PBEM "race"

There seem to be several PBMs going on at the moment, and they've certaintly added a 'spark' to the community. However, I've just had an idea for a whole new kind of e-mail based event.
Basically, my musings concern how to make these things more involved, and what I came up with was an idea for several PBM campaigns. Together.
What this would involve would be several campaigns started at the same time. Each campaign would take a different faction. The campaigns would be played on exactly the same campaign setting (age, difficulty etc)

The objective: To complete the campaign before all of the other .Org Factions.

All of the campaigns will be started at the same time(in the real world) for fairness. Each faction will have a faction leader, responsible for managing the save game(Important if you don't want to fall behind), and canvassing for players. This will add a new political dimension, as all factions will be recruiting-Who can get the best players?

It's not perfect, far from it, it's just an idea in progress. I'm just posting it to get suggestions and see if there's enough support.

Yeah we were discussing a similar idea on the VI Almohad caliphate thread. I think this is a really great idea because by making it a team race you include the cooperation aspect that makes PBM so fun but also introduce a little competition.

I would certianly love to be a part of this kind of game.

I don't know how many people will sign up, but perhaps if we could get 3 teams of 5 players? Oh wait, i guess yall would want to do this in a pre-VI version to get more players. Well i guess i would have to install the other version.

In any case...

The_Emperor, Dîn-Heru, Monk, Kristaps, DrHaphazard, Sprucemoose, Cazbol, Big King Sanctaphrax, SeljukSinan, Maniac, Mount Suribachi, Simon Appleton, Alrowan, Demon of Light, ChaosLord, Skie Mirror Silvanoshei, ArseClown, LadyAnn, KukriKhan, Drucius, Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

...well thats at least 21 people that have or said they will participate in a VI PBM game and i only looked at the Argonese, Viking and Almohad VI games.

So we got a good crop of possible players to work with. Trouble is how will we decide the teams or which team gets which faction? Obviously some factions are better than others and some people are better with certain factions.

The two obvious answers are teams are decided by a drawing of some sort and to make it fair all teams get the same faction. If you wanted all teams to have same faction you could do something tricky like make the faction be the Polish, Russians or HRE, factions that aren't played as much. Or perhaps the Danes since you start with virtually nothing.

Anyways, whatever team or faction i play with i sure don't want to be first http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

Ya know what i was just thinking, perhaps the first time we try one of these races we should play it in Viking mode. Would take a lot shorter time anyways. Of course this wont work if we play in v1.1.

Well, if everybody is so consumed with finishing first

then that will make for some very bad write

ups as nobody will write anything down or remember what

they did, since they're in such a hurry to pass it off to

the next.

If we agree to do this then it should also be required

that every person makes an effort to do a good AAR,

otherwise the whole point of doing a PBM would be killed,

IMHO that is.

Perhaps you could have two awards, the main award for finishing first, then an award for the team with the best write ups

This is all good. I was thinking of soliciting for faction leaders, drawing lots to see what faction they got, and then having them 'acquire' players. I think they would have to actively look, PMing people and stuff, due to everyone else wanting members as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Brother Derfel @ Aug. 17 2003,02:41)]Perhaps you could have two awards, the main award for finishing first, then an award for the team with the best write ups

---

Hey very nice idea Drefel, brilliant in fact

In any case the reason i suggested having the teams be selected randomly is to perhaps avoid having all the best players clump together. Certainly the drawing could put them all together anyways but at least then it was Fate that did the deed.

Of course on the downside it might be better for people to try and join the team who's faction they are best at. And while i think everyone having the same faction might be the fairest idea, the more interesting one is to have different factions. This would certainly save some repetition on the write-ups in any case.

So, how many teams were you invisioning Sanct? And which factions?

Well, if possible a team for every faction would be best, but we would need MASSIVE interest to be shown for that to happen. Perhaps 6-8;
English;
HRE;
Byz;
Egytians;
Turks;
Italians;
Spanish.

So, none of the really minor factions, like the Aragonese, as they'd be at a disadvantage. I've tried to include the more 'individual' factions, for more variety in gameplay between the PBMs.
This is probably being overoptimistic, however. I could see us having to add less, unless we really make it a big event, and drum up lots of publicity to get lots of players. It would probably work best in a lull, when there aren't many established PBMs going on.

