New Kingdoms Britannia hotseat signup (FULL)

[phonicsmonkey]

Just putting this out there to gauge the interest in a Britannia hotseat - any takers?

[Zim]

Given my immenent demise in DOW I might be up for it. Could I play Norway?

[phonicsmonkey]

Consider it done old chap. It's good to see you with your old moniker too..

[Zim]

Consider it done old chap. It's good to see you with your old moniker too..

I missed it as well.

Hopefully Norway has less trouble in this hotseat than the last Britannia one. :clown:

[Ignoramus]

I will tentatively sign up for Wales.

[phonicsmonkey]

Ok, so far we have:

Norway - Zim
Wales - Ignoramus
England -
Ireland -
Scotland -

I had an idea earlier that we might make the Baron's Alliance playable so that if they pop up later I can join the game and play as them. What do you think? It would probably involve all the players modifying descr_strat to make sure it works properly.

[Ignoramus]

That sounds like a great idea!

[Zim]

That's fine with me.

[Nightbringer]

Give me England!

pretty please...

oh, and yes on the barons thing!

[Myth]

I would like to be England in case Nightbringer decides not to play. Mind you I have not played hotseat before.

[Nightbringer]

oh I'm playing, but if you only want England I would be okay with switching

[phonicsmonkey]

I would like to be England in case Nightbringer decides not to play. Mind you I have not played hotseat before.

Excellent! I love to see new faces around here...

[Myth]

I want England mainly because I've spent too much time playing regular M2:TW (espeically as England) and only a 20-30 turns playing Britannia, some as Wales, some as Norway...

The factions in Britannia have a very varied way of developing and using their starting positions and armies. For example, Norway is pretty much forced to raid and pillage across Scottish territories, because they soon go in the negatives, once their King arrives.

I'm not comfortable starting out If I don't have a definite build order or goal in mind, and as England it's pretty much the same as in M2:TW - get the best Longbows you can, get some Armoured Swordsmen and whatever Knightly order you can (Templars probably in this campaign).

Regarding the Baron's Alliance - I have to just make them playable in the descr_strat file right? How do they emerge? Do I lose some settlements automatically once the script triggers? Do they get stacks a-la Mongols and start conquering?

[phonicsmonkey]

I want England mainly because I've spent too much time playing regular M2:TW (espeically as England) and only a 20-30 turns playing Britannia, some as Wales, some as Norway...

Ok, let's put you down as England then and NB can pick again..he said he didn't mind.


Regarding the Baron's Alliance - I have to just make them playable in the descr_strat file right? How do they emerge? Do I lose some settlements automatically once the script triggers? Do they get stacks a-la Mongols and start conquering?

Erm, good questions...not sure I know the answers. Maybe do a search in the Citadel? I'll do it myself if I get time tomorrow..

[Myth]

OK I have some other questions. I've glanced over the tutorial page on how to setup hotseat games. On the player side, what is required? Do I need to enable hotseat in that file as well? Will that affect my single player games vs the AI? Will it affect everything, or just this version?

Regarding diplomacy, how do we settle this? We talk via PM, we ignore diplomacy, we use ingame diplomacy only? For example, If I wanted to ally with Wales versus Ireland, do I talk to the Wales player or do I just ask for an alliance and joint attack via ingame diplomacy?

[_Tristan_]

Hopefully Norway is less trouble in this hotseat than the last Britannia one. :clown:

Corrected :smile:

I don't remember any problems Norway might have encountered...:viking:

[phonicsmonkey]

Regarding the Baron's Alliance - I have to just make them playable in the descr_strat file right? How do they emerge? Do I lose some settlements automatically once the script triggers? Do they get stacks a-la Mongols and start conquering?

Ok it seems from a quick forum search that there are two ways that the Barons can emerge. Firstly if a settlement rebels it will go to the BA instead of to the grey rebels, spawning a garrison and presumably a family member at that time.

Secondly any family member can defect to the Barons, there is a test vs loyalty. He will take whatever stack he's leading with him. I'm not sure what happens if he's in a city at the time but I assume it goes with him. This is like Barbarian Invasion where WRE generals could rebel.

Anyone with any better knowledge than this please do pipe up and correct me!


On the player side, what is required? Do I need to enable hotseat in that file as well?

No need, only the person starting the game needs to set the preferences. however if we do this thing with the Barons you'll need to make them playable in your descr_strat file.


Will that affect my single player games vs the AI? Will it affect everything, or just this version?

It won't affect anything else.


