth of the factions around us, but I believe we can remedy this by having raiding restricted to a certain "season" (perhaps events) or perhaps after a city has been raided and looted it can not be looted again for 10 years, which will lead thanes to go on longer and much more dangerous raids deeper into enemy territory!

I believe that raiding will be a great way to get people to jump in to the game, you will have thanes being handed some men and told to go get some wealth for the good of their tribe, with the ever present danger that if they fail, they probably wont be going anywhere in the Tribal Hierarchy.






I haven't really read into KotF and it's system of running things yet, so I can't comment. Maybe that can be your job to decide, CDF. Is it good? Does it work? Can we use it? Is it worth the work?





ohh its excellent, and would definitely add some fun to the game, along with also being somewhat historical (I am quite sure fights were used to solve things )
but It is going to take a lot of effort to get a workable system of it. I can try and get a system together for EB, but it will be somewhat basic (not to many bonus's other than a few basic traits)


But I think that the Rarity of most EB traits will mean that dueling will boil down to the basic trait system (the Vigorous person will win most of the time) I will show you what I have later, I think it will work out well enough.




perhaps we should allow each Chief to create their own system of rankings for their tribe? it would make the game more interesting if each tribe seemed to be their own separate faction, with the Chiefs deciding if they want to have elected positions, if they want to choose all of these things them self :yes: just an idea.


I agree that killing a chief should be difficult, unless they have turned the entire tribe against them.



also Bean, what provinces should we start out with, and do we want the "bonus's" you were talking about earlier? also if we are going do 1.2 how are we going to handle RBG's?

[Azathoth]

Another question then: If we decide that there won't be a GM, will the tribal chiefs be the only
ones who have to use the console, or will all characters need to do it? Because I literally can't use the console - it just doesn't work on this computer, for any game.

I've always preferred being more of a low-importance character, like in BtSH, so that's all that really matters at this point.

[Azathoth]

And about 1.2 - we'll all need to get that light spear/spear fix, or whatever it's called, if we use it.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

If you are not a chief then you will most definitely not need to use the console. even if you are the chief you can always shove the responsibility over to someone else (such is your right! :laugh4::laugh4:)

[/Bean\]

@Azathoth: Console use should definately be restricted, otherwise we lose control on the game. If everyone is going on adding stuff via console whenever they feel like it we'll end up with super tribes.

There will, however, always be a GM, currently Navarro (who will undoubtedly stay GM unless he's called away on tour or something). What we were discussing was how the GM was going to implement himself into the game, whether like in BtSH where Navarro ran everything, or whether it is split between all of the game officials.

@CDF: Sure, players can raid outside of the other tribes, but I still think we should have raiding inside as well. That will create a nice balance. I agree there may have to be a time period between raidings. And perhaps Navarro as GM could script some surprise forces around cities to protect them every now and again to spice things up a bit, or pay some ambushes along the way the raid is travelling.

The idea of allowing each chief to choose how they run their tribe themselves is interesting, and I wonder if it would work. How much freedom would they be allowed, because its all gotta fit in together within the game rules. Although we could have a rule section on the limitations or inexpendable points of what the tribal system must include, and chiefs can work around that, creating their own system.

I am afraid that messing around with 1.2 and RBG's is not my forte; I don't know what's going on there, so I can't help. There must be some information on it though, somewhere on the forums.

I'm gonna hop onto EB in a mo, and give people a choice on territories, factions and the like. We need to see if we can find someone with good knowledge of the system to help us move some of the eastern factions and make them German. I think that would help on the economic and diplomatic side of things in-game. If we can get one version of EB working like this, we can just copy the files that are changed and give them to everyone who wants to join the game.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

The idea of allowing each chief to choose how they run their tribe themselves is interesting, and I wonder if it would work. How much freedom would they be allowed, because its all gotta fit in together within the game rules. Although we could have a rule section on the limitations or inexpendable points of what the tribal system must include, and chiefs can work around that, creating their own system.

I'm gonna hop onto EB in a mo, and give people a choice on territories, factions and the like. We need to see if we can find someone with good knowledge of the system to help us move some of the eastern factions and make them German. I think that would help on the economic and diplomatic side of things in-game. If we can get one version of EB working like this, we can just copy the files that are changed and give them to everyone who wants to join the game.

