Wrath of the Khan 2: RECRUITMENT and rules discussion

Guys, I have two areas I'd like to bring up and get everybody's opinion on.

1. Naval movement bug. I consider this a bug & exploit and it should not be allowed. For those who don't know about it-put your army/agents on a navy with 2 or more ships. Then hold "Ctrl" and "a" together. Move ships and your movement points double. Your men can't get off the boats this turn but the distance they cover.

2 Vassalage. It really effects KGCM games more because another player can accept peace and vassalage for us on the AI turn. Making vassals of the AI factions to receive their money bonuses is, in my opinion, fair. Is it allowed here? We're about to end a game over at twc because of this issue. And the fact it's being brought up 12 turns after it occured.

Historically the Mongols needed the lands in modern day Russia - they made a huge profit there, and they were dubbed accordingly (the Golden Horde). The reached Hungary and Poland and subdued several cities of theirs. They also fought in the middle east and yes, the Mamluks did defeat them, though that happened after Ogedei Khan died and 90% of the horde retreated back to Mongolia to elect a new Great Khan. The Mamluks basically defeated a paltry 10k troops left as peacekeeping forces.

Anyway, I think the victory conditions should make the Mongols either hold a bunch of provinces and effectively eliminate the Kievan Rus, the K-Shah and the Turks, OR make them push far into Europe and conquer past Hungary and Poland.

So: hold 50 Procinces, eliminate factions x, y, z

OR

Hold 25 provinces, capture Warsaw, Cracow, Hamburg,

OR

Hold 15 provinces, capture all of the above + Paris, Rome, London.

Something of the sort, this is not thought out I'm just brainstorming (don't have a lot of time on the net atm)

Making sure the K-Shah is human controlled might be either very good or very bad depending on their position. In the TWC I've often heard how an AI controlled K-Shah beat the Mongols alone. Well remember that the money script in SS never lets the AI go bankrupt and they also have stacks scripts giving them free troops (try blitzing the Moors and Fatamids early on to see what I mean) AND they get free FMs so they can't die due to not having a family tree.

The K-Shah has great units and if it gets enough time, gold and castles it can seriously slap the Mongols around.

IMO RR on will benefit the Mongols as they get 50 free stacks of top-quality troops they can't hope to recruit in any reasonable time anyway.

RR off will mean we can spam our high-quality troops from our many castles. the later troops take a long time to train and replenish.

Equalizing the treasury to 30k for everyone seems OK to me.

Also I don't like that spies can open cities, this heavily favors the guys who have a lot of troops but no cities of their own to be captured (hint hint)

No Jihands/Crusades to be called or joined is a bit dull but OK. However if that's the case, then the ERE will be probably the second best pick after England. Perhaps even #1 if they have enough Scholarii at the start.

i really like the set of VCs Myth came up with, but I think one southern city at least should be added, Baghdad or maybe Cairo?

I'm going by a long shot here but why don't we divide the world into eastern and western factions (Say Italy, France, England, Spain, Denmark, HRE is West, the rest is East) and have the Mongol capture a certain amount of territory and capture/sack 1 eastern and 1 western capital from players (not AI). That would bring the confrontation both east and west whichever route the Mongols take without going into specifics and allowing phonics more freedom to plan his invasion. It could also help create tensions between the other factions trying to push the mongols into one direction or another.

Or maybe this is unrealistic... I don't really know.

Originally Posted by LooseCannon1:
1. Naval movement bug. I consider this a bug & exploit and it should not be allowed. For those who don't know about it-put your army/agents on a navy with 2 or more ships. Then hold "Ctrl" and "a" together. Move ships and your movement points double. Your men can't get off the boats this turn but the distance they cover.

I agree, we'll ban this one.

Originally Posted by LooseCannon1:
2 Vassalage. It really effects KGCM games more because another player can accept peace and vassalage for us on the AI turn. Making vassals of the AI factions to receive their money bonuses is, in my opinion, fair. Is it allowed here? We're about to end a game over at twc because of this issue. And the fact it's being brought up 12 turns after it occured.

