Should BtSH call it quits?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

yeah, I just don't see something like that working when we only have 5 or so players..... which is almost all the time.

[/Bean\]

Just say those are the playable Senators, the ones that have the chance to become famous. History doesn't remember all 300 Senators at all times of the Republic; only a few notable names come up. We'll roleplay the other Senators as we've always done.

[Dafug3]

Hey, first time posting here. I read through the rules and was thinking I would love to join but then I read through this thread. Perhaps we could use Johnhoughtoms save in the 'Save Game Thread' in the EB forums. It has 7 family members, Southern Italy, Sicily and Northern Italy + Massalia as client states. The Polybian reforms have kicked in and there are no military troops except for Ligurians in Alpine border forts. I think it would be a perfect place to start.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

that might actually work.....

[everyone]

if we're willing to forsake RGBs, I think it could work; or someone with experience with EDCT could help us to remove the trait/triggers that give any recruited general a "recruited general" trait. since johnhughthom's save is on 1.2

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

ahh that is a issue.....

[johnhughthom]

There is an even bigger issue, it was deleted after all that filefront upheaval a while back. I'm not sure why as it had quite a few downloads, but I understand a lot of stuff was lost then.

[/Bean\]

Thats not a new big issue, that solves the problems of the previous issue, restoring the situation back to pre-issue times. So really we haven't gained or lost anything.

[navarro951]

Thats not a new big issue, that solves the problems of the previous issue, restoring the situation back to pre-issue times. So really we haven't gained or lost anything.

lol...finely executed response. donno why i just laughed. anyway i do find that 1.2 is a good idea only because it attracts a larger fan base. everyone wants to play 1.2 now you know.

[mini]

There is an even bigger issue, it was deleted after all that filefront upheaval a while back. I'm not sure why as it had quite a few downloads, but I understand a lot of stuff was lost then.

i got the savegame somewhere i believe

[johnhughthom]

i got the savegame somewhere i believe

You wouldn't be so kind as to upload it somewhere, I plan to start a Romani campaign soon and it is a good place to start.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Hi,

I have a suggestion. Instead of trying to start a new game with Romani you could pic a new faction. Perhaps Carthage?

• They have the Senate
• No matter what units they have in their army they are all historical.
• They don't have a complicated office system
• You can fight against ROMANI!!
• Spain, Africa, Italy will give plenty of directions to expand

[johnhughthom]

Or the Seleukids,

They have the Satrapal system,
Eclectic armies are historical,
Many different types of enemies in all directions,
Lots of roleplaying opportunities,
Big empire means more opportunities for players,
Eventually you can fight against ROMANI!

What? There is already one going? There you go, problem solved.

[The Celtic Viking]

I must agree with Ibn: a new faction, please. We gave the romans a try but it failed. It's someone else's turn now.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I still say giving a barbarian faction like Sweboz would be nice. Could lead to a lot of conflicts, be really fun.

(I would be willing to help work out rule set)

[navarro951]

I must agree with Ibn: a new faction, please. We gave the romans a try but it failed. It's someone else's turn now.

Indeed, i suppose i could clear all the threads change up the rules to work with carthage. because when i made this game i battled between the two anyway so i can agree with carthage. what say all of you?. Also, if we do do carthage, TCV will you still be playing because id enjoy creating the game rules with ya!

[/Bean\]

Hmm...if we can be Sweboz, can there be several tribes at once, before we're united? Like, we cheat to get the whole of Germania, but there are several tribes, and we meet at certain times of the year for trade or battle or whatever. Then sometime in the future (hopefully not too quickly) we can begin to unite certain tribes. Perhaps far in the future someone will unite all the tribes, and bring destruction upon the entire world! It would be like a civil war straight away, and there would actually have to be a very strong leader to unite everyone, because if each tribe is ruled by a player they aren't likely to want to give up their power easily.

I think the Sweboz will make for a very unique PBM, where the point is to war against each other, and possibly unite in the future, rather than Carthage which I fear would be almost identical to the Roman one. We could either just be the Sweboz and split the income every turn, or we could move some of the more eastern factions that we are never going to come into contact with and make them into German states.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

thats a good Idea, actually
we could do something along the lines of V and V, where income is determined by settlements.
the players would be divided into tribes, and the entire point of the game would be turning the disparate tribes of Germania into a united world power.

Civil wars would definitely be common, and encouraged. Wars on the outside world would be used more to loot and gain funds for inter-tribal warfare. And if a tribe is defeated the leader could always choose to move his tribe outward. ( perhaps some kind of Horde mechanic? not the BI one, but something similar. We could spawn some troops for defeated kings and they could try and find a new home, like Teutons and other tribes that were thrown out in real life. nothing to fancy, just a bunch of levies)

I think it would be something definitely worth looking into, and if it seems like to much work I am always willing to help out (with getting economics and game rules)

(I even have a save on my EB game with the Sweboz after just uniting Germania. perhaps we could use that. Its 1.2, but I have plenty of Family members. At least I think I do, let me go check....)

[The Celtic Viking]

Sure I can help with the rules, but I love that idea for Sweboz and would much prefer that over Carthage. I'd almost sacrifice WotB for such a game!

It'll be the first time I play them since 0.8x (in fact, it'll be the first time I play them since the first time I played EB at all ), even though I've tried to bring me to play as them again many times since. If for no other reason, we must do it to get me back them them.

A few questions though: how many are we who will play this, how many tribes will we have, and just how many settlements will we cheat ourselves in possession of? How do we decide who gets what?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Sure I can help with the rules, but I love that idea for Sweboz and would much prefer that over Carthage. I'd almost sacrifice WotB for such a game!

Sacrilege!

I have to admit the Sweboz Idea has been bouncing around my head for a while. ever since I started my Sweboz Campaign, (which has now been forgotten due to Empire..... ). the sheer number of ways it could go would be fun. the amount of civil wars and backstabbing will be awesome, politics will play just as big a role as with Rome, but we can still act like uncivilized savages! Independent Income and such will mean that it is a free for all. And Raiding will be extremely important (how else are you going to fund that new building?). Your subordinates will have to be watched closely, you never know when one might decided they want to be chief.


edit: The more players the merrier, although if we could get together 8 people that would probably be best. (2-3 people in each tribe, makes things less boring)

my plan was having something like 3 tribes, but unless we can get more people together that really would not work out. like I said I have a save which has all of Germany under control which is about ten or so provinces. if we have three tribes that it 3 provinces per tribe, plus one with 4, (which would show the varying strength)

unless we decide to have a smaller area, in which case I could just let some of the border provinces of my campaign rebel, would lower us right down to a smaller number.


I would say that we some kind of Bidding system (perhaps based on Seniority, or maybe just each of us having a certain number of "points" to work with) to decide provinces, keeping in mind that we shall probably have real tribe names, so choosing areas in touch with said tribe would be great.

[/Bean\]

In line with what you said about hording, i think there should be choices upon the aftermath of a battle. Depending on the conditions, the tribe could, as you said, flee, move home, whatever. That would create a new area for players to set up and create some variety and a bit of change.

Another choice would be the victor kills the defeated king, and takes over his kingdom. This may or may not work depending on the conditions of the army and the people.

A third choice would be that the victorious king tries to persuade the defeated king to join him, as a client tribe, thus creating the beginnings of a unified state. This should be less common and less likely to succeed, however, and only happen with extraordinary characters and/or situations.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Those seem like great Ideas, if they chose to flee we could spawn some levy spearmen and archers to simulate all able bodied men leaving their old homes and taking up arms. They could go in whatever direction they want to and try and find a new home region to create a new tribe, (can you say sacking Rome?). leaving a way to create a unified state will definitely make things interesting, as many players will no doubt resent having to give up their power, leading to a fragile alliance that could fall apart at any time, which seems pretty historical

The only foreseeable problem I can see would be PVP battles. Multiplayer battle can be done pretty quickly. But Tabletops take quite a long time to complete. during which people are doing pretty much nothing if they aren't involved in the battle. we would have to make sure everyone is OK with this if we want to have battle like that. (which personally I do, Tabletops are great fun!)


thinking about it, perhaps expanding the number of tribes to 4 would not be out of the question. would keep people on their toes, (as it is with three tribes things would get pretty typical) and perhaps allowing people to form new tribes if they so choose. would keep things interesting.


as it is we should see if we cant rope in some new players, TVS managed to get quite a few, I am sure their is plenty of Sweboz Fans out there.

[johnhughthom]

The Sweboz idea is sounding pretty cool, count me in.

[/Bean\]

CDF, we could have 4 main tribes, each with a territory, and the rest could be lesser tribes (the Eleutheroi). That gives room for expansion, and perhaps once expanded there is the possibility of the conquered tribe breaking away and forming their own, if the situation seems plausible. This means once our player base expands there are oppotunities to create a new tribe every so often, without starting out with too many or too few and with too little varitey in opportunities.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

thats a excellent Idea! I like it!

[/Bean\]

Can we start writing up a game plan, then, gents?