I think we could definitely do something like that, have a basic framework for how tribal structure works, and then let each of the tribes build there own kind of code around that. I think that they should be given some freedom, but not enough that it become a bother to the GM and the other tribesmen.
I think they should be allowed to create their own personal rankings and positions of power within their tribe stuff like that.


Also I don't think we should change to to much in the game, it will get to be too much of a headache...... I am not a modder at all, so we may have to find someone over in the EB forum to help us if we want to change anything.

[/Bean\]

I know, thats what I was suggesting. If we get all that hard stuff out of the way now, it will make the game run smoother. Otherwise we have to deal with splitting up our income fairly, and giving everyone their own budgets, and we all ally and go to war with the same faction, meaning we can't roleplay asking a major power to interfere in our own politics. It will make the game so much better if we are seperate.

Right, possible starting provinces could be:-

* Swebolandam (Swebotraustastamnoz [Town])
* Habokulandam (Gawjam-Habukoz [Town])
* Heruskolandam (Gawjam-Heruskoz [Town])
* Mrog Arctagone (Arctaunon [Town])
* Vindelicos (Videlicoppidos [Large Town])
* Mrogbonna (Eburonum [Large Town])
* Silengolandam (Gawjam-Silengoz [Town])
* Lugouw (Carrodunum [Town])
* Venedu Tauta (Ascaucalis [Town])
* Sembu Gentys (Gintaras-Ostan [Town])
* Rugolandam (Gawjam-Rugoz [Town])
* Kimbrolandam (Gawjam-Kimbroz [Town])
* Skandza (Gawjam-Skandzawarjoz [Town])
* Auwjogotanoz [Town])


And the factions that we can change could be:-

* Bactria
* Pahlava
* Saka Rauka
* Saba

I chose these because we are not at all likely to come into contact with them, and so they will not be missed.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

seems like it is going to be a B!t<h to create a mod for all of this......

I don't have much experience switching between factions during a game, so I am just going to keep quite.


although I like the Idea.
as for provinces do we want each tribe to start off with one?
if so perhaps,

Venedu Tauta

Mrog Arctagone

Skandza

Silengolandam

they are all regular towns, and most are far enough away form the others so that we don't have infighting until everyone has some territory under their belt.

[Azathoth]

* Lugouw
* Vindelicos
* Mrogbonna

Aren't those Celtic?

And Sembu Gentys is Baltic/Ugro-Finnic, isn't it?

What province is Aujogotanoz in, I don't think I've heard of it. Is that the island?

My personal opinion is that we have the Sweboz (Swebolandam) and their three major enemies, Habukozez (Habukolandam), heriskozez (Heruskolandam), and Hathinez (Mrog Arctagone), the other provinces being minor tribes. The only problem is the lack of choices, and the one-province starting thing. But, if you think about it, raiding bands were often only a few hundred skirmishers, and the bigger ones were battles for conquest, migration, dire emergencies, etc. So only being able to support a quarter stack of levies would be realistic.

For example - Skandza has many different scattered tribes that are pretty fractious on their own.
Bastarnozez are too far away, Silengozez are very small, the island is small and..well, an island. The Rugozez were big traders, Venedu Tauta and Kimbrolandam I'm not sure about.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

never mind Azanoth seems to know what he is talking about!


also bean, I can see one big problem about having each tribe be a different faction. during inter tribal fighting we are going to be fighting against the AI. And frankly, we could all tool the AI in our sleep. we are going to see whoever takes their turn first have a huge advantage, and unlike a hotseat we cant really crank up the difficulty for battles without unbalancing the whole game......

especially in a game like this, I can see people becoming very competitive and being extremely pissed when they see their Grand Army destroyed by a bunch of levy spear men being controlled by a player....

[/Bean\]

@Azathoth: Yes, some are not Germanic. I just wanted to widen the arena as much as possible, so that there is a chance of some space between players. But if you think it should be those major tribes and that that will not affect gameplay then so be it.

@CDF: I see what you mean; that we can't fight traditionally (tabletop, multiplayer etc) and get the same results on the battle map. I guess theres no real way around that. Shame.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I think we may have to at least increase the battle difficulty to hard if we want to go down that road. It will be a pain and probably ruin some game play, but when it comes to Player VS. Player we wont have hugely uneven battles that will just succeeded at pissing everyone off

[The Celtic Viking]

@TVS: I wouldn't worry, I've misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing that all up. If i understood correctly....we agree. Yes?

