New hotseat game - Glorious Achievements

[phonicsmonkey]

Fellow hotseaters,

With the sad demise of both the Wrath of the Khan and Lords of the East games there is a vacant spot for a new hotseat.

So I was thinking...what if, instead of the usual victory conditions of 'conquer x territories, sack this, kill that' we instead had 'Complete 5 glorious achievements from the following list':

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

- Miser: Amass a treasury of 500k
- Economist: Create the largest economy (measured in gross turnly income terms)
- Pious: Build a highest level religious building
- Infrastructure: Build the highest level of roads in all of your starting territories
- Admiral: Create the largest navy in the world
- Agent: Gather spy information on 25 foreign cities
- Diplomat: Gain diplomatic alliances with all of your neighbours
- General: Amass the largest standing army in the world
- Turtle: Complete the game with your original borders
- Regicide: Assassinate the leaders of three foreign factions
- Cardinal: Cardinals from your faction represent the largest part of the Papal Congress
- Zealot: Win a war against a faction of another religion

etc etc. the idea being that there is more than one way to win the game and that there would not necessarily be an incentive for wars just to gain territory. I think this would promote RP and also innovation in strategy and diplomatic tactics.

I was thinking we could set a time limit of (say) 20 turns and that we would use vanilla M2TW patched up to the 1.5 standard, so we can make it an easy game to join and play for everyone.

Would anyone be interested in a game like this? If I see enough interest I'll develop the rule set further and add more achievements...

[Visor]

Sounds cool, I'm in if it is 1.5.

Some of the achievments sound unbalanced, the larger factions should be able to do some of these easier than the smaller faction. (Economist, General, Admiral)

[barcamartin]

I'm in, of course! :)

The victory goals will always be unbalanced, even if they're the standard Conquest-rules. Smaller factions have a tougher time than the larger ones, in single player aswell as in multiplayer. It's the way the world is today, the world was then and the way the game was made. So I don't think we can avoid some factions having an edge over others. However, with all those different Achievements, I dare say smaller factions have improved chances compared to normal hotseats.

[phonicsmonkey]

Sounds cool, I'm in if it is 1.5.

Some of the achievments sound unbalanced, the larger factions should be able to do some of these easier than the smaller faction. (Economist, General, Admiral)

1.5 it is then - I had forgotten where we had gotten up to in patches, it's been so long since I played Vanilla.

You're right, there will be some Achievements which it is easier to get as a larger faction. However, it is not beyond the power of smaller nations acting individually or in concert to deliberately impede the ability of a large faction to grow its revenue, or army, or navy.

I think though that the key will be to have a sufficient range of Achievements such that there are enough that are achievable by different kinds of factions.

I'm planning to significantly expand that initial list and I'm open to suggestions from anyone.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Hi,

I have been inactive in the org for quite a while, but I have participated in plenty of BC hotseats in the center - Barcamartin knows me well from them and will hopefully guarantee that I am a serious player, who will post turns on time.

I do not have the time for long turns with tons of spies and plenty of battles, but if this is an auto-resolve campaign, by all means, I would love to join.

Thank you!

[SilverShield]

well its cool to see you hosting a new match Phonics. there is a beginning to every ending… right!?! i definitely like to start all new and fresh so do count me in. though i gotta admit i d rather see a new epic broken crescent campaign to be launched. however i ll go with what the majority decides on.

as for the rules im actually fine with the strongest faction winning but maybe thats because i havent been part of too many campaigns yet. so i do understand the will to spice things up a bit.
however the only victory condition that would make sense to me besides from being the only faction the majority accepts as a winner due to its military power is to be the strongest economy. anything else wouldnt make much sense im afraid.

yet in order to spice things up i think it would be interesting if EVERYONE starts with a small faction leaving all the big ones to the computer. i think that would be quit interesting. it would somehow even the odds and really leave anyone to decide on which way he d like to precede – militarily or economically.

i dont know about the small factions in the original medieval but im sure there is denmark, scotland, portugal… i already can imagine the big Portuguese Empire of Iberia and Greater France neighbouring the Danish Empire of the North spreading from the British Isles to Novgorod or the Sicilian Empire of the Mediterranean uniting Italia and Northern Africa… just some thoughts.

[phonicsmonkey]

however the only victory condition that would make sense to me besides from being the only faction the majority accepts as a winner due to its military power is to be the strongest economy. anything else wouldnt make much sense im afraid.

