Team PBM mode- Tournament play

[Askthepizzaguy]

I had a thought about this game.

Imagine if members of this forum were to join up as part of teams of 4 or more people (who have free time to volunteer).

These teams would have to select a faction to play as, and agree to finish the game once started.

There needs to be at least three teams. So I think 12 players would be a decent start.

The game can be played by email, with each team selecting a captain to organize the overall strategy, and each player will take positions moving the game pieces and fighting battles. The AI will fight battles (if they can't, this will be a boring auto-resolve game and that sucks) in place of the opposing team.

At the beginning of the game, and during the game, the team captain will devise a strategy and email it to each of his teammates. The captain must trust the other players to execute his plans. However, each teammate may fight battles as they see fit, and possibly micro-manage so that they each have something to contribute and the captain doesn't have to do everything.

The purpose of having 4 players on your team is so that the game may continue even when some of us have to return to our working lives, and to negate some of the extreme advantages a great player might have over noobs.

These teams could be selected randomly, and then players can be traded if they wish.

There could be tournaments involving these teams, and each player will have their own stats (battles won/lost, factions destroyed (player) factions destroyed (team) campaigns won (team) even silly ones like florins spent and troops lost/recruited just to give it a feel of a sport).

The games shouldn't take very long as long as there is a serious attempt made by each team to have at least one player active on their team every single day.

If a team is inactive for 3 days, they are disqualified and their empire will be turned into an AI faction.

Is anyone up for such a thing? I think it could be fun. The results of the game's progression could be posted on a thread here in the forum which will host the game's public communication. Teams may communicate amongst themselves and between each other in private (or publicly if they wish).

Any other suggestions for the rules? Alternatively, instead of email there could be hotseat, but that would involve much more committment of personal time by the players.

Whomever is on the team and available to play can take control of his team's faction on their turn. The teams themselves can decide who plays if there is more than one available player.

Perhaps the players can email various alternative moves for the current turn amongst themselves to decide which play to use, before sending it as the official move.

There could be certain house rules, such as "no diplomatic exchanges between teams unless approved by the opposing team" as the AI would be negotiating on their behalf and is easy to exploit.

And as much as I hate it, there could be a "no calling a crusade/jihad" house rule. You may only join one in progress.

It's a little ambitious, but it could be a very interesting game!
All interested parties or spectators please feel free to comment/join.

As the originator of this unique idea (I think it's unique, anyway) I hereby volunteer myself to be the host of the thread and the moderator of the "league". If anyone is interested and had no objections, that is.

[Zim]

I think you'd fill more factons if the teams were smaller. :yes:
I'd try it. If you weren't using hotseat, would that mean you'd have to use the console to switch factions?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think you'd fill more factons if the teams were smaller. :yes:
I'd try it. If you weren't using hotseat, would that mean you'd have to use the console to switch factions?

Well the idea of having larger teams is so that the game can continue a lot easier without interruption.

With one on one hotseats, often time the game is halted or abandoned prematurely because it's a long game and life gets in the way.

With team play, the odds are much better that someone will be available, somewhere, to continue the campaign. And it adds a new element of gameplay... having to cooperate with someone when ruling a single faction.

It is rather like being the King and entrusting your entire Northern army to your heir and your entire southern army to your top generals. You have to work together with other sentient beings with their own styles and preferences and achieve victory together in spite of your differences.

I think it adds a whole new dimension to the game. Maybe so?

[Zim]

I understand that. I think the tricky thing would be needing, say 8 players for two factions. It would be very hard to fill up fations that way, hence my suggestion of smaller teams.

But then, if you can get enough people, it would be great to have 4 to a faction.

[Shahed]

I like the idea, but what happens in human vs human faction battles where 2 opposing generals are involved ? They'd have to be autocalc-ed. I did'nt quite get the point, in that case the stats (victories, losses etc) would be meaningless.

[Galain_Ironhide]

I too like the idea.

Will you run it off Vanilla 1.2 or another mod maybe?

If you get it off the ground, count me IN. :2thumbsup:




PS. Pizzaguy, I have never played M2TW via PBM or hotseat, would that still be OK with you? :juggle2: It is something I would love to get into though and will pick up fast.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Everything is still in the idea development phase. Assuming myself, Sinan, Zim, and Galain were all in on this, that's 4 right there. We don't have to have 4 to a team until we have more players. But we should have of course the bare minimum of two. So even if it was between just us we could have two rival factions with two players apiece battle it out already.

With such a small group, it might be prudent to play a shorter campaign, because the fewer the people there are, the longer the play will take. We do need to sleep, after all, and work and such and such. But at least with an extra person on our team someone will be able to keep moving at times when we aren't here. It could be fun trying to win a campaign when it continues to move forward even when you aren't there, and then you have to pick up where your teammate left off.