Well, I don't agree with everything you've proposed, but out of what we've talked about this far, yes, we agree.


also Bean, what provinces should we start out with, and do we want the "bonus's" you were talking about earlier? also if we are going do 1.2 how are we going to handle RBG's?

I would prefer no such bonuses. As for 1.1 vs 1.2, I'm not sure. I need to test 1.2 later to see if it's good for me, but my current (and safe) answer is that 1.1 works best for me.


And about 1.2 - we'll all need to get that light spear/spear fix, or whatever it's called, if we use it.

Which do you mean, and what does it do? There are a few changes I can see, but none that hasn't got drawbacks themselves.


And perhaps Navarro as GM could script some surprise forces around cities to protect them every now and again to spice things up a bit, or pay some ambushes along the way the raid is travelling.

I don't like this idea at all. Soldiers springing up from nowhere is not exactly realistic, and I think it would detract from the fun more than anything else. I mean, lets say an opposing tribe leave an area ill-defended and you deside to seize the opportunity and raid it, but then the GM desides to skydrop soldiers from hell to ambush and defeat your forces... how fun would that be? Or, if you're attacking a well defended area and he skydrops soldiers from the Underworld who weakens your forces so much that you have no hope of winning that offensive...

No, this I could do without.


I'm gonna hop onto EB in a mo, and give people a choice on territories, factions and the like. We need to see if we can find someone with good knowledge of the system to help us move some of the eastern factions and make them German. I think that would help on the economic and diplomatic side of things in-game. If we can get one version of EB working like this, we can just copy the files that are changed and give them to everyone who wants to join the game.

Wait, wait, what? Different... factions? Did I miss something?

How would that even work?


* Swebolandam (Swebotraustastamnoz [Town])
* Habokulandam (Gawjam-Habukoz [Town])
* Heruskolandam (Gawjam-Heruskoz [Town])
* Mrog Arctagone (Arctaunon [Town])
* Vindelicos (Videlicoppidos [Large Town])
* Mrogbonna (Eburonum [Large Town])
* Silengolandam (Gawjam-Silengoz [Town])
* Lugouw (Carrodunum [Town])
* Venedu Tauta (Ascaucalis [Town])
* Sembu Gentys (Gintaras-Ostan [Town])
* Rugolandam (Gawjam-Rugoz [Town])
* Kimbrolandam (Gawjam-Kimbroz [Town])
* Skandza (Gawjam-Skandzawarjoz [Town])
* Auwjogotanoz [Town])

I would immediately say no non-Germanic settlements to start with. We're still playing Germanic tribes, right?


I don't have much experience switching between factions during a game, so I am just going to keep quite.

I have very little experience... I tried it once with EB when the mod was made (with the mod-maker, I might add). Problems arose quickly and the whole thing ended after just two turns.

So based on that experience, I'm not overly confident about that idea. Of course, it doesn't mean it will go the same way this time; I'm just sayin'.


I think we may have to at least increase the battle difficulty to hard if we want to go down that road. It will be a pain and probably ruin some game play, but when it comes to Player VS. Player we wont have hugely uneven battles that will just succeeded at pissing everyone off

No no no, that will make the battles against the AI factions all screwed up as well. It's better to just have an MP battle or tabletop than increasing the difficulty level like that.

My opinion is that we should keep things simple and just play as the Sweboz. Putting new factions there would mean that

a) We would have to rename that faction, and fix its diplomacy settings right, as well as change their culture etc.
b) We would have to fix their AOR so that they can get the right units in the right places
c) We would have to fix so they could build all the right buildings
d) We would have to make them get the right reforms
e) We would have to make sure they could get the right governmental levels in at least the area they could conceivably expand to
etc, etc.

It's just so much we would have to do, and I think it's a little overambitious for a PBM.

[Azathoth]

Why is everyone finding it difficult to spell my name? :clown:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114926

That's the thread. They didn't make a fix, but it appears the EB team made some sort of mistake with spear unit stats in 1.2 that is outlined there, and it could really change gameplay relative to 1.1.

[/Bean\]

@TCV: If no bonus', how do we decide who gets the initial spy and diplomat, without upsetting the other tribes who get nothing.