I'm not sure of the specific issue you guys are facing but I'm fairly relaxed about this. It's not a massive money bonus anyway is it? Also, there are no "AI" factions in this game because they were all set to human when I created the campaign. This is so none of them gets money bonuses or scripted events that AI factions get in the SP campaign. So this might not be an issue at all?

Originally Posted by Myth:
Anyway, I think the victory conditions should make the Mongols either hold a bunch of provinces and effectively eliminate the Kievan Rus, the K-Shah and the Turks, OR make them push far into Europe and conquer past Hungary and Poland.

So: hold 50 Procinces, eliminate factions x, y, z

OR

Hold 25 provinces, capture Warsaw, Cracow, Hamburg,

OR

Hold 15 provinces, capture all of the above + Paris, Rome, London.

I like this idea.

Originally Posted by Myth:
In the TWC I've often heard how an AI controlled K-Shah beat the Mongols alone.

See above for why there are no "AI" factions in this game.

Originally Posted by Myth:
IMO RR on will benefit the Mongols as they get 50 free stacks of top-quality troops they can't hope to recruit in any reasonable time anyway.

RR is off.

Originally Posted by Myth:
Also I don't like that spies can open cities, this heavily favors the guys who have a lot of troops but no cities of their own to be captured (hint hint)

I actually think this is going to favour you guys more than me - I have heaps of siege equipment and don't need to haul it as far as you. But for the same reason I don't mind if people want to ban spies from opening gates.

Originally Posted by Myth:
No Jihands/Crusades to be called or joined is a bit dull but OK.

Jihads and Crusades are a massive headache to police and I'd rather leave them out altogether unless there's a strong feeling from everyone that they should be included.

its looking good but im not really into those victory conditions for the non mongols. i mean we are good without creating "treachery". thats unnecessary. the human s victory conditions simply ought to be outstanding the mongol invasion and keeping them from reaching their goal. thats the main objective. if the last mongol is down the non mongols won. if u was setting the game up as it is right now its kinda unlikely that it was working the way it is meant to be. i mean if i was getting some faction somewhere in europe i certainly am not sending any troops to the mid east. i mean whats the point of fighting u there if some "ally" of mine is seizing my homeland. thats just senseless. sure this means u are winning this game but thats fine with me. for me its about getting the most out of a game while its running. final victory means nothing. if it wasnt entertaining in the first place its senseless. i certainly am still remembering some good games on the green that me and the team lost but that had been way more fun than some of those we d won. so im certainly getting more out of fighting my own lil war in europe than fighting u in the mid east while someone else is taking advantage of that and taking my homeland. even if that means that u are winning this. if the non mongols were fighting each other its pretty unlikely that vibe of the first wotk picks up again. its just another game then where everyone is doing whats best for him and not the team. there are other ways of heating things up. if u was having the turks and egypt siding with u and setting london, paris, leon, hamburg and warsaw as target cities + xx provinces the situation also is challenging. and its still balanced. even if the turks and egypt were siding with u we still got enough players in the west for making it an equal fight. i mean without any support the mongols are somewhat underpowered anyway. i mean without the rajputs things might had developed different. they were not just taking some of the fire but also blocked ur forces with forts. that was big. otherwise maybe the situation had been different. so for me its just fine if the turks and egypt were siding with u. we got enough players for taking over the rest of the world for making it and equal fight and since u are kinda deciding it lot like whos taking which its all equal. so what im actually saying is that the good thing of wotk was the battling of two major opponents. thats what created the experience. the final mongol victory meant nothing but that the game was over. its the things in between that matter. its two main rivals battling each other that is creating epic things - blue vs red - Jets vs Patriots - Ali vs Foreman - Coleman vs Cutler. all the big rivalries. those are making history

I see your point Silver (but man your posts are hard to read :laugh4:)

Does anyone else feel like that about the non-Mongol VCs?

