New hotseat game - Glorious Achievements

[Kavhan Isbul]

Did not someone take the Moors as well? Personally, I do not care much what we decide on the rules, as long as we clear the issues out now, instead of later in the game.

[phonicsmonkey]

48 hour turns
Battles can be fought or autoresolved
Spies may not be used to open the gates of settlements or forts
No reloading
No in-game crusades or jihads
No destroying buildings for cash in a city that's under siege
No fighting losing defensive battles on purpose in a besieged city, just to deny the invader the sacking option
No exploits, including (but not limited to) no merchant forts, no surround and destroy, no tribute deals that deliberately put you into debt greater than 10k, no deliberate diplomatic exchange of territories just to get a free garrison, no tribute deals with or monetary gifts to the Pope.

Let me know if you have any questions

[Quirl]

Hmmm... I don't really have the time to play a non-autoresolve game. I may not be able to play this after all. Sorry. :\

[phonicsmonkey]

Hmmm... I don't really have the time to play a non-autoresolve game. I may not be able to play this after all. Sorry. :\

Nothing to stop you auto-resolving all your battles if you want to. I often do this in hotseats regardless of whether battles can be fought or not, because like you I have very little time to play each turn. I don't really find it unduly disadvantages me..

The whole point of this game is that it's more flexible in terms of strategy than other games where you just have to conquer everything to win. Why not try for achievements that don't involve fighting too many battles? If you get attacked you can play defence (which is much easier with the embargo on spies) and concentrate your forces for autoresolve victories on the counterattack.

[Quirl]

Well... fighting battles in map makes a big difference. Remember when Merlox was playing the SS hotseat early on? He'd capture an entire city with just a few general's bodyguards. Maybe he was cheating when he did that, but I don't think so, because he detailed the same kind of strategies I use when I do that. And were I not to fight the battles in map while other players are doing such things... well... I think I'd just find myself in quite the disadvantage. :P

[phonicsmonkey]

Well... fighting battles in map makes a big difference. Remember when Merlox was playing the SS hotseat early on? He'd capture an entire city with just a few general's bodyguards. Maybe he was cheating when he did that, but I don't think so, because he detailed the same kind of strategies I use when I do that. And were I not to fight the battles in map while other players are doing such things... well... I think I'd just find myself in quite the disadvantage. :P

Like I say, it depends on what your strategy is to win the game. I think you are being inflexible in your thinking. I never play like that and I do ok, don't I?

[Quirl]

Sorry. Didn't mean to seem inflexible. I was just sharing some of my concerns before the game started...

[Thanatos Eclipse]

Well... fighting battles in map makes a big difference. Remember when Merlox was playing the SS hotseat early on? He'd capture an entire city with just a few general's bodyguards. Maybe he was cheating when he did that, but I don't think so, because he detailed the same kind of strategies I use when I do that. And were I not to fight the battles in map while other players are doing such things... well... I think I'd just find myself in quite the disadvantage. :P

I can assure you that I for one will not be destroying armies with one or two generals, cause I wouldn't know were to start :)

[Kavhan Isbul]

No reloading

I understand the rest, but would this mean that if I start a game and have to stop and do something else due to an emergency, I do not get to finish my turn?

Just a few clarifications:
- the limit on spies applies to human vs. human, or also to human vs. AI? The latter may be very hard to monitor and enforce.
- surround and destroy refers to surrounding an agent on the strategic map with unit, but does it also mean I cannot surround an enemy with armies/fleets to cut off escape?

[barcamartin]

I understand the rest, but would this mean that if I start a game and have to stop and do something else due to an emergency, I do not get to finish my turn?

This basically means you are not allowed to save your turn, say, before an important battle, then reload and replay the battle if the results aren't satisfactory. Same goes for spy infiltrations, assassinations and army movements. Basically, you don't get second chances. Of course it's ok to save, do something else and then continue where you left off.

[phonicsmonkey]

This basically means you are not allowed to save your turn, say, before an important battle, then reload and replay the battle if the results aren't satisfactory. Same goes for spy infiltrations, assassinations and army movements. Basically, you don't get second chances. Of course it's ok to save, do something else and then continue where you left off.

This

Just a few clarifications:
- the limit on spies applies to human vs. human, or also to human vs. AI? The latter may be very hard to monitor and enforce.
- surround and destroy refers to surrounding an agent on the strategic map with unit, but does it also mean I cannot surround an enemy with armies/fleets to cut off escape?

All of these rules are hard to enforce and there is no policeforce monitoring everybody for compliance. It's an honour system - but if we see someone expanding very quickly (quicker than looks plausible) the GM may spot-check turns to see that everything is above board, and if it is not corrective action can be taken.