Soldiers spring up from nowhere is not realistic, I grant that. I was trying to make up for the fact that the AI is pathetic, the Eletheroi rarely train new troops, and only do so in a few provinces.

lets say an opposing tribe leave an area ill-defended and you deside to seize the opportunity and raid it, but then the GM desides to skydrop soldiers from hell to ambush and defeat your forces Surely that's what an ambush would be; where they seem to leave the area ill defended and you attack only to find there is an ambush...

And I think we agreed that different factions wouldn't work. It was only an idea, after all. It would have made the military, diplomatic and economic side of the game easier, but it, like you said, is too hard to set up atm.

As I already said, I included some non-Germanic settlements in order to produce some space between players' tribes. That would make it more interesting, and give players some space to breathe at the beginning.

My ideas are not meant to be set in stone. What I wanted was to create a new type of PBM that would make it stand out from the others. Otherwise its gonna be 'just another PBM', and whats going to stop it failing like BtSH and TVS did?

[The Celtic Viking]

If no bonus', how do we decide who gets the initial spy and diplomat, without upsetting the other tribes who get nothing.

Who says they must get nothing? We could raise new diplomats and spies so that each tribe we have gets one at no one's expense before we start. It's not really that hard to do.


Surely that's what an ambush would be; where they seem to leave the area ill defended and you attack only to find there is an ambush...

Sure, but that's not what would be happening. It wouldn't "seem" like they left the area ill defended - that's what they had done. We're not talking about the invaders simply not noticing them, we're talking about 'them' literally not existing two seconds before the ambush, and just materializing out of nothing. I don't want to start debating physics with you, but in reality that's not possible. ~;p


As I already said, I included some non-Germanic settlements in order to produce some space between players' tribes. That would make it more interesting, and give players some space to breathe at the beginning.

I am aware why you did this, but I still must protest. We're supposed to be Germanic tribes, so it would be kind of wrong to start in a non-Germanic settlement.


Why is everyone finding it difficult to spell my name?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114926

That's the thread. They didn't make a fix, but it appears the EB team made some sort of mistake with spear unit stats in 1.2 that is outlined there, and it could really change gameplay relative to 1.1.

Sorry, that 'r' was unintentional. :sweatdrop:

But anyway, I've been aware of this myself for some time now, and it's not limited to 1.2 - it's the same in 1.1.

However, whatever fix you try, you're left with some drawbacks. If you just remove the -4 attack bonus, then the spearmen will be weaker than they're supposed to be, since they get a -4 defence against infantry that they shouldn't have. If you then try to balance that by giving the light_spear carriers +4 defence, then you'll have the ones with a light_spear and another melee weapon (like the Arjos) getting that bonus when they're not using their spear as well, making them stronger than they should be.

Remove the light_spear and the pushing effect it gives (as well as the +8 defence vs cavalry) is lost.

So it's a choice between different evils, AFAIK, and the +4 attack may make them kill easier, the -4 defence also lets them die easier. I don't know if it evens out in the end that way, but it's the easiest way to do it. They'll do a lot better against cavalry, but then again, cavalry should probably stay away from the pointy sticks in the first place.

One could perhaps do so that the soldiers with two melee weapons retains the +4 attack bonus, while the rest get their +4 attack switched for +4 defensive skill.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I think that perhaps it would be best if we decided by a vote if we want to try and mod the Germanic tribes to be more than one faction. That is a huge issue we need to get out of the way.

(Bean, it will still be different enough, and I still believe that we can get some players. The very fact we are playing as barbarians will draw in a different crowd. )

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Sooooo...... Are we going to try and get this together people?

[/Bean\]

Dont we kinda have to wait for Navarro?

[mini]

i'm out

Me no like sweboz. I'm concentrating on the KOTF thingy

[/Bean\]

Can we do something now?

Ha, I bet I excited everyone by posting, making them think something was happening because there was a new post...yeah... ... ... I'm so lonely....

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I know what you mean. I would love to get this started and such, but I am leaving to go camping on Sunday for a week.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

When I am back from camping I will get around to actually writing rules and such for this game. I for one am not going to let it die. Navarro do you want me to help out GMing? Here is what I have for the dueling mechanics by the way. Mostly copy/pasted from The KotF one. I think it should be something you should all go over, I spent very little time on it (the trait system in EB is pretty fickle, and I think that most players will not see many trait bonuses beyond being Vigorous/smart) OHHH GOD DAMNIT!!!! The word document that I did for the dueling mechanic looks lost....... :sweatdrop::sweatdrop: I will have to do it over again after I get back...... If anyone has any ideas while I am gone please go ahead. keep this Idea alive.