I see your point, that in a RP sense it would be weird for factions to accept one country as dominant if it were militarily less powerful - but I'm not necessarily saying that they would, just that in an OOC sense that faction would win this game. In RP terms it's likely that the biggest and most traditionally powerful faction will still 'rule the roost'

what I'm trying to do here is to provide more reasons to play for factions that are smaller and less militarily viable, and to provide different ways to compete for players who want to try something different.

For example it could be possible under this ruleset to win the game by turtling in the starting borders and concentrating on producing agents - of course you would need to be able to stay out of trouble so that you could build your economy uninterrupted..which would require diplomatic skill or a reasonable standing army. So there are tradeoffs to be made and your economy and military strength will still come into play.

However, if others feel the same way as you we could potentially select some specific achievements as necessary for winning the game - so that you couldn't claim victory unless you got the 'Economist' or 'General' Achievement. I'd rather leave it more open though..

yet in order to spice things up i think it would be interesting if EVERYONE starts with a small faction leaving all the big ones to the computer. i think that would be quit interesting. it would somehow even the odds and really leave anyone to decide on which way he d like to precede – militarily or economically.

I like that idea - let's see how many people we get and whether it's viable..

Last night I thought of some more Achievements to add to the list:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

- Armourer: equip one full stack with the highest quality armour
- Chivalrous: Get your leader to max Chivalry
- Dreadful: Get your leader to max Dread
- Veteran: Get one BG unit to max experience
- Gordon Gecko: Perform 10 sucessful merchant takeovers
- Drillmaster: Recruit the highest quality infantry for your faction
- Master of Horse: Recruit the highest quality cavalry for your faction
- Trader: Build the highest level market building
- Logistics: Build the highest level port
- Guildmaster: Attract and build one of each kind of guild building
- Populist: Have the highest population in the game

Anyone else want to suggest any?

[SilverShield]

yea i do see ur point i just think that too many too detailed rules might be a bit too confusing and kill some of the fun. the good old last man standing/ last best economic man standing still does the trick for me so my vote is on that but im open for what the majority will decide on. i d really like to see everyone start with a small faction however that really would be intersting. so yea im just repeating my first statement but thats pretty much where i stand. always open for some input though so whoever got a though on that just bring it

[TriforceV]

Heya,
The Glorious Achievements are a cute idea, not very practical though and i'll tell you why.
As an experienced campaigner (30+ campaigns), hosted many myself.. one thing has always held true in almost every campaign I've played..
The campaigns I've played have very rarely if not ever come to definite conclusion of last man standing. Instead, there is usually a consensus of remaining players who read the writing on the wall and quit prematurely leading to the overwhelmingly dominant faction and player crowned as victor.

This checklist for victory conditions once a sole superpower has emerged will only draw out what many of the players already know. In addition the idea of economy over military is arbitrary. For example, as the military of a kingdom increases their economy will decrease and visa versa. So if a strong economy faction goes to war with the great military faction, that economical empire will need to build troops and dilute its economy to stave off the enemy.. etc.

My belief is that campaigns are just like life, its not the end goal of winning that's important, its more the campaign in its entirety that gives it life.

Also remember that some kingdoms are more stronger than others. For example since this will be Vanilla, a player who plays Scotland will have a harder time to dominate the world than someone who starts off as the Byzantine Empire.
These unequal starting conditions are unavoidable, and instead the measure of success should be their own personal goals that does not necessarily reflect the overall status.
Using the same example, the Scotland faction player might have his own personal victory condition of successfully subduing England and controlling the British Isles, where as the other player of the Byzantium empire might find his success in conquering all of the Turks, Hungary, and maintain his dominance as the financial and military superpower his kingdom started with. Both is equally difficult challenge even if its not reflected in the game stats.

Also few things to consider:

Spies - don't forget that there should be a limitation in spies opening gates

Siege Warfare - Same with spies, there should be a limitation

Crusade/Jihad - there are a lot of bugs that can be abused and should also have limitations.

Pillaging - be weary of scorched earth policy, often this leads to a campaign of low level militia fights and scattered barren landscape of ruined cities. There should be limitations on destroying cities when its inevitable your going to lose them.

Auto-resolve vs Battle-mode - Often Battle-mode can be easily abused, I've seen 1 or 2 generals take out full stacked armies in clever battle-mode tactics of abusing weak AI opponents. The resulting strategically end result is an attack first and win policy; this includes the use of spies and always building forts for advancing armies. For this reason I strongly suggest Auto-resolve, I know its not as fun as battle-mode, but alternatively the game is extremely unbalanced in favor of the attacker.