There are no set 'rules' as of yet as to which version of the game to play, or which factions to pick. However, it seems prudent to select a version that everyone has, and also pick factions that work well in dueling mode.

For example, Spain and England. They aren't likely to be able to strike each other immediately, as they would tend to solidify their local holdings first, and they are separated by France, which is a solid power, and a good stretch of ocean, while also not requiring an entire map's worth of distance between them.

England is somewhat stronger than Spain, in my analysis, so the "weaker" team should play as England. A slight handicap.

England versus Scotland would be a large handicap for England, given their starting territories and troops. Not to say that game wouldn't be playable, but it would be too fast and there wouldn't be a whole lot of counter-attacking. Once one side has the advantage in that feud, that's pretty much all she wrote. At least with England and Spain, each empire has a chance to win properly.

Other good rivalries... the Moors and the Turks, for a longer game, with the handicapped team taking the Moors. The Moors have a good corner of the map ripe for expansion, and the Turks have a poor starting economy.

Notice that in all the above examples, it's Catholic versus Catholic, Islamic versus Islamic.

The obvious handicap duel would be Russia versus Byzantium. Byzantium gets a huge lead over the Russians, even if they have more enemies to fight off, they have room to expand. The Russians need lots of time to take their starting field and build up a proper nation, whereas Byzantium could almost send off an invasion force right away to go kill them. Most likely unsuccessfully, but it's a distinct advantage.

I would recommend that for large groups of people, everyone either start off with the common 1.2 patched version (I believe that's the one that's partially fixed and most people have that patch) or we may have to all agree to play on 1.0 (ughh...).

I would recommend Lands to Conquer on the version I have, or the latest LTC for the vanilla game, but not everyone has that mod and patch. But ideally, that's a good, fair game to play with.

As for battles human team versus human team, instead of auto-resolutions which defeat the purpose of having cavalry or archers (or battles, for that matter), I suggest allowing the AI to somehow control the defending side (or whichever side did not initiate battle).

Anyhoo.
I just got interrupted with girlfriend issues, so I gotta run.

I hope this thread generates some more interest! :beam:

[Shahed]

Ahh that's what I thought, given the brilliant IQ of 199 that I possess as a gift from the Pope. Well then stats are useless because you aren't even playing your own battles. It's still better than autoresolve though, for fun factor. It's good to note that KoTR is already working like this as are a few other PBMs, you pick a glorious God general and play him through the course of his career. This would be the same.

As far as versions are concerned I have Kingdoms 1.3 and no other version installed, but I guess I can go back to 1.2 but that is about as sensible as buying a T Model Ford over an F50.

Though I am very interested in taking part in a PBM, I simply don't have the time and am literally being a bad boy and stealing time from other life saving activities. Such as lying on the beach in my Paris Hilton fanboy shirt, meticulously cleaning my toothbrush with a microscopic filter, drinking delirious amounts of fermented mare's milk etc..

Basically I can't committ! HELP! But I'm going to watch this thread and see if ever I can then I'll pop in and say HOI !
It's very good to play a mod, specially since vanilla really RULES... I heard they're using it to train mini E:TW AI babies at CA. Thye have a new mascot called Damien Omen 25, it's guaranteed to be the best AI ever for any strategy game!

The only mod I've lost battles fair & square is Darth mod, almost lost a couple of times in LTC too. I like that as well, don't really have a favorite at the moment. Also good to play Catho vs Catho or Islamic vs Islamic in vanilla or LTC, anyway.

When the Broken Crescent mod comes out I'd sure LOVE to do a PBM in that! Although I'm not sure just how great the AI will be but the whole new map and awesome units will make it by far the best mod ever for this game. if it ever gets done...

[Ethelred Unread]

Hello!

I'd be up to play, I'm a bit of a spanner when it comes to PBM or hotseat so you'd have to explain to me in detail how everthing works. I've got kingdoms, LTC and retrofit mods up and running.

Is there no way we could incorporate MP in this?

[Galain_Ironhide]

I'd say Vanilla 1.2 at a minimum ( I shudder as well at the prospect of going backwards to 1.0 or 1.1 :no: ).

I myself am using LTC 3.1 (pre-Kingdoms) which is just awesome. I will have Kingdoms by xmas so will probably update to LTC 4.1 as soon as I can.

Mind you, keeping the game simple may prove to be the winner here though. Especially if you want a large player base. :juggle2:

I think the teams of 4 is a good idea also, definately a keeper.:2thumbsup: