Printable View
I was just rereading some of the old VI PBMs, and I think it would be an interesting idea for all those people who still play VI to start one. Obviously by now most people would be playing MTW2, however, there ought to be a fair fwe who remain loyal to the original.
Tried setting one of these up in the early Rome days, when I still had the game actually installed on my computer. However, I wasn't able to find enough support for that one, back then. I hope you do better than I did, and wish you luck !
:balloon2:
I could play. Which faction did you have in mind?
I'd be in.
As a faction, the vikings jump obviously to mind. House rules would include some about raiding and conquest. As well as (perhaps) some period of peace to let the other factions build up again.
I was thinking either Saxons or Vikings. However, we can take a vote.
I would like to do a MTW or VI PBM if it could be done
Maybe, to attract more people, one of us should post on the MTW forums since here there's few people coming to look for an VI PBeM
Just asked (pretty much) the same question in the MTW: Single Player forum...should've checked here first. The VI-campaign has never really interested me, but if we were about to play the "real" game then I'm in.
By real game, you meant early, high, late game, with the whole of europe?
I was thinking that by proposing this, we could see how many people were still interested by VI/MTW, and at the end propose another one on MTW. However I guess if more people are interested in MTW, then we could switch to it.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
Hey,
I still think we should do this,since I still Play VI :D
Afterwards I'm thinking of organising a PBM with MTW XL
but for now, I'll just watch&learn from Ignoramus
Agreed that XL would be funnier to PBM than Vanilla or VI. I've taken the liberty to work out a sort of simplified way of playing from reading the KotR...No idea proposing it 'till I know if anyone is interested though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
I am, of course. PM me if ya want.
Me, I was thinking of one of the Italian states (Genoa, Venice) to use as a sort of Republic and from there... redo KotR or WotS.
I've sent you a PM about it:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
I still want to do this, but I'm a little inactive at this forum from now on.
Nevermind, I'll check back as often as I can.
So, Warmaster Horus and I have worked out some basic ideas as for how to play. Really, it's all a simplified version of the KotR way of playing. Of course, these are just suggestions and everyone is free to come up with suggestions and alterations:
First, we have the Chancellor. A player who works as the "mod" and who does all the dirty work. The Chancellor will be the one who constructs buildings and recruit troops according to other player's suggestions (see below). The Chancellor also moves troops around. If there is a battle, the Chancellor will send the game (via e-mail, for example) to the player who's character or province is involved (see below) who then plays the battle. The game is then "returned" to the Chancellor who continues as above.
The Chancellor has some power however, and can be a provincial ruler (most likely the capital or whatever big city that is closest to the King's position, for more info see below). The Chancellor can also engineer domestic troubles if he wishes to; i.e. by spending a little extra on himself and his own province, which should likely provoke some disputes. The Chancellor can also engineer civil wars (this is done in-game) by being convinced (perhaps by bribery) by some prince or such to assassinate the King.
Then there is the King (or Doge, or whatever). The King is played by another player. The King is the one who makes all the final suggestions, but not without the influence of other players (see below). A King must be roleplayed (i.e. if the King has the vice "irritable", he will not be keen to settle with truces and such, and a king who is known for executing prisoners must continue to do so, even it earns him some nasty vices). More than just having the final word in financial matters and politics, the King is also responsible for the main army of the kingdom, and must command all larger, offensive, campaigns. Good commander or not.
When the King dies, he will be succeeded, so players who chose to play as the crown prince must consider that they will likely end up as Kings.
Then comes Princes or Heroes (as Heroes, all scripted heroes and random generals that spawn with 4+ command (unusual, but it happens) counts). Again, these must be roleplayed as above.
There is however a difference between Princes and Heroes. Princes can't be landowners, and are solely for military purposes. A Hero is more stationary, and if he is granted a provincial title by the King, he must remain in that province untill stripped of office.
Finally comes provincial rulers. These are not "seen" unless a provincial title is handed out. That is: I can play as Tuscany withouth there being an elected Duke of Tuscany, but if there is a hero who earns the title, these two will be merged into one (unless both players disagree to this of course, in which case the problem most be solved in other ways, like the Hero not earning the title in the first place). A provincial title can not be given to some random general with high acumen, only if he is a noble (i.e. a Hero, see above).
And finally a little bit about warfare: For the realism of it, we should keep our armies balanced, quite simply. A core of elite troops surrounded by lesser soldiers.
A good rule is two units of retainers (like Mounted Sergeants) per one unit of knights. This means: If a provincial ruler wishes to recruit one unit of knights in his province, he is forced to recruit twice as many retainers, as these provide the servants, squires and well...retainers for the knights. Of course, as the eras pass by, previous peak units will be conisidered as retainers (so we could use Feudal Knights as retainers in High).
