New hotseat game - Glorious Achievements

[phonicsmonkey]

Fellow hotseaters,

With the sad demise of both the Wrath of the Khan and Lords of the East games there is a vacant spot for a new hotseat.

So I was thinking...what if, instead of the usual victory conditions of 'conquer x territories, sack this, kill that' we instead had 'Complete 5 glorious achievements from the following list':

- Miser: Amass a treasury of 500k
- Economist: Create the largest economy (measured in gross turnly income terms)
- Pious: Build a highest level religious building
- Infrastructure: Build the highest level of roads in all of your starting territories
- Admiral: Create the largest navy in the world
- Agent: Gather spy information on 25 foreign cities
- Diplomat: Gain diplomatic alliances with all of your neighbours
- General: Amass the largest standing army in the world
- Turtle: Complete the game with your original borders
- Regicide: Assassinate the leaders of three foreign factions
- Cardinal: Cardinals from your faction represent the largest part of the Papal Congress
- Zealot: Win a war against a faction of another religion

etc etc. the idea being that there is more than one way to win the game and that there would not necessarily be an incentive for wars just to gain territory. I think this would promote RP and also innovation in strategy and diplomatic tactics.

I was thinking we could set a time limit of (say) 20 turns and that we would use vanilla M2TW patched up to the 1.5 standard, so we can make it an easy game to join and play for everyone.

Would anyone be interested in a game like this? If I see enough interest I'll develop the rule set further and add more achievements...

[Visor]

Sounds cool, I'm in if it is 1.5.

Some of the achievments sound unbalanced, the larger factions should be able to do some of these easier than the smaller faction. (Economist, General, Admiral)

[barcamartin]

I'm in, of course! :)

The victory goals will always be unbalanced, even if they're the standard Conquest-rules. Smaller factions have a tougher time than the larger ones, in single player aswell as in multiplayer. It's the way the world is today, the world was then and the way the game was made. So I don't think we can avoid some factions having an edge over others. However, with all those different Achievements, I dare say smaller factions have improved chances compared to normal hotseats.

[phonicsmonkey]

Sounds cool, I'm in if it is 1.5.

Some of the achievments sound unbalanced, the larger factions should be able to do some of these easier than the smaller faction. (Economist, General, Admiral)

1.5 it is then - I had forgotten where we had gotten up to in patches, it's been so long since I played Vanilla.

You're right, there will be some Achievements which it is easier to get as a larger faction. However, it is not beyond the power of smaller nations acting individually or in concert to deliberately impede the ability of a large faction to grow its revenue, or army, or navy.

I think though that the key will be to have a sufficient range of Achievements such that there are enough that are achievable by different kinds of factions.

I'm planning to significantly expand that initial list and I'm open to suggestions from anyone.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Hi,

I have been inactive in the org for quite a while, but I have participated in plenty of BC hotseats in the center - Barcamartin knows me well from them and will hopefully guarantee that I am a serious player, who will post turns on time.

I do not have the time for long turns with tons of spies and plenty of battles, but if this is an auto-resolve campaign, by all means, I would love to join.

Thank you!

[SilverShield]

well its cool to see you hosting a new match Phonics. there is a beginning to every ending… right!?! i definitely like to start all new and fresh so do count me in. though i gotta admit i d rather see a new epic broken crescent campaign to be launched. however i ll go with what the majority decides on.

as for the rules im actually fine with the strongest faction winning but maybe thats because i havent been part of too many campaigns yet. so i do understand the will to spice things up a bit.
however the only victory condition that would make sense to me besides from being the only faction the majority accepts as a winner due to its military power is to be the strongest economy. anything else wouldnt make much sense im afraid.

yet in order to spice things up i think it would be interesting if EVERYONE starts with a small faction leaving all the big ones to the computer. i think that would be quit interesting. it would somehow even the odds and really leave anyone to decide on which way he d like to precede – militarily or economically.

i dont know about the small factions in the original medieval but im sure there is denmark, scotland, portugal… i already can imagine the big Portuguese Empire of Iberia and Greater France neighbouring the Danish Empire of the North spreading from the British Isles to Novgorod or the Sicilian Empire of the Mediterranean uniting Italia and Northern Africa… just some thoughts.

[phonicsmonkey]

however the only victory condition that would make sense to me besides from being the only faction the majority accepts as a winner due to its military power is to be the strongest economy. anything else wouldnt make much sense im afraid.

I see your point, that in a RP sense it would be weird for factions to accept one country as dominant if it were militarily less powerful - but I'm not necessarily saying that they would, just that in an OOC sense that faction would win this game. In RP terms it's likely that the biggest and most traditionally powerful faction will still 'rule the roost'

what I'm trying to do here is to provide more reasons to play for factions that are smaller and less militarily viable, and to provide different ways to compete for players who want to try something different.

For example it could be possible under this ruleset to win the game by turtling in the starting borders and concentrating on producing agents - of course you would need to be able to stay out of trouble so that you could build your economy uninterrupted..which would require diplomatic skill or a reasonable standing army. So there are tradeoffs to be made and your economy and military strength will still come into play.

However, if others feel the same way as you we could potentially select some specific achievements as necessary for winning the game - so that you couldn't claim victory unless you got the 'Economist' or 'General' Achievement. I'd rather leave it more open though..


yet in order to spice things up i think it would be interesting if EVERYONE starts with a small faction leaving all the big ones to the computer. i think that would be quit interesting. it would somehow even the odds and really leave anyone to decide on which way he d like to precede – militarily or economically.

I like that idea - let's see how many people we get and whether it's viable..

