An EB interactive campaign ...

[kingsnake]

Wow this project sounds awesome!

Count me in! I would prefer KH, though.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

It's a bit late to change the faction.

But I'll sign you up though...

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Now.. I was thinking..

EB have the multiplayer option.. Perhaps we can put the 'Civil War' part from LotR in the rules too..

We have Satrapies.. Most of the time they were pretty rebellious in history.. right?
So.. this is the perfect way to bring the 'Civil War' in the game.. Player versus Player fights and so on..

Now I would like to know what people would think about this..

Do you people want 'Civil Wars' to be in WotB?

[Warmaster Horus]

Hmm... Civil wars are a must. The way to do them, though, can be debated.
What I must point out before the way a character-vs-character battle is conducted is that the armies used in that battle will be the armies of the character in game. Therefore, if Character A has 6 units in game and Character B has 12, Character B will be advantaged.
Also, the number of men in a unit will be those in game. If Character A has a unit of Pantodapoi (240 men maximum, I think) and he lost 40 of them, in the civil war battle his unit will have 200 men. See what I mean? Representing this is very difficult (if not downright impossible) in a multiplayer battle.
That's why alternate solutions have been found: tabletop battles, abbreviated tabletop battles, etc. And those solutions have always worked well enough...
Now that I've read the rules again, I propose adding a Civil War section (the content of which can be determined in this thread), and adding a rank: governor (the Seleucid equivalent). He'd govern one city directly, and would be above Strategos. He'd have basically the same powers, but can run for Chancellor. Also, I propose the Strategos Hetairos section be changed: he'd need to be in direct control of a city, and can propose up to 1 edict and 1 charter amendment.
Thoughts?

[Megas Methuselah]

Yes, to civil wars. Yes, yes, YES!!!!