Wow 6 to 8 factions, i hope we can get that many people. Even with just 4 to a team thats a lot. And a lot of write ups http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif Might get a little chaotic in here.

Anyways i would recommend the Almos over the HRE. The HRE's position is difficult because you start off with a lot of land that requires a lot of troops, meaning you get less money.

I guess it doesn't really matter at this point however, we have plenty of time before the thing actually begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (DrHaphazard @ Aug. 17 2003,20:27)]Wow 6 to 8 factions, i hope we can get that many people. Even with just 4 to a team thats a lot. And a lot of write ups http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif Might get a little chaotic in here.

Anyways i would recommend the Almos over the HRE. The HRE's position is difficult because you start off with a lot of land that requires a lot of troops, meaning you get less money.

I guess it doesn't really matter at this point however, we have plenty of time before the thing actually begins.

---

Yeah, it is a lot, but like you say it's a work in progress. It can always be changed, depending on how much support there is. Maybe I could do a poll... You might be right about the HRE/Almo thing...or maybe the Danes...

Hmmm, I think its better if all teams have the same faction - but then again different factions makes it more interesting. Perhaps some kind of handicap system is in order? So Alrowan gets Denmark http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

BTW finishing first should in-game year, not RL time & date as the latter is too dependant on having people available to play at the right time.

Perhaps the teams could be decided geographically? Britain, Europe, N America, Australasia and rest of world? seem to be the main geographical grouping at the org. Would add a bit of spice to the competition don't you think? especially as you're competing for your nations honour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]The Sands of Iwo Jima

---

So who would you fight for Suribachi? The rest of the world category? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

Well im up for a MTW World Cup if yall are, but i'm afraid im a rather poor representative for my nation.

Hehe, I'm actually English. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

If this gets going I'd like to be in.

...and so would I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Mount Suribachi @ Aug. 17 2003,22:17)]Hmmm, I think its better if all teams have the same faction - but then again different factions makes it more interesting. Perhaps some kind of handicap system is in order? So Alrowan gets Denmark http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

BTW finishing first should in-game year, not RL time & date as the latter is too dependant on having people available to play at the right time.

Perhaps the teams could be decided geographically? Britain, Europe, N America, Australasia and rest of world? seem to be the main geographical grouping at the org. Would add a bit of spice to the competition don't you think? especially as you're competing for your nations honour

---

I really like the idea of having geographically divided teams...the only problem beinfg there aren't any American factions...
As to victory being dependant on game years and not real-time, due to it being reliant on having people available to play at the right time, surely that's part of the fun?
'What do you mean you can't take the game, you BASTARD'
Seriously though, I think the game-year victory would be best, you're right...or maybe we could do both...

The problem with game year victory is that some people might be tempted to replay a year or a battle to sort of optimise it. It would be a cheat in my opinion but it would be impossible to prevent it.

Real time victory would mean that those who replayed would lose precious time.

I would like to think that totalwar.org, founded on Shogun and its system of Honour, would have patrons who would not stoop to such dishonourable levels

I would like to think that totalwar.org, founded on Shogun and its system of Honour, would have patrons who would not stoop to such dishonourable levels

I would vote for the game-year victory since basing the game to real-time victory would place those of us who have RL jobs at a serious disadvantage http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif)

Yeah some of us have school http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif And some special ones among us have school in New Orleans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif And if you ever been to New Orleans you know what that means http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Anyways i think game years is definetly the right way to go.

Or perhaps you could all start as the same faction, for example the French, and the one with the most Glorious Achievement points wins. This way you won't have the problem of time but you might shorten the time of play, for example only 200 years are played and the campaigns should be finished in one month or you automatically lose.

Cheers and good luck,
Duke John

This is a good point, we haven't considered doing the Glorious Achievement game. The problem of course is that not all GA's are created equally. Also some GA's dont work, or at least they didnt in v1.1, i dont know bout VI.