Last night I thought of some more Achievements to add to the list:

- Armourer: equip one full stack with the highest quality armour
- Chivalrous: Get your leader to max Chivalry
- Dreadful: Get your leader to max Dread
- Veteran: Get one BG unit to max experience
- Gordon Gecko: Perform 10 sucessful merchant takeovers
- Drillmaster: Recruit the highest quality infantry for your faction
- Master of Horse: Recruit the highest quality cavalry for your faction
- Trader: Build the highest level market building
- Logistics: Build the highest level port
- Guildmaster: Attract and build one of each kind of guild building
- Populist: Have the highest population in the game

Anyone else want to suggest any?

[SilverShield]

yea i do see ur point i just think that too many too detailed rules might be a bit too confusing and kill some of the fun. the good old last man standing/ last best economic man standing still does the trick for me so my vote is on that but im open for what the majority will decide on. i d really like to see everyone start with a small faction however that really would be intersting. so yea im just repeating my first statement but thats pretty much where i stand. always open for some input though so whoever got a though on that just bring it

[TriforceV]

Heya,
The Glorious Achievements are a cute idea, not very practical though and i'll tell you why.
As an experienced campaigner (30+ campaigns), hosted many myself.. one thing has always held true in almost every campaign I've played..
The campaigns I've played have very rarely if not ever come to definite conclusion of last man standing. Instead, there is usually a consensus of remaining players who read the writing on the wall and quit prematurely leading to the overwhelmingly dominant faction and player crowned as victor.

This checklist for victory conditions once a sole superpower has emerged will only draw out what many of the players already know. In addition the idea of economy over military is arbitrary. For example, as the military of a kingdom increases their economy will decrease and visa versa. So if a strong economy faction goes to war with the great military faction, that economical empire will need to build troops and dilute its economy to stave off the enemy.. etc.

My belief is that campaigns are just like life, its not the end goal of winning that's important, its more the campaign in its entirety that gives it life.

Also remember that some kingdoms are more stronger than others. For example since this will be Vanilla, a player who plays Scotland will have a harder time to dominate the world than someone who starts off as the Byzantine Empire.
These unequal starting conditions are unavoidable, and instead the measure of success should be their own personal goals that does not necessarily reflect the overall status.
Using the same example, the Scotland faction player might have his own personal victory condition of successfully subduing England and controlling the British Isles, where as the other player of the Byzantium empire might find his success in conquering all of the Turks, Hungary, and maintain his dominance as the financial and military superpower his kingdom started with. Both is equally difficult challenge even if its not reflected in the game stats.

Also few things to consider:

Spies - don't forget that there should be a limitation in spies opening gates

Siege Warfare - Same with spies, there should be a limitation

Crusade/Jihad - there are a lot of bugs that can be abused and should also have limitations.

Pillaging - be weary of scorched earth policy, often this leads to a campaign of low level militia fights and scattered barren landscape of ruined cities. There should be limitations on destroying cities when its inevitable your going to lose them.

Auto-resolve vs Battle-mode - Often Battle-mode can be easily abused, I've seen 1 or 2 generals take out full stacked armies in clever battle-mode tactics of abusing weak AI opponents. The resulting strategically end result is an attack first and win policy; this includes the use of spies and always building forts for advancing armies. For this reason I strongly suggest Auto-resolve, I know its not as fun as battle-mode, but alternatively the game is extremely unbalanced in favor of the attacker.

Merchant Forts - There is a bug to abuse Merchants by building a fort on a resource and storing countless merchant agents in that fort, this has been addressed in the kingdoms expansion, but not Vanilla. If you want to implement merchant forts just be sure you let everyone know first.

This is just a few things i've learned in my campaigning experience, take it or leave it I'm sure some of it you already are aware of, and as a host you can mold your game into any way you see fit.
Either way, I'm itching for my next TW fix, so I guess I'm in!

[phonicsmonkey]

The Glorious Achievements are a cute idea, not very practical though and i'll tell you why.
As an experienced campaigner (30+ campaigns), hosted many myself.. one thing has always held true in almost every campaign I've played..
The campaigns I've played have very rarely if not ever come to definite conclusion of last man standing. Instead, there is usually a consensus of remaining players who read the writing on the wall and quit prematurely leading to the overwhelmingly dominant faction and player crowned as victor.

Yes that's been my experience too and I'm something I'm trying to avoid in this game - that's why I'm proposing a turn limit on the game - enough time for everyone to try to check off some of the Achievements but not enough time for one faction to entirely dominate (at least not as easily).

Do you think 20 turns is long enough? I have noticed that most games (at least around here) go to about 35 turns and someone is usually dominant by then. Hence 20 would cut that short and keep things a bit more equal.

However some of the Achievements might not be ...erm...achievable in 20 turns, I haven't checked them thoroughly. I'd appreciate any feedback on that anyone can offer. It's been a long time since I played a campaign in Vanilla.

What I'm proposing is a different kind of game - if everybody approaches it with an open mind and thinks creatively about how to reach 5 Achievements (is 5 the right number?) and win the game I think we'll find it's a different experience to the usual campaign, at least if I have set it up correctly.


In addition the idea of economy over military is arbitrary. For example, as the military of a kingdom increases their economy will decrease and visa versa. So if a strong economy faction goes to war with the great military faction, that economical empire will need to build troops and dilute its economy to stave off the enemy.. etc.

In the case of the Economist Achievement I had proposed to use gross income as the measure - so even a faction making a loss could win on this scale if their gross income were higher.