Merchant Forts - There is a bug to abuse Merchants by building a fort on a resource and storing countless merchant agents in that fort, this has been addressed in the kingdoms expansion, but not Vanilla. If you want to implement merchant forts just be sure you let everyone know first.

This is just a few things i've learned in my campaigning experience, take it or leave it I'm sure some of it you already are aware of, and as a host you can mold your game into any way you see fit.
Either way, I'm itching for my next TW fix, so I guess I'm in!

[phonicsmonkey]

The Glorious Achievements are a cute idea, not very practical though and i'll tell you why.
As an experienced campaigner (30+ campaigns), hosted many myself.. one thing has always held true in almost every campaign I've played..
The campaigns I've played have very rarely if not ever come to definite conclusion of last man standing. Instead, there is usually a consensus of remaining players who read the writing on the wall and quit prematurely leading to the overwhelmingly dominant faction and player crowned as victor.

Yes that's been my experience too and I'm something I'm trying to avoid in this game - that's why I'm proposing a turn limit on the game - enough time for everyone to try to check off some of the Achievements but not enough time for one faction to entirely dominate (at least not as easily).

Do you think 20 turns is long enough? I have noticed that most games (at least around here) go to about 35 turns and someone is usually dominant by then. Hence 20 would cut that short and keep things a bit more equal.

However some of the Achievements might not be ...erm...achievable in 20 turns, I haven't checked them thoroughly. I'd appreciate any feedback on that anyone can offer. It's been a long time since I played a campaign in Vanilla.

What I'm proposing is a different kind of game - if everybody approaches it with an open mind and thinks creatively about how to reach 5 Achievements (is 5 the right number?) and win the game I think we'll find it's a different experience to the usual campaign, at least if I have set it up correctly.

In addition the idea of economy over military is arbitrary. For example, as the military of a kingdom increases their economy will decrease and visa versa. So if a strong economy faction goes to war with the great military faction, that economical empire will need to build troops and dilute its economy to stave off the enemy.. etc.

In the case of the Economist Achievement I had proposed to use gross income as the measure - so even a faction making a loss could win on this scale if their gross income were higher.

For example, at the end of the game Player A makes 40k income and is spending 42k per turn on upkeep, for a total net income of -2k. player B makes 30k per turn income and only spends 25k. Player A is the Economist because he has grown his economy further than Player B. (Player B has more chance of making the Miser achievement, if he has saved enough cash in his treasury.)

My belief is that campaigns are just like life, its not the end goal of winning that's important, its more the campaign in its entirety that gives it life.

I completely agree - but the way players approach the game is framed by the victory conditions. There are any number of crazy wars started in these games that are entirely driven by a desire to reach the maximum number of territories, because that's the only way to be recognised as the victor. I'm trying to create a framework in which someone could have no wars at all and still win the game, if that's the way they want to play it.

Also remember that some kingdoms are more stronger than others. For example since this will be Vanilla, a player who plays Scotland will have a harder time to dominate the world than someone who starts off as the Byzantine Empire.
These unequal starting conditions are unavoidable, and instead the measure of success should be their own personal goals that does not necessarily reflect the overall status.

Or a more varied set of goals that allow different kinds of factions to strive for victory in different ways that reflect their individual strengths.

Thanks for your input on rules - I agree with much of what you say there.

My feeling is that this will be a campaign where spies are not allowed to open the gates, where battles are fought and not auto-resolved (otherwise we lose a whole set of achievements relating to the battlefield, like Chivalrous and Dreadful), where siege engines are limited in which kinds of structures they can open up, where crusades and jihads are not used, and where exploits are banned.

However, as always, I'll go with the majority.

The battle-map inadequacy of the AI also favours the defender in some circumstances - for example an attacker will rarely leave an army in siege if just one or two units can wipe out his whole stack.

Glad you're in and don't stop providing feedback, it's all welcome!

[barcamartin]

Firstly, I can definitely guarantee that Kahvan is a reliable and good hotseat player, as well as a pretty nice dude. :)

I don't want to write walls of text like you guys, but I think we should give these Glorious Achievements a shot anyway. It might just work, and even if it isn't completely fair, it will probably be very enjoyable, and a change of pace from other hotseats. However, personal goals for each faction will be too complicated, and force factions to play in certain ways. I think the original idea is pretty neat. I also agree on the no-spy rule, siege engine limitation and obvious exploit-banning. Not sure where I stand on the battle-options. Don't really mind, although it's always fun fighting the battles. Auto-resolve heavily disfavours cavalry (especially horse archers), so it isn't a very fair option either.