I guess what I'm trying to do is make the game a little less predictable, so create some tension between the non-Mongol factions which might create a reason for someone to side with me for a short time like the Rajputs in the first game. I'd rather that happened naturally then having (say) Turks and Egypt mandated to fight on my side from the start.

EDIT: I just had a thought. What about adding another requirement that means that non-mongol factions have to fight the mongols to win the game even if they are trying to win by being traitors?

For example:

- Outlast the Mongols and take 15 additional provinces from one or more human non-Mongol players.
OR
- Fight 5 battles against the Mongols and take 30 additional provinces from one or more human non-Mongol players before the Mongols win the game.

Silver, is that better do you think?

how about
Capture at least 3 mongol cities and take 27 additional provinces from one or more human non-Mongol players before the Mongols win the game.

simply saying fight 5 battles might result in 5 very minor skirmishes with one unit or something like that.

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey:
I agree, we'll ban this one.

People who didn't know about this are now in favor of banning it. It will be banned in future.

Originally Posted by :
I'm not sure of the specific issue you guys are facing but I'm fairly relaxed about this. It's not a massive money bonus anyway is it? Also, there are no "AI" factions in this game because they were all set to human when I created the campaign. This is so none of them gets money bonuses or scripted events that AI factions get in the SP campaign. So this might not be an issue at all?

First turn of vassalage 92,000 florins (on turn 15). Yes, ninety-two thousand florins. And Denmark was forced to also accept peace with HRE. Next turn he attacked again, killing all (two)family members and HRE and cutting off my money supply:laugh4:. Now, 12 turns later, everybody wants to know how come France (me) had so much money. Minor flame war broke out after I reminded them-we had discussed this the first turn it happened (April 29th)

I'm in favor of RR off, spies opening gates and assassins killing generals (but not family members). Oh and Mongols capturing 50 regions and exterminating 3 factions. That's seems to be enough.

edit: could not see rules once I started typing. I'm ok with rules as posted in OP.

Originally Posted by LooseCannon1:
First turn of vassalage 92,000 florins (on turn 15). Yes, ninety-two thousand florins.

That does sound unbalanced and we should probably then ban making the AI factions vassals. Their provinces won't count towards the VCs anyway and they don't stay loyal so there's really no reason to vassalize them except for this cash injection.

Originally Posted by LooseCannon1:
assassins killing generals (but not family members).

I think they should be allowed to kill family members - with the rule in place about how to use assassins (one attempt per turn and before anything else) it's easy to check each assassination to ensure it's legit. I think this takes away the threat of whole families being wiped out by them.

As for VCs I've been thinking about this a bit more. Myth suggested:

Originally Posted by :
Mongols:

- Hold 50 Provinces, eliminate factions x, y, z

OR

Hold 25 provinces, capture Warsaw, Cracow, Hamburg,

OR

Hold 15 provinces, capture all of the above + Paris, Rome, London.

I thought of a few issues with these.

Firstly, if the Mongols are required to eliminate particular factions what's to stop you guys just continually relocating those factions further and further away? To avoid that we'd have to ban the trading of provinces which would handicap you guys (because it would make sense for you to exchange castles near the front line so that you could each recruit troops there without transporting them).

Secondly in the second VC the cities are all in Central Europe which creates a very predictable expansion path for the Mongols. We should add more cities as options in that one otherwise I'm just not going to opt for it and it becomes redundant.

Thirdly I think Paris and London are a bit harsh! I'm never going to choose to try to get to London. If you really want to put London in there I think it becomes a VC all of its own. If I get all the way to London I win!

So what about this instead?

Originally Posted by :
-Hold 50 provinces including Kiev and Cairo.

OR

- Hold 25 provinces including three of Budapest, Cracow, Benghazi and Constantinople.

OR

- Hold 15 provinces including two of Rome, Frankfurt, Tripoli and Lubeck.

The cities aren't necessarily historically accurate paths for the Mongols but what it creates is a North/South line in each case where I have to get to before I win the game, and provides me different paths to get there so that it keeps you guys guessing about what I'm going to try to do.

For the non-Mongols I think we should have what NB suggested which is:

Originally Posted by :
- Outlast the Mongols and capture an 15 additional provinces from one or more human non-Mongol players.

OR

- Capture and hold at least 3 Mongol cities and take 27 additional provinces from one or more human non-Mongol players before the Mongols win the game.

What do you think?

sounds good to me.

is there any room?
if there is, could i perhaps join? :D
im from the TWC and heard about this hotseat, and thought it might be fun. :)

Welcome to the Org and to the Throne Room!

As for the game, you're in! Take a few minutes to catch up with the discussion and let me know if you have any suggestions about the rules and victory conditions.

ty for letting me join :2thumbsup:

i hope i wont die out quickly :laugh4:

Guys, can't we just accept the rules as they are and get playing already? :)

yea sure im getting ur point of making the game less predictable but the game is unpredictable anyway even if there were teams right from the start. war always is unpredictable. anything is happening. one mistake or simply being lucky in some way and the whole picture already changes. so maybe its clear who is coming and where the journey ends but no one knows whats happening in between. maybe u aint into football but its the same with rugby. if its all blacks vs springboks its obvious that two teams are battling each other. yet what actually is happening while the game lasts is totally unpredictable and thats the exciting thing about it. anything is possible. so for me its best like i said. the mongol team vs the rest of the world

phonics - I thought about it and you can count on me as a substitute player if someone suddenly drops out or something like that.

Originally Posted by slysnake:
Guys, can't we just accept the rules as they are and get playing already? :)

Patience....we're still recruiting and I'm still testing the save to make sure the script works without crashing.

IK: great, thanks!

Originally Posted by SilverShield:
yea sure im getting ur point of making the game less predictable but the game is unpredictable anyway even if there were teams right from the start. war always is unpredictable. anything is happening. one mistake or simply being lucky in some way and the whole picture already changes. so maybe its clear who is coming and where the journey ends but no one knows whats happening in between. maybe u aint into football but its the same with rugby. if its all blacks vs springboks its obvious that two teams are battling each other. yet what actually is happening while the game lasts is totally unpredictable and thats the exciting thing about it. anything is possible. so for me its best like i said. the mongol team vs the rest of the world

Then again, that's what Clash of Gods is. And we're both playing in it. A little more randomness in this game helps differentiate them.

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey:
Patience....we're still recruiting and I'm still testing the save to make sure the script works without crashing.

By the way I should say that I would have finished the test last night but unfortunately about 25 turns into the game a mob of Cuman assassins killed off nearly all my FMs and I don't think I can make it to the end of the script without the rest being knocked off.

It really was a night of the long knives - in one turn they got seven Mongol FMs and about four agents. I'll post a screenie here later for your amusement.

So I have to roll back the save a few turns and take over control of the Cumans and Kwarezm just to stop them doing it...should be finished tonight then I'll post the starting save here for you to see.

Nearly finished the test last night...should have a save for you to look at tomorrow.

Ok, here's a working save with all the factions open for you to look at.

Let me know what you think - looks pretty balanced to me, as far as possible at turn 127 when the AI has been in control of the vehicle.

pretty much all the factions seem to be in a good position, except a few, I'll go with Moors :p

Originally Posted by Ezilkannan:
I'll go with Moors :p

This reminds me - once we have our set number of players (soon) I was thinking we should cut some factions so that we have the right number of human-controlled and they are the strongest. I thought the best way to do this would be by number of territories, effectively taking the largest for us and leaving the smallest AI - make sense?

Then I'll allocate them among you randomly and you guys can trade them if you want.

I cycled trough every faction and can give you some suggestions.

1. This is actually valid for any lategame SS hotseat - the spamming of General's Bodyguards from Fortresses should be banned. They are effectively self-regenerating, free upkeep heavy cav that the AI loves to recruit en masse. I think only adoptions/marriages and regular births should be allowed to be used. Otherwise no matter what the faction, everyone will want the free upkeep, self-retraining cav and some factions get better BG units than others. These are especially powerful in a lead battle game.

2. Some factions are in pathetic condition. It's not so much a matter of territory, but a combination of territory and current army strength. The worst is Portugal - down to their last city and with two armies versus a sea of Moors. Norway is pretty low on provinces and while they do have a couple of good stacks, they have to take on Denmark, possibly the HRE and France can always come by and take their settlements along the coast. Novgorod has it pretty bad as well - at war with Lithuania, the Cumans and the Kievan Rus, currently besieged by one faction. The Cumans and Lithuania are both vastly superrior in terms of size and troop quality (mass horse archers, that are second only to Mongol ones). The Teutonic Order is not playable but it's an immortal faction in SS. They are emergent and lack a family tree. Which means that every time you kill them, they spawn again with a half stack or full stack of knights. They are currently besieging a Lithuanian fortress. And they will be a pain in the backside to deal with for anyone in that region. Genoa is also on it's hind legs, squashed between Aragorn and the HRE. Venice is with a very low province count and although it has some armies, it faces the might of the ERE to the East and a bunch of hungry HRE/Genoese/Sicillians back in Italy. England has a few but well developed cidies and castles, and two rebel and three Scottish provinces up for the taking. Scotland has a very unimpressive roster, it's scattered around the Highlands and it generally will spend a tremendeous effort if it tries to take on England. if both Egnalnd and Scotland are human, then England has a definite advantage with Miles cav and Yeomen Archers.

On the other side of the world, the Fatamids have turned into the Yellow Death as per usual, the K-shah has a lot of land but a lot of problems as well with Genghis&Co making an appearance there. The Turks are so-so, they have the jump on the Fatamids turn-wise but the Yellow Death has vastly Superior armies.

However since so many stacks are placed everywhere at random, some near cities etc. I think a grace period of 1 turn must be allowed for players to regroup, build forts etc. otherwise whomever precedes his enemy in the turn order can just wipe out entire stacks for free.

Also I wanted to ask, which AI setting was used to generate this? Gracul or Lusted? Which one will we use for the game?

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey:
This reminds me - once we have our set number of players (soon) I was thinking we should cut some factions so that we have the right number of human-controlled and they are the strongest. I thought the best way to do this would be by number of territories, effectively taking the largest for us and leaving the smallest AI - make sense?

Then I'll allocate them among you randomly and you guys can trade them if you want.

hmm, ok,

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey:
This reminds me - once we have our set number of players (soon) I was thinking we should cut some factions so that we have the right number of human-controlled and they are the strongest. I thought the best way to do this would be by number of territories, effectively taking the largest for us and leaving the smallest AI - make sense?

Then I'll allocate them among you randomly and you guys can trade them if you want.

Sounds good. I agree with Myth that a lot of factions are in pathetic condition. Portugal, Aragon, Venice, Genoa, Scotland, Hungary, and Novgorod are definite AI candidates. The rest of western Europe (+Poland) might be salvageable by a human player. (But not with humans in charge of all of them.) K-shah, Turks, Cumans, Fatamids, Byzantium, Kiev Rus, Moors, and Lithunia are in good shape.

Any chance of eliminating some TO units at start? Cutting them in half would be nice.

Aragorn will finish off Genoa soon, they have great sea trade going on and if they start a coordinated attack vs the Moors they can be salvaged as well. But if France is human controlled, then probably not. Hungary is about at Poland's level, and Hungary's units seem better overall - 2 kinds of HAs + very good foot knights.

Lithuania can take care of the TO with a massive HA stack but they are simply out of position...

The Kievan Rus is better than Novgorod, at about Poland/Aragorn level. Scotland can prosper if and only if England is AI controlled. But even then it's roster is a bit meh for lead battles. (lacks good cav). I would actually give Portugal a try simply for the huge challenge that they face, but only if the Moors are not human controlled.

Based on your feedback and a look at the save game I think the human factions should be:

- Egypt
- Byz
- Kwaz
- turks
- Rus
- Moors
- Cumans
- France
- Denmark
- England

What do you guys think of that?

What is the setup so I can check the save?