By the way how fast do yall think we can finish the game? I assume we're starting on Early. I've finished my games around 1350, so a good 250 turns. Of course i wasnt going for speed and i had stuff like 200% loyalty in all provinces, requiring lots of troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (DrHaphazard @ Aug. 19 2003,10:25)]By the way how fast do yall think we can finish the game? I assume we're starting on Early. I've finished my games around 1350, so a good 250 turns. Of course i wasnt going for speed and i had stuff like 200% loyalty in all provinces, requiring lots of troops.

---

U don't need lots of troops in order to achieve 200 loyalty. 100 peasants + a spy, an assassin and average taxes will achieve the same result in no time...

P.S. You will note the same thing when you inherit Ragnar's viking empire tonight/tomorrow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif Virtually all of the viking provinces are garrisoned by no more than 100 thralls + a spy and an assassin. Loyalty everywhere runs between 150 and 200 even with the tax rate set at maximum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Brother Derfel @ Aug. 17 2003,03:41)]Perhaps you could have two awards, the main award for finishing first, then an award for the team with the best write ups

---

Award for best write up is IMO a good idea.

I don't see the point for finishing first...

Louis the Simurgh,

Well the idea Louis is that the whole thing is a race to see which team can conquer the entire world in the fewest number of years. That way you get the teamplay aspect of PBM but also a little competition. Hopefully friendly competition, but you know how some people are http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif Oh wait a minute, I'm one of those people http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

In any case, so THAT's what spies are for huh? I knew they could be used to incite rebellions in other provinces, but it took a lot of spies. That method seemed a little cheap to me though so i stopped making spies. The only non fighintg unit i make are emissaries (to bribe and pick up princesses) and bishops (mainly because no one bothers to assasinate them so they're good for scouting inland provinces.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (DrHaphazard @ Aug. 19 2003,14:55)]In any case, so THAT's what spies are for huh? I knew they could be used to incite rebellions in other provinces, but it took a lot of spies. That method seemed a little cheap to me though so i stopped making spies. The only non fighintg unit i make are emissaries (to bribe and pick up princesses) and bishops (mainly because no one bothers to assasinate them so they're good for scouting inland provinces.)

---

Yes, the spies do increase province loyalty and they are pretty good at it as well (i.e., the 'happiness buildings' such as churches and guard towers provide a 'fixed' boost to loyalty whereas spies tend to provide continuous improvement in loaylty through years). And, of course, the more spies you have in a province, the more loyal it becomes.

On another note: spies are superior to large garrisons for a simple reaon - spies have no upkeep cost. They also catch enemy assassins and spies from time to time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

As to strategic units: I produce assassins as well: they seem to be gaining stars from cathing enemy assassins and spies much faster than spies.

A few extra practical uses for spies: (1) spies usually inform the king in advance about potential revolts and their ringleaders; (2) spies can improve loyalty of king's troops by killing disloyal generals: this is especially handy for young kings; (3) before the viking expansion, spies used to be very useful if kept in enemy provinces without border towers: they'd inform the king about future plans of his enemies/allies; nowadays, the spies die too soon in enemy territories even without border towers though... {if i was CA, i'd tone the spy killing probability a bit down}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (DrHaphazard @ Aug. 19 2003,15:55)]Well the idea Louis is that the whole thing is a race to see which team can conquer the entire world in the fewest number of years. That way you get the teamplay aspect of PBM but also a little competition. Hopefully friendly competition, but you know how some people are http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif Oh wait a minute, I'm one of those people http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

---

Hum.... Everybody with the same faction? Like the Golden Hord in late? (At least with the golden hord, global conquest makes sense....).

Louis the Simurgh,

Yeah, the details are still being worked out. Eveyone having the same faction seems to be the fairest way, and to do an obscure faction, like the Russians or GH might make things more interesting.

However, i think its also good to point out that it might get dull reading 5 different teams versions of the same expansion. By having each team with a different faction you are assured having 5 unique stories, at least to start out with.

And of course it should be remebered that there is nothing really to be gained in the victory, so i think we should go for variety and entertainment over hardcore competition.

Of course, if this works out well perhaps future PBEM Races will be more competitive.

Maybe we could see if we could rustle up a prize? Like a pip under all of the winning teams avatars, or something.