For example, at the end of the game Player A makes 40k income and is spending 42k per turn on upkeep, for a total net income of -2k. player B makes 30k per turn income and only spends 25k. Player A is the Economist because he has grown his economy further than Player B. (Player B has more chance of making the Miser achievement, if he has saved enough cash in his treasury.)


My belief is that campaigns are just like life, its not the end goal of winning that's important, its more the campaign in its entirety that gives it life.

I completely agree - but the way players approach the game is framed by the victory conditions. There are any number of crazy wars started in these games that are entirely driven by a desire to reach the maximum number of territories, because that's the only way to be recognised as the victor. I'm trying to create a framework in which someone could have no wars at all and still win the game, if that's the way they want to play it.


Also remember that some kingdoms are more stronger than others. For example since this will be Vanilla, a player who plays Scotland will have a harder time to dominate the world than someone who starts off as the Byzantine Empire.
These unequal starting conditions are unavoidable, and instead the measure of success should be their own personal goals that does not necessarily reflect the overall status.

Or a more varied set of goals that allow different kinds of factions to strive for victory in different ways that reflect their individual strengths.

Thanks for your input on rules - I agree with much of what you say there.

My feeling is that this will be a campaign where spies are not allowed to open the gates, where battles are fought and not auto-resolved (otherwise we lose a whole set of achievements relating to the battlefield, like Chivalrous and Dreadful), where siege engines are limited in which kinds of structures they can open up, where crusades and jihads are not used, and where exploits are banned.

However, as always, I'll go with the majority.

The battle-map inadequacy of the AI also favours the defender in some circumstances - for example an attacker will rarely leave an army in siege if just one or two units can wipe out his whole stack.

Glad you're in and don't stop providing feedback, it's all welcome!

[barcamartin]

Firstly, I can definitely guarantee that Kahvan is a reliable and good hotseat player, as well as a pretty nice dude. :)

I don't want to write walls of text like you guys, but I think we should give these Glorious Achievements a shot anyway. It might just work, and even if it isn't completely fair, it will probably be very enjoyable, and a change of pace from other hotseats. However, personal goals for each faction will be too complicated, and force factions to play in certain ways. I think the original idea is pretty neat. I also agree on the no-spy rule, siege engine limitation and obvious exploit-banning. Not sure where I stand on the battle-options. Don't really mind, although it's always fun fighting the battles. Auto-resolve heavily disfavours cavalry (especially horse archers), so it isn't a very fair option either.

Only allowing small factions will spread players out too much, and the game won't involve much human interaction. If we count all nations except England, France, HRE, Castile, Venice, Byzzies, Turks and Fatamids as small factions, there won't be many player-to-player borders. It could be doable obviously, but it would involve alot of human vs AI, at least the first ten turns or so.

[phonicsmonkey]

I don't want to write walls of text like you guys.

Ooops, I wrote too much didn't I?

[SilverShield]

dont know whether someone else did contact u via pm Phonics and signal his interest so how many are we already?

[phonicsmonkey]

We are seven so far - only quirl has contacted me via pm and not in this thread

[SilverShield]

alright. just curious. we havent made up our mind yet on how many people should be around at all

[phonicsmonkey]

I'd like a few more

Plus I'd like to do some more work on the ruleset (with input from you guys) - I'm really busy this week and next in RL, so I don't expect this game to start until the week of 16th August at the earliest..hope that's ok with everyone?

[barcamartin]

Better take our (your..) time to make a proper and good start, then rush into something with too few participants and a bad ruleset. No rush, we've got time. :)

[SilverShield]

u ve been part of campaigns at the total war center too and probably know the guys there better than me. so maybe u ll find someone else interested over there

[phonicsmonkey]

8 now - Zim is interested

[_Tristan_]

I'm in as well if you'll want me...

But I'll be AFK from the 16th until the start of September with some limited Internet access (Iphone..)...

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Ok, this sounds like a pretty interresting experiment, count me in ;)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Within 20 turns..... hmmmmmm


- Miser: Amass a treasury of 500k

I would change this to "Richest faction" as I am not sure you can amass that much money with a small faction in 20 turns, other than by diplomatic means.


- Economist: Create the largest economy (measured in gross turnly income terms)

Okay, doable.


- Pious: Build a highest level religious building

Unlikely to happen in 20 turns unless you start with a faction that can do this, which are very few and far between. Should be "Build the most elaborate religious building" and then tie for first place if others achieve it, and like I said, some factions will have an advantage here. Which is not to say that breaks the game, just keep it in mind.


- Infrastructure: Build the highest level of roads in all of your starting territories

This one won't happen in 20 turns.


- Admiral: Create the largest navy in the world

Feasible. I like it.


- Agent: Gather spy information on 25 foreign cities

Difficult to verify, easy to achieve. Recommend screenshots.


- Diplomat: Gain diplomatic alliances with all of your neighbours

This one might be too easy. Recommend gain alliances with 10 nations, not just neighbors.


- General: Amass the largest standing army in the world

Yes, I like it.


- Turtle: Complete the game with your original borders

Yes, I like it.


- Regicide: Assassinate the leaders of three foreign factions

Unlikely to happen in 20 turns. Lack of time to train, and build such buildings.


- Cardinal: Cardinals from your faction represent the largest part of the Papal Congress

Yes, I like it.


- Zealot: Win a war against a faction of another religion

Does this require complete conquest, or perhaps 50%+ conquest? What's the metric?


- Armourer: equip one full stack with the highest quality armour

Time limit makes this one unachievable.


- Chivalrous: Get your leader to max Chivalry

Good.


- Dreadful: Get your leader to max Dread

Good.