Good luck with the PBM :2thumbsup:
Good point raised there. I was thinking we should try to balance the number of princes and provincial owners to be as equal as possible. As the game passes by however, we will clearly have a lot more provinces than princes. What we could do to solve this is:Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger
When a new province is conquered, we leave it open for a certain amount of time (let's say 24 hours or something) for anyone wishing to join to grab. Once that time has expired and no one has grabbed the province, the king will quite simply chose a provincial lord whos province borders to this province and give the province to him. Of course, giving it to a non-bordering provincial ruler would give an interesting feudal patchwork touch.
Also, I realised I was a bit unclear about the real power of the king. His words are final, but he is not to make a decision if 2/3 or more of the princes and provincial lords are against him.
Again, these are only suggestions so feel free to come up with improvements. And who is interested in joining in?
I think this is a great idea and would love to join in, especially if we use the excellent XL mod with its variety of factions, but I too am somewhat unclear about the mechanics. Why couldn't a provincial ruler be both a provincial ruler and a general at the same time? In other words, when the King decodes to launch a campaign (or a Crusade), shouldn't this provincial ruler be expected to join the army/Crusade/Jihad with a certain amount of troops, and if he happens to be the highest ranking general in the kingdom, shouldn't he lead the army himself? In other words, I am not quite clear of the difference between heroes and provincial owners.
Back to gunslinger's question, I am wondering if getting new players may be a good idea actually. If the PBM starts and somebody misses out, why not create a waiting list of peope who want to join and get them in once a province is conquered or a new hero is born (such as Nur al Din for the Fatimids for example). Also I guess heroes will die from time to time, and I wonder if in such a case the player whose hero just died should be given a choice of a new one from a list of remaining generals. This brings up the question whether the green generals command should be used for a better sense of realism.
And a final question - when a battle is e-mailed to a player, then how do we make sure the player plays it only once, in other words that he or she does not replay the battle until a favorable outcome?
Since there aren't that many heros, and princes can't hold titles, wouldn't we be forced to hand out titles to "common" generals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Well, you don't need to hand out titles at all really...Like I said, for the realism of it, we should only give titles to nobles (aka heroes).Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger
To get the feel of a truly feudal system, all provincial rulers should muster a number of units for each campaign, yes. However there need to be no "effective" provincial ruler i.e. the title can remain idle untill someone suitable to take the tile appears. We should of course strive to have heroes with plenty of command stars in each province (or just good generals), but untill that is possible the titles will "stay put".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul
If a hero is indeed the best general in the kingdom he could of course lead an offensive army himself, but only unless the king has a few cowardly vices or for some reason can't command the army himself.
To put it straight:
Hero: A scripted hero or any general with 4+ starts.
Provincial ruler: No one really (except a player of course) untill a suitable hero/general appears.
So the system of these two being split will only really be used early on, as things change and we get more heroes and generals who can take the roles as provincial rulers or...er...I'm confusing myself right now. Like I said, if you know a better (and smoother) way of running this, please post it.
We could also do it like this: Let's say we play as England, and I play as Normandie. I could then (quite naturally) claim Tancred de Normandie as soon as he spawns. And later on in the campaign, when we've conquered a bit and a new player is granted with, let's say, Navarre, this player could have first dibs on any hero/general that becomes available if there is no spare general already as the player enters. Creating a joining list sounds like a good idea too.
I don't really know about green generals. It would indeed be more realistic, but might cause a lot of trouble if only high-command boys can be provincial rulers. So if use green generals we'll have to come up with another system for this.
Of course we can't control how many times a player plays through a battle, we'll just have to trust them. Although we could set up the following time limits:
The player must confirm that he/she has recieved the savegame within 24 hours after it being e-mailed.
If the player makes no report on the battle within 24 hours after the confirmation, it will be auto-calculated. The player's character will be held with the same responsibilty for the outcome of the battle as if he had played it for himself. If the player does not answer to the e-mail containing the savegame in the first place, the battle will also be auto-calculated.
Innocentius, thanks for the answers. I personally like the rules you propiosed, just needed some clarification. I really like the idea and appreciate all your efforts, and I just want to help with figuring out exactly how it will all work.
Here is what I propose, along the lines of the already suggested rules - the King should be the one who determines who gets what province and initial troops. He should do that on the basis of whom he likes, and he would probably like people that follow his suggestions more than people who have a tendency to express strong differences in opinion. I think the King should interfere only rarely in determining what is built and trained in the separate provinces, and leave that mostly to the Duke he has chosen, to give the game a sense of realism and make it harder. I also think the Chancellor will need to keep calculations for each hero's income (if that hero has a province as a fief) - in other words let's say I start the game as a unit of peasants and get Tuscany as my fief, plus an allocation of the kingdom's coffers. Just for the purpose of this example, let's say my puny acumen skills make Tuscany yield only 200 florints per turn (keeping taxes high, also my decision). My unit's upkeep is 25, therefore my annual income would be 175 florints. If we agree on a King's share of one fifth, then I am left with 140 florints. If I built a watchtower the first turn, I would have a total of 540 florints in my coffers, with which to build buildings and eventually train troops in my province. I can always ask the King to transfer troops to my province (in which case I would be expected to take their expenses or split them with the King, whatever we agree), or ask for a gift fromt he royal coffers if it is decided that a Cathedral is needed in Tuscany (would be a valid request if we play GA mode). I just think such rules would make it tougher and slower to develop empires and blaze through the entire map in a few turns.