[/Bean\]

I don't think Navarro's letting it die...I just don't think he's been on for a while.

And how the hell did you get to be an assistant mod...sir?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: I help over at WotB, although I have not had to do much so far :sweatdrop:. I feel kind of like I cheated..... :laugh4:

[/Bean\]

Yeah, you must feel soooooo bad. :clown:

[TinCow]

So, is this game dead?

[/Bean\]

Agh, don't close the forum, TC! We'll have nowhere to group together to organise a new one! Please!!

[TinCow]

Is there a new one being planned?

[/Bean\]

Its even on this page. I'll do it for you since you're too laz....anyway..

Yeah, new Sweboz one being planned, where its more interactive, and we have something like four tribes, so it kinda starts in a civil war, and we see if one of the tribes is strong enough to unite them all. That's putting it briefly anyway.

Trouble is, I seem to be the only one around...

[johnhughthom]

WoTB is about to finish as well, perhaps getting the two groups together for one super EB PBM would be more sensible than starting two at the same time.

[/Bean\]

Good plan...but can we do our idea? :beam:

[navarro951]

WoTB is about to finish as well, perhaps getting the two groups together for one super EB PBM would be more sensible than starting two at the same time.

argh finally got my new rig and can actually play a game NOT from the 90s lol. anyway i agree we should get the two groups back together.

[/Bean\]

Rejoice! The Master is here!

Here come the drums here come the drums...

Baby, baby, baby!

You are my voodoo child, my voodoo child.

Don't say maybe, maybe...

[TinCow]

Please do pursue this proactively. This game hasn't moved in 3 months, despite multiple reports that it would eventually restart. These subforums are provided for organizational purposes only, they are not private chatrooms. Without progress being made on restarting this game or starting a new one, there is no need for the subforum.

[/Bean\]

We have been organising...its all up there if you want proof.

[navarro951]

Ya i will have to begin a new recruiting campaign up it looks like. Since i cant entice people with Roma, perhaps sweboz will get more attention.

[/Bean\]

We were waiting for you to reappear so that we could sort out how the game was going to run. But now CDF's buggered off on some camping trip (:2thumbsup:)...I guess that basically means he's walked out on us and given up any responsibility.

jokes

But seriously, we need to actually start discussing and writing down all the aspects of how the games going to run and how it's going to be different. Shall we start a new thread and move all the stuff we've done in this one over to there? It would be far easier to see where we are then, and what else we still need to do.

[navarro951]

mmm well i could just start deleting topics and making new ones here.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

We were waiting for you to reappear so that we could sort out how the game was going to run. But now CDF's buggered off on some camping trip (:2thumbsup:)...I guess that basically means he's walked out on us and given up any responsibility.

jokes

But seriously, we need to actually start discussing and writing down all the aspects of how the games going to run and how it's going to be different. Shall we start a new thread and move all the stuff we've done in this one over to there? It would be far easier to see where we are then, and what else we still need to do.

HEY! I will have you know I have been hard at work on the rules while I was away.......
Ok, that is a total lie......


but I am back, and ready to start work on this once again!

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

So should I write up the rules for this? :inquisitive: Just wondering if I am going to put it all together or if someone else is doing it.

(plus we should probably keep moving so we don't lose the Sub forum)

[TinCow]

It has been 3.5 months since this game halted, nearly a full month since any constructive work has been done, and two weeks since I posted a warning that progress needed to be sped up. At the moment, this subforum is just taking up space. Organization for a new game can be done in a single thread in the main Throne Room, it does not require an entire subforum.

If there is no significant progress towards a new game by the end of this week, I am going to archive all of these threads and have the subforum removed. Apologies if this is irksome to some of you, but subforums are only given out when they are needed. As it currently stands, I see no need for BtSH to have a subforum anymore.

[Azathoth]

Looks like this is it, son(s).

[/Bean\]

What the hell happened to everybody? I thought we were going to revive this? Oh well...

[Azathoth]

One day, my friend, perhaps not in our lifetimes, or even our sons' lifetimes, but one day...

Hopefully by the 1-year anniversary of BtSH?