Regarding diplomacy, how do we settle this? We talk via PM, we ignore diplomacy, we use ingame diplomacy only? For example, If I wanted to ally with Wales versus Ireland, do I talk to the Wales player or do I just ask for an alliance and joint attack via ingame diplomacy?

Usually in these games there is both private diplomacy (via private message) as well as public diplomacy (via a public diplomacy thread where the players role-play diplomats - the French King's Court (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?117451-French-King-s-Court-SS6.2-Hotseat-Council-Thread)is a good example)

All the serious diplomatic deals are done out of the game in this way using the forum and usually deals are only formalised using the in-game diplomacy and even then sometimes only when necessary. For example you could have a secret alliance with someone and not formalise it in-game, so that the other players are unaware.

Basic stuff like trade rights and map info swaps are often just done in-game without discussion.

[Nightbringer]

Okay, I guess I'll take Ireland.

[phonicsmonkey]

Norway - Zim
Wales - Ignoramus
England - Myth
Ireland - Nightbringer
Scotland -
Baron's Alliance - phonicsmonkey

Ok we just need a Scot and we can get going. Myth, do you know anyone you'd like to bring into the game?

EDIT: And apparently non-English factions can receive missions to spawn the Baron's Alliance by taking specified settlements from the English, which makes things even more interesting.

[Cecil XIX]

Sign me up for Scotland.

[phonicsmonkey]

ok and we're done!

Zim said he'd admin this one so if he's still willing I'll leave it to him to start the game and set up the threads etc.

Remember to make the Baron's Alliance playable in your descr_strat files so that I can join in when or if they spawn!

[Nightbringer]

One last thing, I think we need to clarify what the rules are going to be for this game.

[phonicsmonkey]

I think the best set of rules is the one we're using for the Crusades game:
- Players shall post a link to the save game in the main game thread and also send a private message to the next player in line to alert them that it is their turn. The save game file should follow the naming convention LS-turn number-faction (eg. LS-1-Antioch)

- Players have 48 hours to play each turn, with extensions granted at request. The GM will skip a players' turn if the deadline is missed with no communication and a sub allied to the player cannot be found.

- All battles between human-controlled factions are to be auto-resolved

- No spies may be used to open the gates of settlements or forts.

- Siege equipment may only be used to open gates as follows: Ballista can open nothing, Catapults can open wooden walls, Trebuchets can open stone walls.

- No crusades or jihads can be called or joined by a human player.

- No destroying buildings for cash under any circumstances.

- No fighting losing defensive battles on purpose in a besieged city, just to deny the invader the sacking option.

- If an army is beaten in battle by a faction that is after them in the turn order that army may not move on the following turn.

- An army which is beaten in battle may not be attacked on the following turn (because it is immobilized either by the game mechanic or by the rule above) by any faction unless it has retreated to a fort or settlement.

- 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, no attacking ships in ports.

[Myth]

Great! I have some questions:

1. Explain the merchant fort please.
2. Why can't we attack docked ships? They die instantly but that's pretty realistic anyway.
3. Why are the majority of the games use auto-resolved battles instead of fought by the attacker? Seems to me that being able to lead your armies is an advantage that can be sought after and thus making being on the offense a strategical advantage, instead of just skipping your stacks.
4. On the destruction of buildings - so i cannot destroy enemy buildings when I capture a town (fair enough, this made M2:TW way too easy if one went on a loot&pillage rampage across Muslim lands). Can I destroy my own buildings though? As England I start with some hard to control settlements in Ireland. If I decide to let them rebel I'd want to give as little an advantage to the enemy as I can, thus I'd burn down everything that I can.

I believe England is first in the turn order, so I'm waiting for the PM.

[Cecil XIX]

Not sure about the others, but the merchant fort exploit exists when you build a fort over a trading resource. Since you can place up to twenty merchants within a fort at one time, just like a settlement, it allows you to collect roughly twenty times the income you would otherwise. Perhaps merchants in forts are immune to enemy merchants too, I'm not sure.

[Myth]

Oh.. Well that's an obvious exploit and was not intended by the designers of the game, so it is only natural to not do it.

By the way, I've been reading the Britannia game listed as completed - it says England and Ireland are victorious? How is that possible? Trough alliance?

[phonicsmonkey]

Great! I have some questions:

1. Explain the merchant fort please.

As per Cecil.