Only allowing small factions will spread players out too much, and the game won't involve much human interaction. If we count all nations except England, France, HRE, Castile, Venice, Byzzies, Turks and Fatamids as small factions, there won't be many player-to-player borders. It could be doable obviously, but it would involve alot of human vs AI, at least the first ten turns or so.

[phonicsmonkey]

I don't want to write walls of text like you guys.

Ooops, I wrote too much didn't I?

[SilverShield]

dont know whether someone else did contact u via pm Phonics and signal his interest so how many are we already?

[phonicsmonkey]

We are seven so far - only quirl has contacted me via pm and not in this thread

[SilverShield]

alright. just curious. we havent made up our mind yet on how many people should be around at all

[phonicsmonkey]

I'd like a few more

Plus I'd like to do some more work on the ruleset (with input from you guys) - I'm really busy this week and next in RL, so I don't expect this game to start until the week of 16th August at the earliest..hope that's ok with everyone?

[barcamartin]

Better take our (your..) time to make a proper and good start, then rush into something with too few participants and a bad ruleset. No rush, we've got time. :)

[SilverShield]

u ve been part of campaigns at the total war center too and probably know the guys there better than me. so maybe u ll find someone else interested over there

[phonicsmonkey]

8 now - Zim is interested

[_Tristan_]

I'm in as well if you'll want me...

But I'll be AFK from the 16th until the start of September with some limited Internet access (Iphone..)...

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Ok, this sounds like a pretty interresting experiment, count me in ;)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Within 20 turns..... hmmmmmm

- Miser: Amass a treasury of 500k

I would change this to "Richest faction" as I am not sure you can amass that much money with a small faction in 20 turns, other than by diplomatic means.

- Economist: Create the largest economy (measured in gross turnly income terms)

Okay, doable.

- Pious: Build a highest level religious building

Unlikely to happen in 20 turns unless you start with a faction that can do this, which are very few and far between. Should be "Build the most elaborate religious building" and then tie for first place if others achieve it, and like I said, some factions will have an advantage here. Which is not to say that breaks the game, just keep it in mind.

- Infrastructure: Build the highest level of roads in all of your starting territories

This one won't happen in 20 turns.

- Admiral: Create the largest navy in the world

Feasible. I like it.

- Agent: Gather spy information on 25 foreign cities

Difficult to verify, easy to achieve. Recommend screenshots.

- Diplomat: Gain diplomatic alliances with all of your neighbours

This one might be too easy. Recommend gain alliances with 10 nations, not just neighbors.

- General: Amass the largest standing army in the world

Yes, I like it.

- Turtle: Complete the game with your original borders

Yes, I like it.

- Regicide: Assassinate the leaders of three foreign factions

Unlikely to happen in 20 turns. Lack of time to train, and build such buildings.

- Cardinal: Cardinals from your faction represent the largest part of the Papal Congress

Yes, I like it.

- Zealot: Win a war against a faction of another religion

Does this require complete conquest, or perhaps 50%+ conquest? What's the metric?

- Armourer: equip one full stack with the highest quality armour

Time limit makes this one unachievable.

- Chivalrous: Get your leader to max Chivalry

Good.

- Dreadful: Get your leader to max Dread

Good.

- Veteran: Get one BG unit to max experience

Good.

- Gordon Gecko: Perform 10 sucessful merchant takeovers

Unlikely to happen in the time frame.

- Drillmaster: Recruit the highest quality infantry for your faction

Possible, but only from certain factions who already have starting advantages. Unlikely to happen in the time frame.

- Master of Horse: Recruit the highest quality cavalry for your faction

Possible, but only from certain factions who already have starting advantages. Unlikely to happen in the time frame.

- Trader: Build the highest level market building

Like the religious building, I'd suggest that it simply is whichever is the most advanced among the player factions, not the highest tier.

- Logistics: Build the highest level port

Like the religious building, I'd suggest that it simply is whichever is the most advanced among the player factions, not the highest tier.

- Guildmaster: Attract and build one of each kind of guild building

Won't happen within the time frame.

- Populist: Have the highest population in the game

Nice, I like it.








My suggested list:

• Richest Faction
• Most income per turn Faction
• Most Populous Faction
• Largest Standing Army
• Largest Navy
• Most advanced Infantry recruitment building
• Most advanced Cavalry recruitment building
• Most advanced Artillery recruitment building
• Most advanced Archery recruitment building
• Most advanced religious building
• Most advanced Port
• Most advanced Trade building
• Most advanced Administrative (town hall) building
• Most advanced Spy/Assassin building
• Most advanced Armory building
• Most total number of guild buildings
• Greatest Population in one city
• Greatest Income from one city
• Greatest Public Order from one city
• Infrastructure: Most total number of advanced buildings (every additional tier is 1 point, every building is 1 point, total for faction)
• Most spies of any faction
• Most assassins of any faction
• Most merchants of any faction
• Most diplomats of any faction
• Most generals of any faction
• Most religious agents of any faction
• Highest Dread General
• Highest Chivalry General
• Highest Command General
• Highest Influence General
• Highest Loyalty General
• Most Alliances
• Original Borders
• Most Battles Won
• Most Cities Captured
• Most Generals slain
• Most factions defeated
• Most Cardinals/ Piety 5 Imams/Orthodox priests
• Most wars won against faction of another religion
• Highest experience general unit
• Highest experience non general unit
• Most merchant takeovers
• Most successful assassinations of non-AI characters (not including captains)

Champion standing:

• Most total number of achievements completed by a single faction

[phonicsmonkey]

thanks ATPG - that's really helpful. I'm back now from my business trip and I'll find some time this weekend to check all this out and finalise the rule set. Then we can start, as we have 11 players now which I think is enough (although more are welcome!)

[phonicsmonkey]

hey so I'm inclined to go with ATPG's list of achievements, a 20 turn limit and the winner is the guy who has the most achievements by the time limit. Evidence for achievements needs to be provided to the GM in the form of a screenshot.

With regard to the version number - my understanding is that patch 1.5 is for Kingdoms only - as this is vanilla we'll effectively be playing 1.3 (that is the version number that shows up when I launch M2TW vanilla and go to the options screen. When I launch a Kingdoms campaign it says 1.5)

Ok?

So, with that let's get picking our factions from the following list. I have exercised my GM discretion to take Milan.

1: England - barcamartin
2. France - Tristan de Castelreng
3. HRE - TriforceV
4. Spain - Thanatos Eclipse
5. Venice
6. Sicily - Zim
7. Milan - phonicsmonkey
8. Scotland - Visorslash
9. Byzantine Empire
10. Russia
11. Moors
12. Turks
13. Egypt - Quirl al Mustafa Mubarak
14. Denmark - Kavhan Isbul
15. Portugal
16. Poland
17. Hungary - SilverShield

[barcamartin]

To safely and securely avoid you in this hotseat, phonics, I pick England. ;D

Solid points ATPG, I like your list of achievements alot. Let's get this party started!

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Sign me up as Spain :)

[Kavhan Isbul]

I'd like to take Denmark.

[SilverShield]

gettin started ::: though i still got mixed feelings about this kind of game and the whole achievements thing. but whatever its ur baby man and just as u dont tell a good girl newly mum that her baby is kinda ugly i wont complain any further. maybe it will turn into a big boobed cheerleader. lets see. anyways so are we all going for small and medium factions only? i d prefer that. it would be pretty odd if someone chose egypt or rome. i mean egypt always turns into the largest power and as for rome constantinople is that big it might achieve all the goals pretty soon. even venice is pretty big already but not that big as constantinople obiously so should be fine. i mean im just saying mabye rome and egypt might somehow spoil it. maybe save those spots for people who might show up and are completly new to the whole campaign thing. though im sure none of the guys here would get fun out of an easy achieved egypt win anyway. whatever anyone obviously is free to choose whatever faction he wants to so well i ll give hungary a try

though is it possible to play this version of medieval when there are other games installed like the stainless steel match we got running? i dont know. not sure wether the medieval version u proposed and the stainless steel game work together?

[phonicsmonkey]

though is it possible to play this version of medieval when there are other games installed like the stainless steel match we got running? i dont know. not sure wether the medieval version u proposed and the stainless steel game work together?

you should already have medieval fully patched if you are playing stainless steel - so no problem. you just launch the vanilla M2TW game to play this hotseat.

[Visor]

Scotland for me.