- Veteran: Get one BG unit to max experience

Good.


- Gordon Gecko: Perform 10 sucessful merchant takeovers

Unlikely to happen in the time frame.


- Drillmaster: Recruit the highest quality infantry for your faction

Possible, but only from certain factions who already have starting advantages. Unlikely to happen in the time frame.


- Master of Horse: Recruit the highest quality cavalry for your faction

Possible, but only from certain factions who already have starting advantages. Unlikely to happen in the time frame.


- Trader: Build the highest level market building

Like the religious building, I'd suggest that it simply is whichever is the most advanced among the player factions, not the highest tier.


- Logistics: Build the highest level port

Like the religious building, I'd suggest that it simply is whichever is the most advanced among the player factions, not the highest tier.


- Guildmaster: Attract and build one of each kind of guild building

Won't happen within the time frame.


- Populist: Have the highest population in the game

Nice, I like it.








My suggested list:


Richest Faction
Most income per turn Faction
Most Populous Faction
Largest Standing Army
Largest Navy
Most advanced Infantry recruitment building
Most advanced Cavalry recruitment building
Most advanced Artillery recruitment building
Most advanced Archery recruitment building
Most advanced religious building
Most advanced Port
Most advanced Trade building
Most advanced Administrative (town hall) building
Most advanced Spy/Assassin building
Most advanced Armory building
Most total number of guild buildings
Greatest Population in one city
Greatest Income from one city
Greatest Public Order from one city
Infrastructure: Most total number of advanced buildings (every additional tier is 1 point, every building is 1 point, total for faction)
Most spies of any faction
Most assassins of any faction
Most merchants of any faction
Most diplomats of any faction
Most generals of any faction
Most religious agents of any faction
Highest Dread General
Highest Chivalry General
Highest Command General
Highest Influence General
Highest Loyalty General
Most Alliances
Original Borders
Most Battles Won
Most Cities Captured
Most Generals slain
Most factions defeated
Most Cardinals/ Piety 5 Imams/Orthodox priests
Most wars won against faction of another religion
Highest experience general unit
Highest experience non general unit
Most merchant takeovers
Most successful assassinations of non-AI characters (not including captains)



Champion standing:


Most total number of achievements completed by a single faction

[phonicsmonkey]

thanks ATPG - that's really helpful. I'm back now from my business trip and I'll find some time this weekend to check all this out and finalise the rule set. Then we can start, as we have 11 players now which I think is enough (although more are welcome!)

[phonicsmonkey]

hey so I'm inclined to go with ATPG's list of achievements, a 20 turn limit and the winner is the guy who has the most achievements by the time limit. Evidence for achievements needs to be provided to the GM in the form of a screenshot.

With regard to the version number - my understanding is that patch 1.5 is for Kingdoms only - as this is vanilla we'll effectively be playing 1.3 (that is the version number that shows up when I launch M2TW vanilla and go to the options screen. When I launch a Kingdoms campaign it says 1.5)

Ok?

So, with that let's get picking our factions from the following list. I have exercised my GM discretion to take Milan.

1: England - barcamartin
2. France - Tristan de Castelreng
3. HRE - TriforceV
4. Spain - Thanatos Eclipse
5. Venice
6. Sicily - Zim
7. Milan - phonicsmonkey
8. Scotland - Visorslash
9. Byzantine Empire
10. Russia
11. Moors
12. Turks
13. Egypt - Quirl al Mustafa Mubarak
14. Denmark - Kavhan Isbul
15. Portugal
16. Poland
17. Hungary - SilverShield

[barcamartin]

To safely and securely avoid you in this hotseat, phonics, I pick England. ;D

Solid points ATPG, I like your list of achievements alot. Let's get this party started!

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Sign me up as Spain :)

[Kavhan Isbul]

I'd like to take Denmark.

[SilverShield]

gettin started ::: though i still got mixed feelings about this kind of game and the whole achievements thing. but whatever its ur baby man and just as u dont tell a good girl newly mum that her baby is kinda ugly i wont complain any further. maybe it will turn into a big boobed cheerleader. lets see. anyways so are we all going for small and medium factions only? i d prefer that. it would be pretty odd if someone chose egypt or rome. i mean egypt always turns into the largest power and as for rome constantinople is that big it might achieve all the goals pretty soon. even venice is pretty big already but not that big as constantinople obiously so should be fine. i mean im just saying mabye rome and egypt might somehow spoil it. maybe save those spots for people who might show up and are completly new to the whole campaign thing. though im sure none of the guys here would get fun out of an easy achieved egypt win anyway. whatever anyone obviously is free to choose whatever faction he wants to so well i ll give hungary a try

though is it possible to play this version of medieval when there are other games installed like the stainless steel match we got running? i dont know. not sure wether the medieval version u proposed and the stainless steel game work together?

[phonicsmonkey]

though is it possible to play this version of medieval when there are other games installed like the stainless steel match we got running? i dont know. not sure wether the medieval version u proposed and the stainless steel game work together?

you should already have medieval fully patched if you are playing stainless steel - so no problem. you just launch the vanilla M2TW game to play this hotseat.

[Visor]

Scotland for me.

[Quirl]

Egypt please. :)

[_Tristan_]

France for me if it is possible

Keep in mind I won't have Internet access from the 23rd till the end of the month...

[SilverShield]

Egypt please. :)

serious? u are up for the beginner spot? ... man those treacherous mameluks...

[Quirl]

serious? u are up for the beginner spot? ... man those treacherous mameluks...

http://www.crisonu.com/tv2/lol_wut.jpg

[SilverShield]

most surreal pic i have seen in a while. thats Dali 2.0! actually was just wondering u chose egypt. guess u wanna pwn us all

[Zim]

Sicily if they're still available.

[Quirl]

most surreal pic i have seen in a while. thats Dali 2.0! actually was just wondering u chose egypt. guess u wanna pwn us all

I always played as Egypt in the vanilla game... though it's been awhile since I played the vanilla game. :P

[phonicsmonkey]

... though it's been awhile since I played the vanilla game. :P

You're not the only one! I'm hoping the nostalgia and the patching to 1.03 make it a good experience overall..the last campaign I remember playing in vanilla was my Moors campaign (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?87178-Moor-of-the-Shadows&highlight=Moor)in which I was only allowed to gain land through diplomacy or from conquering rebel-held settlements. That was in 2007!

[Quirl]

You're not the only one! I'm hoping the nostalgia and the patching to 1.03 make it a good experience overall..the last campaign I remember playing in vanilla was my Moors campaign (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?87178-Moor-of-the-Shadows&highlight=Moor)in which I was only allowed to gain land through diplomacy or from conquering rebel-held settlements. That was in 2007!

lol. Yeah. I think it will be an interesting experience to play vanilla again. But I have to disagree with Silver. I won't be winning this hotseat. I'm the only Muslim faction so far and I've watched the SS game long enough to know that it won't take too long to have a crusade called on my @$$. :tongueg:

[SilverShield]

well man i ve just witnessed what u ve accomplished with the kycpchac so i guess this already is the egypt version of camila talking trying to make us think u are weak. i still think she had something going with the little servant boy that had been around her all the time... z z z what a perv mum she might was

[phonicsmonkey]

I won't be winning this hotseat.

yeah yeah, that's what you said last time...

[TriforceV]

I guess ill be up for the HRE.

[phonicsmonkey]

I guess ill be up for the HRE.

Great! So everyone who said they wanted to play has now picked. Looking at the spread of factions we seem very West-heavy...Egypt and Hungary are largely unopposed in the east.

Unless anyone else wants to switch (and I'll give it a little while for people to respond, or for any lurkers to pop up and say they want to play) I might move over and take the Turks instead of Milan.

So I'm planning to start the game in the next couple of days.

I know a couple of people have said they will be out or without internet access for a few days in the next month - could I please ask those people to nominate a sub and provide them with some instructions so we can keep the game moving? Otherwise those turns will need to be skipped, and we only have 20 each!

[Kavhan Isbul]

I have not seen anything about rules, so is it safe for me to assume the following?
- 48 hours per player for a turn
- Battle mode
- Everything except outright cheating is allowed - spies, assassins, crusades, jihads, merchant forts, etc.

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Crusades/jihads wouldn't be much fair to egypt considering they're the only human controlled Islamic nation, plus if anybody ends up joining as an orthodox then they're left out. Of course we can still do RP Crusades ;)

[Kavhan Isbul]

Did not someone take the Moors as well? Personally, I do not care much what we decide on the rules, as long as we clear the issues out now, instead of later in the game.

[phonicsmonkey]

48 hour turns
Battles can be fought or autoresolved
Spies may not be used to open the gates of settlements or forts
No reloading
No in-game crusades or jihads
No destroying buildings for cash in a city that's under siege
No fighting losing defensive battles on purpose in a besieged city, just to deny the invader the sacking option
No exploits, including (but not limited to) no merchant forts, no surround and destroy, no tribute deals that deliberately put you into debt greater than 10k, no deliberate diplomatic exchange of territories just to get a free garrison, no tribute deals with or monetary gifts to the Pope.

Let me know if you have any questions

[Quirl]

Hmmm... I don't really have the time to play a non-autoresolve game. I may not be able to play this after all. Sorry. :\

[phonicsmonkey]

Hmmm... I don't really have the time to play a non-autoresolve game. I may not be able to play this after all. Sorry. :\

Nothing to stop you auto-resolving all your battles if you want to. I often do this in hotseats regardless of whether battles can be fought or not, because like you I have very little time to play each turn. I don't really find it unduly disadvantages me..

The whole point of this game is that it's more flexible in terms of strategy than other games where you just have to conquer everything to win. Why not try for achievements that don't involve fighting too many battles? If you get attacked you can play defence (which is much easier with the embargo on spies) and concentrate your forces for autoresolve victories on the counterattack.

[Quirl]

Well... fighting battles in map makes a big difference. Remember when Merlox was playing the SS hotseat early on? He'd capture an entire city with just a few general's bodyguards. Maybe he was cheating when he did that, but I don't think so, because he detailed the same kind of strategies I use when I do that. And were I not to fight the battles in map while other players are doing such things... well... I think I'd just find myself in quite the disadvantage. :P

[phonicsmonkey]

Well... fighting battles in map makes a big difference. Remember when Merlox was playing the SS hotseat early on? He'd capture an entire city with just a few general's bodyguards. Maybe he was cheating when he did that, but I don't think so, because he detailed the same kind of strategies I use when I do that. And were I not to fight the battles in map while other players are doing such things... well... I think I'd just find myself in quite the disadvantage. :P

Like I say, it depends on what your strategy is to win the game. I think you are being inflexible in your thinking. I never play like that and I do ok, don't I?

[Quirl]

Sorry. Didn't mean to seem inflexible. I was just sharing some of my concerns before the game started...

