"Best of Both Worlds" .org Vs .net

.orgs 2nd pick so far

.org

Phonics Monkey-HRE

TWC

Mordrorru-Kingdom Of France

the two captains neighbours!!! bloodshed imminent!

TWC "When Wolds Collide HS" Thread here,

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=406040

The rules are on there aswell for you guys to have a look at.

Great - we'll set up a game thread here too once Quirl has some graphics for us, then you can link to that instead of this one

I subscribe to the bloodshed.

Let the pain commence.

Askthepizzaguy- England

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

Great - we'll set up a game thread here too once Quirl has some graphics for us, then you can link to that instead of this one

---

I just edited the OP and have supplied a link to the throne room and have left a space for the link to HS thread, Have a look let me know what you think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grouchy13

I just edited the OP and have supplied a link to the throne room and have left a space for the link to HS thread, Have a look let me know what you think

---

Looks good - we may have some feedback / requests on the rules though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

Looks good - we may have some feedback / requests on the rules though...

---

Yeah no worries we can Iron out any differences, these rules are tried and tested you have my guarentee in that.

Personally I say no spies opening of gates. And maybe no fort spamming (2 max per region?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grouchy13

Yeah no worries we can Iron out any differences, these rules are tried and tested you have my guarentee in that.

---

I'm sure they are - you guys play a lot of hotseats over there. But this is a slightly different (new?) kind of game in that it's a team deathmatch.

So I think we should define the victory conditions as follows:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The game will continue until either all the opposing team's factions are destroyed or the players have publicly surrendered, or if the players have abandoned their factions and are not present to continue the game and no replacements can be found. The remaining team will be declared the victor.

My personal view is that we should ban crusades and jihads altogether. It's just easier that way, especially in a deathmatch like this one. This is the wording I use for that in the GA hotseat:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No in-game crusades or jihads may be joined by any human player. If a crusade is called by the Pope it shall be ignored.

I think we should replace the rule about subs with the following:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Any team-mate can sub for a player who cannot play his turn within the allotted 24 hours and will be granted an additional 24 hours to do it. If there are no available team-mates then the 'friendly' admin will sub instead. If there are no subs or friendly admins available within the 48 hours then the turn will be skipped. An extension may be granted by the opposing team's admin on request.

And finally I think the last point about exploits should be something like:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Any actions which are adjudged to be an exploit by the majority decision of the two admins and the team captains will be banned from play from that point on. If an unfair advantage is adjudged to have been gained then the admins will take the necessary action to restore balance as they see fit. The admins and team captains will be obliged to consider any action which is referred to them by any player on either team at any point in the game.

This leaves us with the possibility of a deadlock if we split along party lines, but that would have been the case with your original rule too as there are an even number of players and admins..

What do you think?

Swarbs picks the Eastern Roman Empire. That would be Byzantium before anyone asks ;)

I vote for the crusade / jihad rules we're using in the Double Jeopardy hotseat, i.e. you can only take the target settlement, but can attack any armies / forts on the way.

Also agree with the no spies rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visorslash

Personally I say no spies opening of gates.

---

I'm happy with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visorslash

And maybe no fort spamming (2 max per region?)

---

Less so with that, I really like forts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swarbs

I vote for the crusade / jihad rules we're using in the Double Jeopardy hotseat, i.e. you can only take the target settlement, but can attack any armies / forts on the way.

---

I think it's just too unbalanced when you just have two sides like in this game. Imagine if one side is able to call both a crusade and a jihad in the first turn. The game is basically over. Better to just leave them out altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

I'm sure they are - you guys play a lot of hotseats over there. But this is a slightly different (new?) kind of game in that it's a team deathmatch.

So I think we should define the victory conditions as follows:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The game will continue until either all the opposing team's factions are destroyed or the players have publicly surrendered, or if the players have abandoned their factions and are not present to continue the game and no replacements can be found. The remaining team will be declared the victor.

My personal view is that we should ban crusades and jihads altogether. It's just easier that way, especially in a deathmatch like this one. This is the wording I use for that in the GA hotseat:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No in-game crusades or jihads may be joined by any human player. If a crusade is called by the Pope it shall be ignored.

I think we should replace the rule about subs with the following:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Any team-mate can sub for a player who cannot play his turn within the allotted 24 hours and will be granted an additional 24 hours to do it. If there are no available team-mates then the 'friendly' admin will sub instead. If there are no subs or friendly admins available within the 48 hours then the turn will be skipped. An extension may be granted by the opposing team's admin on request.

And finally I think the last point about exploits should be something like:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Any actions which are adjudged to be an exploit by the majority decision of the two admins and the team captains will be banned from play from that point on. If an unfair advantage is adjudged to have been gained then the admins will take the necessary action to restore balance as they see fit. The admins and team captains will be obliged to consider any action which is referred to them by any player on either team at any point in the game.

This leaves us with the possibility of a deadlock if we split along party lines, but that would have been the case with your original rule too as there are an even number of players and admins..

What do you think?

---

Those rules are logical and fair, I can't see there being any opposition to them and will see the TWC guys and get their approval, are we clear on the position that spies will be allowed and of that all battles will be Auto resolved and screens posted of the before and after battles screens to prove the battles haven't been played on the battle map?

oh and Swarbs has picked the Byzantine Empire, your 3rd pick is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

I think it's just too unbalanced when you just have two sides like in this game. Imagine if one side is able to call both a crusade and a jihad in the first turn. The game is basically over. Better to just leave them out altogether.

---

Good point. Ok, no crusades or jihads! Not gonna complain too much having just picked an Orthodox faction! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grouchy13

oh and Swarbs has picked the Byzantine Empire, your 3rd pick is?

---

We're on it, will advise later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grouchy13

...are we clear on the position that spies will be allowed and of that all battles will be Auto resolved and screens posted of the before and after battles screens to prove the battles haven't been played on the battle map?

---

Clear. Battles against other players are autoresolved, battles against the AI may be fought. At least 2 spies are needed to open the gates.

I'm also happy with banning spies altogether if that is the suggestion (Visor brought this up from your side..). It will be a slower but probably fairer game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

Clear. Battles against other players are autoresolved, battles against the AI may be fought. At least 2 spies are needed to open the gates.

I'm also happy with banning spies altogether if that is the suggestion (Visor brought this up from your side..). It will be a slower but probably fairer game.

---

We're still debating this and will have an answer soon, the rules you suggested have gone down well and I have edited the rules within the TWC thread, I can tell you everyone I have spoken to is very exited about this HS and it appears we will have plenty of followers to that end would you guys have any problems with posting the Campaign map every 5 turns, we will do it so it is retrospective ( On turn 10 display Turn 5's map) not to give away too much tactical infomation, this will keep the follwors up to date with the world picture and is a regular part of the big HS in our community, let me know if any of the guys have any objections my friend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grouchy13

...would you guys have any problems with posting the Campaign map every 5 turns, we will do it so it is retrospective ( On turn 10 display Turn 5's map) not to give away too much tactical infomation, this will keep the follwors up to date with the world picture and is a regular part of the big HS in our community, let me know if any of the guys have any objections my friend

---

That's a good idea. I also usually write turn-by-turn updates every five turns for hotseats I host (see this one for example) - it'd be great if someone (maybe the two admins) could do that and post them in each thread so that those following the game can see a commentary on the action?

Installing SS 6.3, it mentions: "Mandatory bugfixes are available with additional content/corrections from here as a installer."

Presumably I install that as well, seeing as they're mandatory.

There's a discussion going on in the Dual Alliances thread here in the Throne Room about the combination of 6.3 and sub-mods to use for a hotseat.

I say we just use whichever version ends up winning the vote in that game.

Take a look and let me know what you think.

And are we doing Early or Late era? It's asking me for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mordrorru

And are we doing Early or Late era? It's asking me for that.

---

Early.

Any advancement on the 3rd pick guys?

Yes - Quirl al-Mustafa Mubarak will play as.....The Moors!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

Yes - Quirl al-Mustafa Mubarak will play as.....The Moors!

---

thread updated on TWC bro

Incontinenta Buttox has claimed the Fatamid Caliphate for TWC, Phonics my friend your teams final pick is?

Btw, have we decided whether Real Recruitment will be enabled or disabled for this hotseat? Would be good to decide now before we get too far along...

Based on your post in the dual alliances thread I think we should disable real recruitment and use the no waiting mod.

My only problem is will this make my 6.3 install incompatible with the Dual Alliances game? I don't want to have two 6.3 installs...