2. Why can't we attack docked ships? They die instantly but that's pretty realistic anyway.

We decided it's an exploit because the AI never does it. Also because of the weird way you have to do it (by selecting the unit cards rather than the campaign map icon) which suggests it wasn't intended. It's not a game-breaker though so if there's a majority that wanted to drop this rule I'd be ok with it.


3. Why are the majority of the games use auto-resolved battles instead of fought by the attacker? Seems to me that being able to lead your armies is an advantage that can be sought after and thus making being on the offense a strategical advantage, instead of just skipping your stacks.

As a player I prefer hotseats where the battles are fought. However in my experience as an admin it's just too easy for things to descend into interminable arguments about what does and doesn't constitute exploiting the AI. Some people can take out whole stacks with a single unit of cavalry, others can't. Inevitably the latter complain that the former are playing unfairly. AR takes away all of these issues.


4. On the destruction of buildings - so i cannot destroy enemy buildings when I capture a town (fair enough, this made M2:TW way too easy if one went on a loot&pillage rampage across Muslim lands). Can I destroy my own buildings though? As England I start with some hard to control settlements in Ireland. If I decide to let them rebel I'd want to give as little an advantage to the enemy as I can, thus I'd burn down everything that I can.

The intention of the rule is to ban exactly that type of behaviour - the reason is that over a longer time period you find the warzones are literally worthless settlements that have been razed and exterminated beyond recovery. It's hardly worth fighting over. It's also totally unrealistic - the 'buildings' don't really represent single physical entities that can be taken apart and sold, but rather a network of facilities and a general level of technology that can't really be melted down for cash in an instant.



By the way, I've been reading the Britannia game listed as completed - it says England and Ireland are victorious? How is that possible? Through alliance?

Through a last minute alliance where untrustworthy and devious Ireland betrayed his allies the Welsh and Scots and split the isles with the English. :laugh4:

[Myth]

Great! Now that you've explained it I agree to all the rules and they are sensible and will make the game more interesting. One last thing - I understand carried siege weapons (seriously, a ballista bolt knocking down the walls of Caen was one of the most ridiculous things i've seen when playing vs the AI). Can we build rams and towers to attack a besieged settlement on turn 2? I prefer this approach sometimes, as the single turn spent in a siege can be faster than lugging the actual equipment from your homeland.

[Cecil XIX]

We decided it's an exploit because the AI never does it.

This is the same logic that leads me to never convert castles/cities. That's just a personal rule, though.

[phonicsmonkey]

Can we build rams and towers to attack a besieged settlement on turn 2?

Absolutely.


This is the same logic that leads me to never convert castles/cities. That's just a personal rule, though.

I almost never do this in hotseats anyway because the time and expense makes it pointless. The increased income from a city will almost never pay off the cost of converting it and redeveloping it (and most mods increase the cost significantly from vanilla), and if you need a recruitment center it's much easier to go capture one!

[Nightbringer]

I do it a lot in single player so I have a nice border of castles, with mostly cities on the inside.

[Zim]

I almost never do this in hotseats anyway because the time and expense makes it pointless. The increased income from a city will almost never pay off the cost of converting it and redeveloping it (and most mods increase the cost significantly from vanilla), and if you need a recruitment center it's much easier to go capture one!

In longer, slower games you can make quite a bit of profit doing this with certain settlements. Guides for Sicily used to suggest turning Palermo into a city because it ends up being so wealthy (the settlement in Norway is another that makes a ton of money as a developed city, and even a decent amount as a castle).

So there's hardly any ai settlements to speak of in the Britannia campaign. I'm thinking instead of specifically having a rule to use autoresolve against players that we make it part of the settings and actually set the game to autoresolve. The campaign also has no crusades or jihads (although England gets some special events, troops returned from the "crusade") so we porbably don't need to list that rule.

Are we all agreed upon for the rules? I can get the game started up any time.

[phonicsmonkey]

In longer, slower games you can make quite a bit of profit doing this with certain settlements. Guides for Sicily used to suggest turning Palermo into a city because it ends up being so wealthy (the settlement in Norway is another that makes a ton of money as a developed city, and even a decent amount as a castle).

Yes, it can definitely be worth it, it just depends largely on your time horizon and how much it costs to convert vs the incremental increase. I haven't yet been able to work out an appropriate discount rate to model the economy in TW games, but one day I'll do it and you can all have my spreadsheet!


So there's hardly any ai settlements to speak of in the Britannia campaign. I'm thinking instead of specifically having a rule to use autoresolve against players that we make it part of the settings and actually set the game to autoresolve. The campaign also has no crusades or jihads (although England gets some special events, troops returned from the "crusade") so we porbably don't need to list that rule.

Are we all agreed upon for the rules? I can get the game started up any time.

All fine by me mate. If you're looking for name suggestions I thought of either 'This Sceptered Isle' for an epic feel, or for something with more comedy value how about 'Anarchy in the UK'?

[Zim]

Why, back in my day we had names like "Teutonic Hotseat" and "Grand Campaign Hotseat 2". And we walked uphill in the snow to our computers to play our turn...mumble...mumble.

Of those two I'm thinking of going ith the first, although I even more favor my rather optimistic for Norway name of "Viking Invasion 2". :clown:

Someday I'm also thinking of naming a hotseat "The Rise of Kings", although considering the goal of most hotseats maybe that last word should be singular. :laugh4:

[phonicsmonkey]

And we walked uphill in the snow to our computers to play our turn...mumble...mumble.

That would be your fault for keeping them on the snowy hilltop!

I like that, 'The Rise of Kings'....TRoK is a good acronym too :clown:

Along the same lines, something like 'Forge of Empires' could work.

[Ignoramus]

How about Hammer of the Scots?

[phonicsmonkey]

How about Hammer of the Scots?

Puts a lot of pressure on the Scots to either get hammered or do some hammering.. :clown:

[Myth]

Considering that there is unification in the works here, instead of empire forging (well unification trough the sword has been used abundantly in history), I would say the Unification of Britannia. Forced autoresolve is fine by me as are all the other rules.

I did some playtesting versus the AI last night (seeing as i have not played actually as England in the Britannia campaign) - little o'l Shrewsburry, when left to rebel, spawns Armoured Swordsmen, Armoured Sergeants, Longbowmen and billmen! Talk about buffed up rebels! I'm scared to think what will happen if I let something like Nottingham rebel.

In other news, if anyone wants to give me some friendly advice for England it would be appreciated. I discovered that sans any dismissing of troops and with the maximum usage of forts, one can still get to about turn 3 before he is flat broke - seeing as how I played on VH/VH and I started with 10k gold only. I imagine that Wales with it's mesely 3 towns and the hordes of free troops will likewise be forced to either fight or disband. I know it to be the case for Norway.

Spear militia seem very expensive for what you get, and Dism. Feudal Knights cost as much as a fleet on their own!

I also noticed how frequently stacks rebelled when they were not lead by a named general. Also, will it be considered an exploit if I want to keep a low-loyalty general in a settlement that is strategically advantageous for me to have spawn as the Baron's Alliance? Be it give phonicsmonkey a good start, or a very poor one (some backwater place on the end of nowhere).

Our noble rivals from .net seem to think it easy to keep one's loyalty so high as to never have the BA spawn at all.

[Ignoramus]

Considering that there is unification in the works here, instead of empire forging (well unification trough the sword has been used abundantly in history), I would say the Unification of Britannia. Forced autoresolve is fine by me as are all the other rules.

I did some playtesting versus the AI last night (seeing as i have not played actually as England in the Britannia campaign) - little o'l Shrewsburry, when left to rebel, spawns Armoured Swordsmen, Armoured Sergeants, Longbowmen and billmen! Talk about buffed up rebels! I'm scared to think what will happen if I let something like Nottingham rebel.

In other news, if anyone wants to give me some friendly advice for England it would be appreciated. I discovered that sans any dismissing of troops and with the maximum usage of forts, one can still get to about turn 3 before he is flat broke - seeing as how I played on VH/VH and I started with 10k gold only. I imagine that Wales with it's mesely 3 towns and the hordes of free troops will likewise be forced to either fight or disband. I know it to be the case for Norway.

Spear militia seem very expensive for what you get, and Dism. Feudal Knights cost as much as a fleet on their own!

I also noticed how frequently stacks rebelled when they were not lead by a named general. Also, will it be considered an exploit if I want to keep a low-loyalty general in a settlement that is strategically advantageous for me to have spawn as the Baron's Alliance? Be it give phonicsmonkey a good start, or a very poor one (some backwater place on the end of nowhere).

Our noble rivals from .net seem to think it easy to keep one's loyalty so high as to never have the BA spawn at all.

The best advice is to come to an accommodation with Wales early - leave it too late and you're gone.

[Zim]

I like the unification theme, although I wonder if there's a synonym that's more evocative. Also maybe change Britannia to the Isles? No need to leave Ireland out after all. :clown:

I'll get the game set up and the first save out tonight. I'll also put together a diplomacy thread.