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Well... fighting battles in map makes a big difference. Remember when Merlox was playing the SS hotseat early on? He'd capture an entire city with just a few general's bodyguards. Maybe he was cheating when he did that, but I don't think so, because he detailed the same kind of strategies I use when I do that. And were I not to fight the battles in map while other players are doing such things... well... I think I'd just find myself in quite the disadvantage. :P

I can assure you that I for one will not be destroying armies with one or two generals, cause I wouldn't know were to start :)

[phonicsmonkey]

Sorry. Didn't mean to seem inflexible.

Hey no worries, it's up to you whether you play or not and it's supposed to be fun, right? Sorry if I sounded critical, I didn't mean it that way - I just meant I thought you could make it work if you use your (vast) imagination and play differently to usual..

So it sounds like you're in, am I right?

And if so, how do you feel about making us a nice graphic for the game thread?

[Quirl]

Yeah I am. And I'd be honored to make the banner! I'll hit you up with something when I can. :D

[Kavhan Isbul]

No reloading


I understand the rest, but would this mean that if I start a game and have to stop and do something else due to an emergency, I do not get to finish my turn?

Just a few clarifications:
- the limit on spies applies to human vs. human, or also to human vs. AI? The latter may be very hard to monitor and enforce.
- surround and destroy refers to surrounding an agent on the strategic map with unit, but does it also mean I cannot surround an enemy with armies/fleets to cut off escape?

[barcamartin]

I understand the rest, but would this mean that if I start a game and have to stop and do something else due to an emergency, I do not get to finish my turn?


This basically means you are not allowed to save your turn, say, before an important battle, then reload and replay the battle if the results aren't satisfactory. Same goes for spy infiltrations, assassinations and army movements. Basically, you don't get second chances. Of course it's ok to save, do something else and then continue where you left off.

[phonicsmonkey]

This basically means you are not allowed to save your turn, say, before an important battle, then reload and replay the battle if the results aren't satisfactory. Same goes for spy infiltrations, assassinations and army movements. Basically, you don't get second chances. Of course it's ok to save, do something else and then continue where you left off.

This


Just a few clarifications:
- the limit on spies applies to human vs. human, or also to human vs. AI? The latter may be very hard to monitor and enforce.
- surround and destroy refers to surrounding an agent on the strategic map with unit, but does it also mean I cannot surround an enemy with armies/fleets to cut off escape?

All of these rules are hard to enforce and there is no policeforce monitoring everybody for compliance. It's an honour system - but if we see someone expanding very quickly (quicker than looks plausible) the GM may spot-check turns to see that everything is above board, and if it is not corrective action can be taken.

Yes, surround and destroy means you have to leave an exit tile for fleets and armies - the idea being that you always get a chance for at least some forces to escape.

[TriforceV]

First of all Quirl is correct when detailing Merlox's ability to use a few general body guards to take out a full stack army,
In fact, so can I! ( it's real easy, have the whole army chase your horses for awhile until they get exhausted, then charge, retreat and repeat quick enough and keep the horses on the move so the reinforcements can't arrive on time, slowly take out the whole army)...

It's kind of lame and is an abuse of the weak AI, normal human played armies would stick together, but that's the problem with Battle-mode, so easy to abuse the mechanics, and so hard to force yourself not to do it..

Also based on the "Do not reload your turn" to win a battle or enable a spy entry into a city is also impossible to enforce.
This is a highly competitive game, and I doubt someone would accept an accidental humiliating defeat that may cost them the game, think about it?
And lets just say hypathetically out of 10 players, 9 are honorable, and only 1 is dishonorable in this regard, that 1 player will have a hugely unfair advantage, and there is no way of knowing who that person is.
Have you ever heard of "Game Theory?", I think it applies here,
A rule that cannot be enforced is not a rule at all.

Anyways, Battle-mode or not, honor system :embarassed: enforced its your decision, just don't say I didn't warn you :sweatdrop:

[Quirl]

( it's real easy, have the whole army chase your horses for awhile until they get exhausted, then charge, retreat and repeat quick enough and keep the horses on the move so the reinforcements can't arrive on time, slowly take out the whole army)...

Shhhh! I wasn't going to tell them how to actually do it! ^_^


And lets just say hypathetically out of 10 players, 9 are honorable, and only 1 is dishonorable in this regard, that 1 player will have a hugely unfair advantage, and there is no way of knowing who that person is.


Good point. This was my concern.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think everyone here would agree that if someone has to cheat in order to win a game with no reward for winning, and no skill involved in the cheating, seen only by those he has cheated, then any satisfaction such a person would get could be considered charity. If they need that to stroke their ego, I'd consider letting them have it. I shudder to think what they would do without it.

In all seriousness, people here are generally honorable. Until proven otherwise, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[phonicsmonkey]

Well said ATPG.



...and there is no way of knowing who that person is.Good point. This was my concern.

Then, I'm sorry to say it, but don't play hotseats - of course there is no way of knowing for sure whether someone has cheated by reloading the turn, you have to have some faith that the people that you choose to enter these games with are essentially honourable, otherwise what is the point? The reason for having the rule is to send a message about the way that the game should be played and to provide a moral framework that someone can turn to for reference if they are considering an action in the game that they suspect may not be fair or allowed.

This is how it works: if anyone suspects someone else of cheating, pm me. I will look at the save and speak to the person concerned. I will also take expert advice from others I know who have hosted these games in the past. I am not afraid to boot people from these games for cheating, but that will be a last resort - in the first instance I'll try corrective action like asking the person concerned to hand back the disputed settlement, or pay reparations or something like that.

But we are all adults here and we're all capable of applying our sense of right and wrong to these simple games - it's an abdication of moral responsibility to expect every possible outcome to be legislated for. Players should use their own judgement and if they are not sure whether an action is allowed, ASK!


This is a highly competitive game, and I doubt someone would accept an accidental humiliating defeat that may cost them the game, think about it?

I'm not trying to come across all holier-than-thou, but I have done and I know others that have. It's about your attitude to the game and the reason you play it. I'm not saying one way is right, but I think there are enough people around here that share my outlook on these games that will know what I'm talking about when I say winning is not the main reason I play. If it were all about winning I would just play chess (which I am better at than TW).

That said, we have had relatively few instances of outright cheating in all the time I've been playing and hosting these games here and I hope it stays that way.

EDIT: AND, as GM I almost always go with the majority, so if there's a strong feeling about any of the rules they are up for change. For example we could allow reloads and create a level playing field that way.

[Quirl]

EDIT: AND, as GM I almost always go with the majority, so if there's a strong feeling about any of the rules they are up for change. For example we could allow reloads and create a level playing field that way.

Meh. I'm really good either way. Just playing devil's advocate I guess. :P

... and trying to avoid another Merlox Seljuk rush. ^_^

But I'm sure we'll be fine. Can't wait to get this show on the road.

[phonicsmonkey]

Actually I'm going to start the game in about 30 minutes after I've put my boy to bed..

[phonicsmonkey]

First of all Quirl is correct when detailing Merlox's ability to use a few general body guards to take out a full stack army,
In fact, so can I! ( it's real easy, have the whole army chase your horses for awhile until they get exhausted, then charge, retreat and repeat quick enough and keep the horses on the move so the reinforcements can't arrive on time, slowly take out the whole army)...

Slowly is the key word here! Which is why I don't play like this - I don't have the time or the patience for this level of battlefield micro-management. I once played a Saka campaign in EB which was almost entirely a series of battles like this...it's not hard to do but it's really time consuming and while I like the results I find it terrifically boring.

Ok guys, let's get this party started over at the main game thread.

Maybe Tristan can get his turn done before he loses his internets on the 23rd..

[Askthepizzaguy]

EDIT: AND, as GM I almost always go with the majority, so if there's a strong feeling about any of the rules they are up for change. For example we could allow reloads and create a level playing field that way.


Editors note: At some point this post turns into one of my classic rants, aimed at no one in particular, and I'm not sure where... Apologies in advance when I start to ramble.



This is an interesting theory, the problem is you'd essentially have what I had when I was attempting to create new Blitzmaster records, which is virtually zero chance that certain actions would fail against the AI.

During those record-attempting missions, I could freely reload until I got the result I needed, if the result I needed were possible. Example: I needed a spy to capture Constantinople quickly, before reinforcements drove me away or defeated my meager, divided, turn 2(ish) Turkish forces. Without the spy, I could only capture the province south of Constantinople that turn, and seige Constantinople. And that's just with one spy, and a couple (ten, tops) reloads. Fortunately or unfortunately, on Jihad (which was necessary) I would outrun my own spy, rendering it completely useless, along with seige equipment for the most part, because it moved too slow. Reloading couldn't conjure up a spy or a piece of artillery, so I ended up having to do things the hard way anyway.

Here, you'd have every single player spamming spies, and thus the larger nations have an inherent advantage because they can have more spies. In my opinion, the way to balance that is to make capturing a settlement via spies opening the gates ILLEGAL. Which is a pretty realistic rule, I'd say. Being able to open the most secure aspect of a big city, the gate, with one or even a handful of spies, when there are guards and indeed, and ARMY ready to react, is unrealistic. For one-turn captures of cities, bring artillery. It slows you down and takes up valuable space in your army that could be used instead for spear militia spam.

Other advantages to reloading mean auto-resolving battles over and over until you win by reload. However, in my experience, if you're trying to win a battle via auto-resolve that you couldn't win on your own, then.....



https://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb225/askthepizzaguy/Misc/1.jpg


To defeat the AI all you need is a general's bodyguard unit of fairly decent size. Failing that, two units of light cavalry should do it. I once posted a battle replay thread where I defeated (by defeated, I mean wiped completely out GONE) an entire full stack garrison of Holy Roman Empire all-infantry (light, heavy, spear, crossbow) forces with two units of light cavalry.

If you're reloading to get some percentage chance that auto-resolve will help you, you're doing it wrong. Honestly if you need to do that, then this smiley face is appropriate: :laugh4:

No, reloading has exactly one viable purpose: To re-fight a battle yourself, only slightly differently. You know, for those siege battles where some jerk-ash with artillery accidentally one-shot one-kills your general at the beginning of a battle, leaving your infantry helpless and stupefied when it comes to defeating the infinite morale spearmen spam the AI left at the city center. Or perhaps you thought you could do a cavalry charge with your general into a spearman stack, and they were actually formed up correctly and bracing, which is rare as heck, and your formed charge doesn't go well. Your general flips his mustang and ends up sprawled on the ground in the center of a spear mass, looking up at a lot of faceless, homogenized enemy uniforms with a whole lot of pointy. And the dude was your 10 command, 9 experience, 10 dread master of warfare. I'd weep for you, as it seems the master jedi will be slain by Ewoks, and that is the low point of anybody's day. Re-loading in frustration, ah, that is tempting. But the solution there is even simpler: Since you're not going for a Blitzy McBlitzmaster award, why not not charge into a mass of braced spears with your master jedi warrior unless you're willing to see him turn into a pincushion, or impaled like a marshmallow and cooked over an open flame.


MMMMmmmm S'mores.

I generally run around with big fat huge armies that means it's basically impossible to lose to the AI (face it, if you don't even need the big huge armies, just a couple horsemen, to win any battle besides a heavy cavalry battle, then large armies are almost overkill), so the weakness is when I'm being attacked and my armies are commanded by the AI. That's what levels the playing field. It should be a pretty rare instance you'd ever find yourself in a battle so close you'd need to reload it to win it. If that's the case then you've been out-generalled on the campaign map, to find yourself fighting a losing battle. So that leaves those critical siege battles where one huge army faces another huge army, and I just don't have the patience to fight that one over and over when it takes like 45 minutes to finally kill all those bloody spear men in the city center, even with archers. Reloading after losing that battle is such a pain in my butt that I sometimes just plain lose interest in a campaign altogether because I've been sitting at my computer all day already, and now I've just wasted an hour trying to take a settlement that I can't take merely because I sent 90% of my army in other directions to capture as much as possible at once, and apparently I miscalculated; I needed more than 10 militia spearmen and a general's bodyguard unit for this battle. Reloading is just a pain at that point.

So.... of the 5 possible "I need to reload" situations:


Spies: Can be banned by rule and easily enforced. You'll know if you lost a city to spies.
Assassins: It takes so freaking long to even create these things starting from scratch unless you're blessed with a big city right from the beginning. And their success rate is so low anyway, and can be countered with spies as it is. Waste of money until your empire is massive, IMO.
Artillery: Tough. They're slow, you should have seen it coming. Artillery-heavy armies are sitting ducks out in the field. My only use for them out there is bridge battles, and I'd still rather have archers, they cause more death.
Auto-resolve to win a battle you can't otherwise win: Wimp! Wimp! WIMP!!! :laugh4:
Close epic battle: Do you really want to reload that hour-long battle and fight it AGAIN??

Only the close epic battle even really qualifies, IMO. And then you have to deal with RL and the hotseat time limit. Those should be rare situations and while you can't really police it, if you're not reloading for all the other stuff, why are you doing it here? Just play by the rules. If you can't beat the AI because it's a very close battle that you are having trouble forcing a win out of, then maybe you miscalculated on the campaign map, and let's face it, you deserve to lose this fight.

Ultimately, like I said, if someone needed to cheat to influence a friendly hotseat game that no one is watching, it's almost like those same situations I faced down at Pizza Hut. Unethical customer repeatedly abuses the "complain and your pizza is free" rule that upper management has imposed on my store, never pays for a pizza? It's kind of really obvious that they are doing that. Their name goes on a list.... doesn't even need to be on a list actually, because it is so small. There were only one or two butt-munchers who actually tried this stuff, and they got away with it for a while, until I pointed out to the managers what they were doing. And wanna know why? Because those butt pirates wouldn't tip, either.

That's pretty sad when someone can't even tip the driver who delivers them the free pizza. Then they also pretend to be angry and belligerent at the door, like there was ever anything wrong with the pizza, ever, to try to fool me? Dude, I just delivered the last 10 free pizzas you've ordered, and we know ALL ABOUT YOU, and now, the MANAGER of the store makes your pizza personally and knows it is done to perfection. You're not fooling anyone. So when you call and complain like we're idiots, I hand the phone to the manager who explains to you that he personally made the pizza, and quality checked it before it went out the door, and then calls you out on your last 10 pizzas were free scam, because I kept detailed records all about you.... name, number, address, dates you've cheated us.

You'll never be served any pizza again. You'll go on the do not deliver list.


It's kind of a metaphor for cheating in hotseats. No, we can't police it.... but we will know. It's obvious, really. If someone is losing all of their dudes to level 3 assassins, we'll know. If every settlement has been breached by spies, and none of the spies have died except a freak spy here or there, we'll know. If you never lose a big battle and your turns take freaking forever to finish, something is up. If you're cheating to capture merchants and their pathetic 300 florin gain, I mean how shriveled are your gonads at that point? You can quote me on that. So, like the pizza, you might get away with cheating.... for a while. But we'll know you're doing it. And once the GM finds out (amazing, it's the same abbreviation for game moderator and general manager of the store!) you won't be getting your free pizza, or any pizza, anymore. Likewise, no one will want to play hotseats with you anymore.

I remember one guy was caught cheating trying to take a buttload of settlements in one turn when it was basically impossible. Everyone who saw it happen was like.... really? It's not even plausible that it could happen with reload-cheating. He was doing something else, I don't even recall what. But the end result was this:


"If you do not leave this hotseat, phonicsmonkey will come and attack you here. And when you retreat from all this cheating the shame and reproach will be very great."




- Gerard of Ridefort, letter written to King Guy about your cheating ***



...I seem to have lost my train of thought, so I'm just going to bail on this post. It has s'mores, deadbeat pizza scammers, and a King Guy reference. It's done.

[phonicsmonkey]

thanks buddy - I'll read all that one day when I retire and my children don't come visit me anymore..:clown:

Well I just had a merry old evening of totally uninstalling and reinstalling the whole game, plus patches and Kingdoms.

It takes about 4 hours in total on my machine, I have discovered. For some reason every save I created had all the rebel settlements as base level villages with no garrison. Something corrupted in my much-abused descr_strat file probably. I'm such a n00b I didn't even have a backup of it, so I had to start from scratch.

In the meantime I missed barca for the day so while I'll post the save for him now we won't get underway until this time tomorrow.

This thread is now officially dead.

[SilverShield]

If it were all about winning I would just play chess (which I am better at than TW).


always knew what some of those turns in wrath of the khan reminded me of somehow...