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I have been using the "yes" smiley WAAAAYYYY to much.... . But yeah, we could definitely get started on the game rules. Though perhaps we should wait and see what navarro thinks about the idea.


what do you think about rankings (really it could be simplified far more than BtSH, at its basest it could be two ranks, chiefs and tribesmen. Or do we make it more in depth than that?) ? What should the faction leader represent? I was thinking of having it be something along the lines of having a "royal" tribe, which would control the capital and would be considered the greatest tribe of the area. (thus if you can kill and destroy the current royal tribe your tribe takes over) To provide some concrete benefits maybe the "royal" tribe controls all diplomats and gets a small bonus to income, it would make being the royal tribe more coveted.

I think we also need to find a way to make council sessions useful. As it is I feel that there won't be much point to proposing edicts...... Any suggestions? perhaps adding in some kind of Chancellor role.

[/Bean\]

Rankings

I would suggest having the Chief and his family, going down in importance considering how close a relation and how much in favour you are with the chief.

Then below that would be the officials, such as the diplomats and so on. That doesn't need much explaining.

Then the Thanes, or lords, the noblemen of the tribe. These would all hold the same rank of Thane, but would differentiate in importance due to their holdings and how much in favour they were with the Chief and other members of the tribe. Therefore most players would have the same rank, and would have to rely on accomplishments, bravery and favourtism to advance in importance. Those who cannot gain that are the more likely to want to try and kill the Chief, and the less important they are the less chance of success.

I wouldn't bother with having players as tribesmen. What's the point? That would be like having a character as a Hastati or something in BtSH.

We'll come up with a more detailed ranking thing later, I would expect.

Royal Tribe

Personally, I don't agree with this idea. I don't think that one tribe should start off as already looking to be the ultimate winners of the civil war, and the favourites from day one. That would be like playing to an agreed goal, and just making up how we got there. Thats not so fun. I would personally say ignore the ingame faction leader/heir. The diplomat at the beginning can be given to one tribe as a bonus, while other tribes gain a different bonus. I'll move onto that idea now.

Bonus'

Say we are having 4 initial tribes. Well, we could make a list of bonus', and each tribe picks one. This is just a list of 4 off the top of my head, so don't take them as set in stone:

1: The initial diplomat, so that that tribe can gain an early trade/alliance/etc agreement with a nearby faction or tribe. (This makes me think of a good idea: A tribe needs an official diplomat to make inter-clan alliances and so on, more about that later).

2: Maybe the initial spy, so that that tribe can gain an early advantage in other tribe assessment. This would probably lead to the tribe that picks the spy to be aggressive very early on, at least until other factions gain spies.

3: Maybe some extra troops, or a bonus of some more unique troops, such as cavalry or elites. This would make this tribe initially stronger than the others, though not by too much or there is already a winner.

4: Maybe 2 starting provinces, giving this tribe more land, income, manpower in the early future. A tribe to look out for.

All would have their strengths and weaknesses, and must be employed correctly in order to have the best effect.

Council Sessions

I assume you are relating this to what we had in BtSH. Of course that arrangement is almost necessary in order to have a good PBM, though we should not have it in the same way. There are two types of 'council' sessions I think would be useful:

1: The tribal council; one (thread) for each tribe, where the chief and the thanes of the tribe would meet to discuss politics and so on. This would act like the BtSH (or more likely the WotB) council sessions, where the thanes discuss their ideas with the Chief, and the Chief decides what to do. This would include domestic and military ideas. Of course there is the problem of players from other tribes reading all the different tribal threads and gaining advantages. We cannot hope to stop this from happening, so we would have to be more cunning; perhaps not everything said in the council can be trusted...

2: Trading points/markets; this is where tribes would meet a certain number of times, maybe once every 4 turns or so on, giving all the characters chance to come together. This would be a time where tribal fighting was prohibited, where wars had to stop for a certain period of time. This SHOULD be the time when talk and ideas are swapped between tribes, which is a bit more realistic than messengers passing between tribes everytime they wanted to talk to each other. Trading, bartering and so on would also happen between tribes here, giving players chance to earn some money (I'm looking into the idea of giving players the chance to own assets and land and so on, giving them materials as well as money, which would increase their tribal worth).

Phew...I think thats all for now.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Brilliant Ideas, Much better than anything I could come up with! I was being vague when I said Tribesmen, I realized we would probably change the names around.

The idea of two councils is great, and if people want to have a secret place for their tribe they can always set up a quicktopic or forum somewhere else.
great Ideas bean, You probably have a better grasp on this then me.

[/Bean\]

I think anyone should right down any ideas they have, no matter how far fetched. These can always be rethought or inspire other good ideas. The more we get down now the less problems we'll have later. It shouldnt be one person thinking up everything, as the more people the graeater the range of ideas and inspiration.

I just reread that and it sounds strange. Basically I'm agreeing with you :D