I wonder how do we limit the King's interference in one's inner matters. I think the King should probably have a say when it comes to offensive military matters - he calls the invasions and the Crusades, because otherwise, if we go back to my example with Tuscany, I may decide that I dislike my King and as a result launch an invasion on Rome, getting him excommunicated. At the same time, I think that for the King to interfere with what I build in Tuscany and make me build a border fort instead of that farm improvement I actually want, he needs to have the suppor of the other heroes, let's say 2 thirds of it.
There should also be a specified military obligation - I would be granted Tuscany in exchange for promising to supply two units of Urban Militian and a unit of Mounted Sergeants to the King whenever he deems it necessary for a campaign he intends or for the defense of another province. These troops or whatever is left of them are to be returned to me though, once the campaign ends or the threat disappears, unless of course I am given a newly conquered province and decide to keep them there (and this new province will of course come with a new obligation). One the troops are returned, I will still have the obligation to supply them for future campaigns, and therefore I should be responsible for retraining them as quickly as reasonably possible.
Finally, here is a potentially complicated situation. If a civil war breaks out for some reason, as unlikely as this is, who decides whether the rebels or the loyalists should be supported, and, what happens in case my hero falls with the rebels? This is a difficult situation to figure out.
This was a lengthy post and I appologize if I have gone into too much detail. I guess I am just excited about the PBM.
Very good post, Kavhan Isbul! I agree with you about the pace of the game, it should be rather slow and full of political discussion and arguing that prevents us from becoming a blitz-machine like it's possible to do.
The civil war question is a troublesome one, but my simple answer to that is that we should have an out of character vote on who to support, and then we shall have to come up with a story for what happened and why that guy went rebel while that guy remained loyal.
Oh, I was also thinking: we must put up some sort of time-schedules as we can't possibly spend a few pages on discussing what to build each separate years. We should really put up ten-year plans or such, so that each separate year turns into a 5 pages long debate.
Oh, I agree, but it would depend on number of battles needed to be fought. I guess we should organize it like this - one day should be spent in the forum - not arguing, but rather submitting players schedules (build this on turn 1, build this and train that on turn 2) various proposals to be voted on (if needed, as there should be certain things the King should have the absolute power to decide, such as for example who gets what province and which troops). By the end of the day everyone votes, and the chancellor can do the playing the following day. If there are battles, he quick saves the game and sends it to whoever needs to play it (most probably the King), and after the save game is submitted to the King, he has 24 hours to send back a save file after it is finished to the Chancellor. In the meantime the rest of the players can still propose things and vote on them, plus submit their schedules. Later in the game when there are more battles and provinces switch hands back and forth, the pace may need to slow down, but I guess the whole point is not to complete the PBM in a week, but rather over several months.
Now for the Chancellor - he will need to do all the hard, tedious work and he should get a province to keep him entertained (plus the Chancellor title once his palace is built of course). How about giving him the first conquered province (and adding to that as the kingdom expands)? He should also get one vote on all matters that require voting.
And finally, in order to create some inner competition and make the whole thing even harder (and more fun), I wonder if we should divide the starting players in 4 or so rivaling factions within the faction. The King and his royal family excluded (the King's goal is to win the game, kind of boring but still tougher than any regular campaign), we can have different houses of nobles, and at the end of the game we distribute points for battles won, provinces owned, total income, best general, etc.? There can be multiple players per each faction, as long as there are enough roles for everyone. And if a civil war breaks out, depending on the popular vote on who should be supported, one of the rivaling factions can perhaps elect a new King among their ranks, with the old King simply continuing the game as a regular player (we can later decide on the rules governing which faction is allowed to appoint their King). It might make the PBM complicated, but I just think that some purpose other than a final lesser/GA/total victory is needed in order to make this really fun - otherwise all players and the King will act in absolute harmony, and there will be little difference than a normal campaign.
I agree on pretty much all you wrote Kavhan Isbul, and I really haven't got much to add except this:
I have been thinking and I think we should reduce the requirements for a provincial ruler. As the goal is to have one provincial ruler for each of the starting provinces (1 being the Chancellor) and later on perhaps a few more, it would take too long if we waited for all regular heroes or 4-star generals. Really, I think any 1-star general would do, as we should strive to give each player a certain character. Once this character die, he will be "succeeded" by his "son" (i.e. whatever name the general that comes next is called, this way we can't use the green generals though as every player's individual effort would worth nothing as their character dies).
The splitting of factions within the factions is a nice idea, exactly what noble families and what personal goals they will have be will be determined by which faction we end up with. I think we should discuss that matter next by the way, so we can get started sometime.
Here are some suggestions on what the King should have supreme rights in deciding (all issues not mentioned here would be issues to be voted on):
1. Marriage of members of the royal house
2. Military campaigns (Crusades included)
3. Handing out of provincial titles (really determined by OOC-discussions and joining lists)
4. Troop recruitment*
5. Alliances and such
* That is, if the King wishes province A to produce Spearmen, the provincial ruler of A has to construct a Spearmaker if there is none. The construction of all buildings not required for military recruitment demanded by the king will be decided by the ruler of A though.
I agree with all the absolute powers of the King except for troop recruitement. I think the only way the King can interfere with this is to grant a player a provincial title against a certain requirement, which will have to do with the province granted. For example, if Tuscany is granted, its owner should be expected to have ready for the King two units of Urban Militia and perhaps a unit of some other auxiliary troops (it is a rich province). If Scotland is granted, than let's say two units of Highland Clansmen. The size of the requirement should be based on the income of the province - you cannot expect the Amir of Sinai to be able to produce and keep 3 units of Mameluk Horse Archers for example. To keep it realistic (and difficult), the King would only be able to gather a small army of specified units from his kingdom to join with his troops - he will have a complete liberty to produce whatever he wants in his capital province in addition to his unit of RKs. I guess the province troop requirements will have to be revised every once in a while to reflect technical progress.
If an urgent need for more troops arises, such as a Crusade, the King should be able to issue a special decree, requesting the troops he deems needed. If the King allocates the amount of florints necessary for training the troops, and then pays for their upkeep (not a big problem in the case of a Crusade), then this order should be followed or the King will have the right to strip the player's hero from his titles. If the King decides that it is up to the player to cover all training and upkeep expenses of the desired troops, then in order to be able to enforce it, such a decree would be put to vote and needs to be supported by two thirds of the voters.
Now I was thinking that a player may have multiple heroes, so that he can own multiple provinces. This will also allow the green generals command to be used. In reality, great commanders such as Nur al Din did not live for centuries so that they could later face the Mongols and finally conquer the Scandinavian Peninsula. It is true that it will be disappointing to lose a great general, but it would be nice to be able to get rid of that hero that just developped unhinged loon, secret perversion and gluttony in a realistic manner. Every player that gets a province will have the ability to eventually produce troops, and all these troops will be potential heroes, so if he starts with a 1 star, 3 acumen unit of urban militia, and later obtains a 3 star, 5 acumen feudal knights unit, then he would be able to transfer the provincial title to the better administrator and commander. This way an important thing is insured - players will be motivated to build troops as they would be looking to get a better hero, while otherwise they will only want their hero to marry a princess and to fight as many battles as possible (as this is pretty much the only way to develop them). Also, if an entire unit is lost during a battle (or a commander lost to an inquistor), players will not be out of the game, as they will have other heroes to resort to.
Finally, I agree it is probably a good diea to settle on a faction, so that we can agree on some rules, as what applies to the Danes may not necessarily apply to the Turks. I suggest we use the XL mod, simply because it offers the greatest variety of factions and troops and a GA campaign. I suggest we use a faction that has 3 or 4 starting provinces, so that a few of these can be distributed to players at the very start of the game. If we start with a one province faction, then there would not even be enough heroes. I took a look at what MTW PBMs have been done (although what we plan is quite different), and the following factions have never been done - the Italians and the Turks. I suggest we use the Genoese, because they have four starting provinces, allow for a slow paced game and have all the extras such as Crusades, the Pope and certain GA goals. The Venetians and the Turks have more interesting GA goals, but the Venetians start with only two provinces if I am not mistaken, and the Turks, once they conquer all of the Middle East from Constantinople to Egypt and establish a three province border become a bit too easy. So I personally prefer Genoa as it also fits nicely with the concept of players' voting on certain issues, but I would be happy with any faction that is not a generic, boring one such as France, HRE or England.
I was also thinking of Genoa. So, based on the discussion in this thread and in a few PM's, this is as how I understand the rules:
The Chancellor: A player who works as the "mod" and who does all the dirty work. The Chancellor will be the one who constructs buildings and recruit troops according to other player's suggestions (see below). The Chancellor also moves troops around. If there is a battle, the Chancellor will send the game (via e-mail, for example) to the player who's character or province is involved (see below) who then plays the battle. The game is then "returned" to the Chancellor who continues as above.
The Chancellor has some power however, and can be a provincial ruler (most likely the capital or whatever big city that is closest to the King's position, for more info see below). The Chancellor is however, different from other Provincial Rulers (refered to as PR's from here on), is ruled directly by the Consul and does not have as much power over his own lands as other RP's.
The Chancellor can also engineer domestic troubles if he wishes to; i.e. by spending a little extra on himself and his own province, which should likely provoke some disputes. The Chancellor can also engineer civil wars (this is done in-game) by being convinced (perhaps by bribery) by some prince or such to assassinate the King.
The Consul: Then there is the Consul. The Consul is played by another player. The Consul is the one who makes all the final suggestions, but not without the influence of other players (see below). A Consul must be roleplayed (i.e. if the Consul has the vice "irritable", he will not be keen to settle with truces and such, and a Consul who is known for executing prisoners must continue to do so, even it earns him some nasty vices). More than just having the final word in financial matters and politics, the Consul is also responsible for the main army of the kingdom, and must command all larger, offensive, campaigns. Good commander or not. These are the things that the Consul has supreme command of:
1. Marriage of members of the royal house
2. Military campaigns (Crusades included)
3. Handing out of provincial titles (really determined by OOC-discussions and joining lists)
4. Alliances and such
He also has the right to demand a certain amount (and what kind) of units in return for granting provincial titles. In all other matters than the ones mentioned above, votes will be held. The word of the Consul is the weightiest, but if 2/3 or more if the Princes and PR's vote against him he will lose.
When the Consul dies, he will be succeeded, so players who chose to play as the crown prince must consider that they will likely end up as Consuls.
Princes: Princes must be roleplayed just like the Consul, but are mainly for military purposes. A player chosing to play as a prince must take in regard that he will get to fight a lot.
Provincial Rulers: A PR is a player who is in command of a province. As we start, there will be no effective rulers of many provinces (i.e. the titles remain idle), but as soon as a scripted hero or general with at least one star appear he can be given the title from the Consul. That doesn't mean you have to wait to play as a RP, you'll just have no true avatar untill a suitable one appears.
If you are new to the PBM and have only recently been given a newly conquered province, you'll have "first dibs" on whatever sutiable general that will appear. There will also be a joining que for the players. As we will play with green generals, a PR is always encouraged to recruit new troops in the hunt for a suitable successor to the current titleholder.
As an RP you are responsible to the Consul, and must be able to muster the requested amount of troops in the time of need. Also, all provinces have their own economy. First of all, your expenses can't surpass your income, but you must also take in regard that 1/10 of your profit goes straight to the Consul. What remains after of your profit after taxation is free for you to use on whatever you wish.
Finally, PR's will also be divided into four main duchys: Genoa, Tuscany, Sardinia and Corsica. Each with their own personal goals and objectives. The Genoans would probably be more friendly with the Consul while the more independent Corsicans would be more unruly. Plotting between these duchies would be encouraged.
Military: Quite simply, the armies must be kept balanced. Both for the realism of it and to make the game in general more interesting. A core of elite troops surrounded by lesser soldiers will be the model.
For each unit of knights that is trained, two units of retainers have to be trained. As we will be playing as a faction that can use Gothic Knights the retainers will appear as follows:
Early: Knights = Feudal Knights, Retainers = Mounted Sergeants or other light cavalry
High: Knights = Chivalric Knights, Retainers = Feudal Knights
Late: Knights = Gothic Knights, Retainers = Feudal Knights (CK's will fall into a class of their own as 'medium' cavalry)
That's all I can think of right now. With a few modifications these could be used as the final rules.
One more thing, these are the amount of threads that I believe this would require:
Story Thread: Quite self-explaining. Not actually necessary, but adds some flavour and is good for developing characters. This thread could also be used for correspondance between characters (only adressed characters can "read" the letters, so this would also make this the thread for plotting).
Diet/Parliament: Solely for political discussions.
OOC: Again, quite self-explaining.
Battle Report Thread: As above...
And then finally a thread were we gather all the info on our empire and some kind of timeline.
I agree with everything, 100%. Just a few suggestions, and then I think we can proceed with enlisting players. Since I guess most players would be MTW veterans, and we all tend to use similar self-imposed rules, for the purpose of enhancing the realism of the PBM, I propose the following self-imposed rules.
1. Homelands - I personally have a little problem with Genoese Sailors and Italian Infantry produced in Volga Bulgaria or Ireland. It just feels wrong. So I suggest that we use a list of homelands, where we can build our core troops, and have only region-specific troops built in the other provinces, where possible - for example Jinettes in Spain and Steppe Cavalry in the Steppes. I propose the following homelands: Genoa, Tuscany, Corsica, Sardinia, Savoy, Venice, Milan, Rome, the Papal States, Sicily, Malta, Naples, Tyrolia, and the three islands in the Eastern Mediterranean - from Crete to Cyprus. I also think knightly troops should be allowed for production in the Holy land, in the four provinces that are originally Crusades targets - units such as Feudal Knights and Feudal Men at Arms, but no militia, archers, etc. of course, there Turcopoles should be allowed under the region specific troops rule. I wonder if the Chancellor should mod the game to make Hospitallers, Hospitaller Foot Knights and Order Foot Soldiers trainable with certain building requirements, so that we can build them in the Holy Land.
2. Infantry heavy armies - just expanding on the military rules. The Genoese as Italians should use infantry heavy armies, with plenty of militiamen and spearmen. I think that heavy cavalry should not be allowed at all in early, apart from royal and princely retinues and the Hospitallers that spawn with a Crusade. Heavy cavalry should be allowed only in the Holy land if a crusade is successful, see my previous point, until the High Period. Throughout the entire game the following ratio should be applied - 8 infantry units for each cavalry unit. This ratio should only be applied to the troops produced in the Homelands, regional troops should be excluded. As far as cavalry is concerned, I like the retainers rule.
3. Specific rather than generic troops - let's try to field an army truly Genoese in its character. We can do this by training specific troops instead of generic ones. For example, vanilla archers would not be allowed, and instead Genoese Sailors would need to be trained. Once Italian Infantry becomes available (I think we need to wait until High), then no Chivalric and Feudal Sergeants, and no spearmen. I do not have any problem with militia, haberdiers and mounted sergeants (as long as the cavalry:infantry ratio is observed), but considering that Genoa was a city state, I do not think we should use Feudal troops at all, such as Feudal men at Arms, Knights (especially) and perhaps even Feudal Sergeants. Crossbowmen and arbalesters should be absolutely OK though, and I think Chivalric Men at Arms should be allowed. Later on Pikemen and handgunners should be allowed.
4. Limited mercenaries - this one is tough, but generally, I do not think we should be storming in Naples on turn 3 with an army of Kwarizmian Cavalry and Armenian Infantry. We should probably make a list of allowed mercenaries, such as Bulgarian Brigands, Alans, Longbowmen, Vikings, Turcoman Horse, Almughavars, and all troop types available to our faction. Also, I think in order to recruit mercenaries from far away lands, we would need a ship line to the provinces they come from - for example a ship in the Black Sea for Bulgarian Brigands and Alans. It sounds extremely complicated, but I want to make sure that we do not just make a fortune from trade and then gather a motley army of unbelievable mercs (Camels, Norman Knights, Billmen and some Cuman Heavies) and throw it at our enemies. But mercenaries should be allowed, within the above limits. Please feel free to add any other troop types which were wide spread in Europe as mercenaries.
5. No farming for rebels, no suicidal missions for weak heirs and undesired heroes, no Grand Inquisitors, no attacks on one Catholic faction just to have a free pass for the rest, only one Crusade at a time and a next one built only after the previous is concluded, no spamming of spies, no preparation for the Mongols, no building and raising of farms in Corsica just for the purpose of acquiring builder and steward virtues, generally no cheesy exploits and tactics. Tactical exploits however would have to be allowed, because we cannot make up for a poor AI and besides, we cannot really control what players do in a battle, even if they replay it several times in order to get a favorable outcome.
This is it, all these suggestions do not change the rules of the PBM, just add some more difficulty and realism. We should probably post a recruiting topic in the Main Hall to see who would be interested in participating.
EDITED
I had a slightly different idea for what you refer to as Provincial rulers. (when everyone is tired of new ideas and just wants to get on with the game, I'll shut up and just go along with the rules)
Anyhow, my idea was that each of the role players, with the exception of the chancellor, could be considered Dukes. As a Duke, the player wouldn't necessarily be represented by any unit on the board. In fact, since he's immortal, he could even be considered a "royal house." The first King would be chosen at random from the starting Dukes. The King could grant a Duke title to a Province or, as the game progresses, multiple provinces. The Duke would then be free to appoint "governors" for those provinces as he sees fit. The Duke would even be free to recruit his own armies and invade neighboring provinces as he sees fit (this would require an out of character communication with the chancellor, which the chancellor would not be able to refuse). Of course, this ability would be limited by the fact that the Duke would be obliged to support the King with taxes and tribute, and it will be extremely difficult to defend your own province while attacking another in this situation unless you had a very large Duchy. This could, however, make for some interesting politics. Duke A asks Duke B for assistance with an offensive mission, in exchange for cash or future assistance for Duke B. So, Duke B sends the Chancellor a message ordering that some of his units be given to Duke A temporarily. The King would have to try to do what's best for the kingdom (and himself) while the Dukes are out trying to increase their own holdings and power.
When a Prince is born, he should be considered the same as a title marker. Since we can't actually simulate princes realistically, the prince could be kind of an honor or reward that the king gives to another player. So, instead of province rulers and princes, we have Dukes who can command multiple provinces and can be "promoted" to prince, and thus, possibly, to king. The King can't give himself a prince, and any new provinces he keeps for himself get passed on to the next king as royal holdings rather than Ducal lands. The royal provinces remain royal unless the current king grants them to a Duke other than himself. So, the current King would have power over both his own duchy and the royal lands. This gives him the power to show some favoritism to his own duchy when it comes to taxes and royal grants for castles, etc.
To make all of this even more interesting, the Dukes could recruit agents, and (again, out of character) force the Chancellor to use Spies, Assasins, and Inquisitors against another players' generals. That way, if I'm a prince second in line to the throne, I can role play at a hostile takeover. If your Prince dies (or is removed from the "heirs" list), you just go back to being a Duke and the prince's bodyguard becomes a regular general in your army. If your King dies, the new King takes over any royal lands, treasuries, and armies, and you retain your Duchy and its armies.
Of course, the Chancellor (whom I won't envy even one little bit) will probably need to be permanent.
I think all of this will promote the inter-player competitions we are looking for as well as a very feudal atmosphere without exceeding the limitations of what we can do with the game.
EDIT: The king would have two methods for obtaining troops from the Dukes. One would be to order up troops as "tribute." These troops would be his permanently, and would be passed on to the next king, along with their maintenence costs. The other method would be more of a "call to arms." These troops would be on loan to the king with the maintence covered by the Duke. The Duke could then recall these troops at any time, with the consequences being an angry king and the political consequences among the other Dukes. I suppose the Duke could even refuse to pay taxes and tributes, although I'm sure the current King would do something extremely nasty if that happened. After all, the king has ultimate power in granting AND revoking provincial titles (unless we agree that a large majority of Dukes can override him).
Gunslinger, I think we have similar ideas when in comes to players being entites comprising (potentially) of multiple heores and provinces. However, since there might be more players than provinces and even heroes initially, I proposed dividng all players in 4 rivaling noble families, and I think it should be possible for players within each of these families to control multiple units and provinces (each unit is a hero, and any commander with at least a star can be promoted as a provincial ruler). It gets confusing, but what I trying to say is that I do not think a player would be tied to a single character or province. So no problem there.
As for the military decision, I still think players should need a King's permission or the support of the Council (not the Consul) to launch an invasion. The problem is that if someone attacks the Sicilians for example, then the Sicilians will not be content to punish the guilty party, but will go after all of Genoa. And imagine what happens if the noble family that controls Tuscany has the idea of making a raid into Rome. The Consul will suffer most, and this is why I think he should have the right to determine whether an offensive is launched or not, and also who leads the army. Since Genoa was a republic, I guess if a player has the support of the rest of the players with a vote behind him (let's say at least 2 thirds of them), then by popular vote the Consul should be forced to grant the player a permission to launch an attack the player has planned.
As for the princes, I think your suggestion is quite good, actually. I was thinking of having the Royal Family as a separate player, or team of players, controlling certain domains and raising its own, Royal army. This way the Consul will have a small army of his own. Innocentius is proposing that the Consul does not control provinces, and that his army and provinces are actually governed by the Chancellor, which might be a better idea. You take it a step further, proposing that princes are allocated as heroes to the four competing noble factions. I really like the idea of each faction being able to elect a Consul, and since a Consul was not a monarch, I think we should have a vote for who will assume this position every time a Consul dies. Every faction will be able to appoint a candidate (player candidate, not a game character) and then whoever gets most votes, wins, and this player becomes the Consul for the remaining lifetime of the Consul in the game. When the Consul dies, there are new elections, so a player can potentially get an unlimited amount of mandates, but if he loses the elctions, he can simply go back to his role within his faction of nobles, and command a province or more belonging to this faction (or armies, it is up to the team of players to distribute roles among themselves). I think that princes, as long as they are alive, should belong to the Royal Army, controlled by the Consul. Once the Princes die, and the unit commander of the 20 or so RKs is no longer from Royal Blood, then the Consul should be able to allocate them to whichever faction he likes or deems necessary, which may be a rare opportunity for a noble faction to acquire heavy horse if some of my sugegstions are accepted.
Now, I really like how this is developing and I am itching to play it.
Point 1: Maybe I had the scale of this thing wrong. I guess I was assuming we would be playing with the half-dozen or so people who have been responding to this thread. I think Genoa starts with four provinces. If that is the case, the Chancellor could randomly choose the first three dukes, who would each get one province. From those three Dukes he would also choose the king, who would get the capital as royal lands. Additional players would join in as more lands are conquered, with the king being forced to grant them provinces until all waiting players have joined. I guess my whole setup was only good for a small number of players where each player gets a chance at forming a large duchy with many provinces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul
Point 2: Absolutely! The independent actions of the Dukes can have terrible consequences for the kingdom as a whole. This will have to be held in check by the fact that the Duke wants the King's favor so that maybe he can become a prince, or get financial aid, whatever. It will also be held in check by the ability of the king, with the majority of other Duke's consensus, to punish him very severely, even take him out of the game by revoking his title to all lands. Also, since any player can end up as king at some point, there will be a bit of a Do unto others. . . attitude.
Point 3: Actually I saw princes more as a chance at the throne than anything else.
Gunslinger, I really do not know how may people will be interested in participating.
If we have more than 4, I think it will be only fair to distribute everyone into four teams, so that all teams can start on somewhat equal terms. Otherwise anyone entering later will be at a disadvantage, and nobody can guarantee that expansion will be rapid enough to be able to allocate a duchy to each player. If a team conquers multiple provinces, they can distribute them among each other so that everyone controls one or more and is involved in the game. If there are not enough provinces, then team members who do not get one can lead the team's army into battles. But generally, everyone will have a role and be involved from the very beginning.
As for the princes, I am not sure how this can work, because as soon as a player from one of the teams becomes a Consul, most likely all heirs will start ending up in his faction (since he chooses that), thus making it impossible to depose this team. This is why we would either need an independent player to be the Consul, or we should have elections. If we choose to have elections, then the Consul should not have the right to strip teams of provinces already given to them, except if they fail to supply the agreed amount of troops or go into the red, causing loss of money to the whole kingdom. This way we would prevent the Consul from taking other players' lands.