Yes, surround and destroy means you have to leave an exit tile for fleets and armies - the idea being that you always get a chance for at least some forces to escape.

[TriforceV]

First of all Quirl is correct when detailing Merlox's ability to use a few general body guards to take out a full stack army,
In fact, so can I! ( it's real easy, have the whole army chase your horses for awhile until they get exhausted, then charge, retreat and repeat quick enough and keep the horses on the move so the reinforcements can't arrive on time, slowly take out the whole army)...

It's kind of lame and is an abuse of the weak AI, normal human played armies would stick together, but that's the problem with Battle-mode, so easy to abuse the mechanics, and so hard to force yourself not to do it..

Also based on the "Do not reload your turn" to win a battle or enable a spy entry into a city is also impossible to enforce.
This is a highly competitive game, and I doubt someone would accept an accidental humiliating defeat that may cost them the game, think about it?
And lets just say hypathetically out of 10 players, 9 are honorable, and only 1 is dishonorable in this regard, that 1 player will have a hugely unfair advantage, and there is no way of knowing who that person is.
Have you ever heard of "Game Theory?", I think it applies here,
A rule that cannot be enforced is not a rule at all.

Anyways, Battle-mode or not, honor system enforced its your decision, just don't say I didn't warn you

[Quirl]

( it's real easy, have the whole army chase your horses for awhile until they get exhausted, then charge, retreat and repeat quick enough and keep the horses on the move so the reinforcements can't arrive on time, slowly take out the whole army)...

Shhhh! I wasn't going to tell them how to actually do it! ^_^

And lets just say hypathetically out of 10 players, 9 are honorable, and only 1 is dishonorable in this regard, that 1 player will have a hugely unfair advantage, and there is no way of knowing who that person is.

Good point. This was my concern.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think everyone here would agree that if someone has to cheat in order to win a game with no reward for winning, and no skill involved in the cheating, seen only by those he has cheated, then any satisfaction such a person would get could be considered charity. If they need that to stroke their ego, I'd consider letting them have it. I shudder to think what they would do without it.

In all seriousness, people here are generally honorable. Until proven otherwise, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[phonicsmonkey]

Well said ATPG.

...and there is no way of knowing who that person is.

Good point. This was my concern.

Then, I'm sorry to say it, but don't play hotseats - of course there is no way of knowing for sure whether someone has cheated by reloading the turn, you have to have some faith that the people that you choose to enter these games with are essentially honourable, otherwise what is the point? The reason for having the rule is to send a message about the way that the game should be played and to provide a moral framework that someone can turn to for reference if they are considering an action in the game that they suspect may not be fair or allowed.

This is how it works: if anyone suspects someone else of cheating, pm me. I will look at the save and speak to the person concerned. I will also take expert advice from others I know who have hosted these games in the past. I am not afraid to boot people from these games for cheating, but that will be a last resort - in the first instance I'll try corrective action like asking the person concerned to hand back the disputed settlement, or pay reparations or something like that.

But we are all adults here and we're all capable of applying our sense of right and wrong to these simple games - it's an abdication of moral responsibility to expect every possible outcome to be legislated for. Players should use their own judgement and if they are not sure whether an action is allowed, ASK!

This is a highly competitive game, and I doubt someone would accept an accidental humiliating defeat that may cost them the game, think about it?

I'm not trying to come across all holier-than-thou, but I have done and I know others that have. It's about your attitude to the game and the reason you play it. I'm not saying one way is right, but I think there are enough people around here that share my outlook on these games that will know what I'm talking about when I say winning is not the main reason I play. If it were all about winning I would just play chess (which I am better at than TW).

That said, we have had relatively few instances of outright cheating in all the time I've been playing and hosting these games here and I hope it stays that way.

EDIT: AND, as GM I almost always go with the majority, so if there's a strong feeling about any of the rules they are up for change. For example we could allow reloads and create a level playing field that way.

[phonicsmonkey]

First of all Quirl is correct when detailing Merlox's ability to use a few general body guards to take out a full stack army,
In fact, so can I! ( it's real easy, have the whole army chase your horses for awhile until they get exhausted, then charge, retreat and repeat quick enough and keep the horses on the move so the reinforcements can't arrive on time, slowly take out the whole army)...

Slowly is the key word here! Which is why I don't play like this - I don't have the time or the patience for this level of battlefield micro-management. I once played a Saka campaign in EB which was almost entirely a series of battles like this...it's not hard to do but it's really time consuming and while I like the results I find it terrifically boring.

Ok guys, let's get this party started over at the main game thread.

Maybe Tristan can get his turn done before he loses his internets on the 23rd..