Well, in the end we will be limited by the restrictions of the game, and IMHO it would be the easiest way to have the Consul as an independent player. This will not be very realistic, but we could get around it by having declared that a new Consul has been elected in Genoa everytime the old one dies (who gets to play the Consul is determined by OOC-votes, as already proposed). The Republic has its obligations towards the Consul, and the Consul has his towards the Republic. Among his obligations is to send able generals (i.e. Princes) to all factions and disperse them evenly. Of course, he will (or at least can) summon these back to himself once he needs them for campaign.
Overall, I agree with Kavhan Isbul on that the Consul should have no right to undo the promotings of his predecessor.
The fact of the matter is, we can get bogged down over the rules, and I have to admit I am quite guilty here.
Just a few final proposals that have to do with the Consul. I think the Consul should pay for the troops he distributes to the various provinces in his kingdom. For example, if he sends a few heirs with several units of RKs to Corsica, he can bankrupt the owner of Corsica in a matter of few turns.
I also propose that all ships and special agents are an exclusive property of the Consul, just to make the life of the Chancellor easier. It is going to be hard enough to keep records of which faction owns what money and troops, but commanders at least have names, while tracking assassins, emissaries and bishops may become unbelievably hard and tedious.
And what do you think about my suggested self-imposed rules?
You're right, it wouldn't work if there were teams. I wasn't suggesting teams, though. As for the rest of it, everything I was suggesting depended on the fact that any player could end up as king, and he would surely remember what past kings had done to him. Also, there was the fact that the more drastic measures, such as the stripping of provinces, could be overridden by 2/3 of the other players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul
I think all of my ideas were geared toward making each player as independent as possible (Live free or die!) and trying to create a lot of political intrigue within the faction while still trying to win the overall campaign as a team. If I understand correctly, you're more interested in setting up something where everyone is kept as equal as possible (From each man according to his abilities and to each man according to his needs) and just cooperates to try to get the overall faction a victory. Two different philosophies, but both very playable.
I will give a whirl to any format that we choose, though. I'm with you in that I'm just excited to get the thing started.
BTW- Sorry about the parenthetical backroom-type comments. I've been on the road a lot lately, and I think I've been listening to too much talk radio.
I have been enjoying MTW for over two years now (I started playing it relatively late), and as great as it is, I have always wondered if it can be made more realistic. The mods covered most of the things I desired to see in the game, except one - unruly nobles within my faction, plotting against me, refusing to cooperate in certain times. It is hard to explain, but sometimes I feel that I am in charge not of a medieval faction of loosely connected feudals, but of a modern nation of immaculate patriots- we have a planned economy, devoted soldiers and commanders, willing to go all the way from their homes in let's say Naples to Volga Bulgaria leaving their homes almost undefended without objection, the titles are given to lowly peasants with lots of acumen instead to the local warlords, and the latter do not mind at all. Just something felt a bit improbable, and what was missing was the human element. Putting humans in will make it more interesting, especially when they are motivated to behave in a manner, similar to that of the main figures during the Middle Ages. When the Zaccaria family conquered Chios, expelling the Muslim Pirates from this small island, they did not do it out of a desire to give Genoa another colony. They did in it in order to expand their domains and increase their income, so that they could compete against other noble families. In fact, they even proclaimed this island a Lordship and it was a sovereign entity for a short period of time. So when eventually we win the game (the AI does not stand a chance), I just want it to be a tough and long campaign, which would involve plenty of setbacks due to inner dissent, rather than a glorious blitzkrieg by a well-oiled machine.
But at the end, I would also be happy with any format, because even without inner competition it will be fun and there will be plenty of chances for role playing.
I'm right there with you Kavhan. I also started MTW just a couple years ago (when it was $10 on the bargain rack at Wal-Mart). I've often wished for the ability to conquor and exert control over territories without them becoming MY territories. I have no idea how this could be accomplished satisfactorily with an AI, though. The role playing part is something that intimidates me a bit. I've seen posts from other orgahs who are obviously seasoned role players, and I don't think I'll be able to match them. I'm ready to go, though. Let's get started!
I'm interested in the concept, and willing to do a minor role to get used to the system, is that possible?
Of course it is:yes: In fact, none of us here are used to this system, at least not when applied to MTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasp
I was also thinking that I might volounteer to play the Chancellor during the reign of the first Consul, so that no-one will feel as if they have to do it and to attract more players (it's a pretty busy character).
Thanks Innocentius, I was hoping you would step up. Of course, we will need to take turns as Chancellors, and I suggest that as a reward for doing the dirty work, the Chancellor's vote in any decisions should count as two votes. This is my final suggestion thoguh, as I do not want to cause any more delay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
I've started a Library thread now, more threads will follow...Just one final question, on what difficulty will we be playing? Expert?
I vote for expert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius