SS 6.4 - "Europa I" - Late Era

[Mithridate]

As stated on .com Im in :)

[phonicsmonkey]

Welcome to the Org and to the Throne Room @Húrin the Steadfast!

As I said over at the TWC I really like this idea and think it's somewhat similar in approach to our Glorious Achievements game in that it tries to create outcomes that are not like in a typical hotseat.

I particularly like the idea that you can be penalized if you go to war without a cassus belli.

You should find the guys here a good spice of innovative thinking to refine your ideas and get this game off the ground.

If you want a large group of players and don't find enough on one of the sites alone you could consider dual-hosting the game across both fora as TriforceV did with the Dual Alliances game.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Another Estonian in here?!

Anyway, I'll be following this. Looks interesting.

[Nightbringer]

Welcome Hurin!

This looks very interesting to me as well, but I do have a few questions/concerns.

Concerning nation stability:
What do you mean by ai influence on cities?

What would you think of including number of regions controlled into this calculation? This would help represent the fact there there are significant problems associated with large empires.

What exactly would the penalties be? The console is pretty limited in what it can do really. You can change money, population, build buildings, and not much else in terms of cities. You can't change happiness levels or anything like that.
Basically, I like the idea of stability, but I can't see how to actually implement it. I would love to hear your ideas on this though.

concerning Infamy:
I personally don't like the thought of including mechanical things like this in player decisions of who they want to trust or not, as figuring that out and acting it out is a lot of the fun for me.

When you say other players will get bonuses for attacking a player with infamy, what do you mean by this exactly? Financial benefits?

That said, I like the idea of Casus Belli as it gets players thinking about what the purpose of their wars is.

One way I can conceive of implementing infamy would be in combination with prestige.

The way I am thinking, prestige would be this.
The victory condition for achieving victory would be reaching a certain level of prestige. Lets say 100 prestige.
You can gain prestige through a variety of actions, including things like.
Capturing settlements.
Controlling resources with merchants. (could get really interesting I think, making the "merchant sub game" actually come into play.
Having vassals.
Building high level governmental and/or religious buildings.
Holding cities that hold religious significance. (Jerusalem for all, Constantinople for Orthodox, Mecca for Islamic, etc...)

Infamy would play into this by being a modifier on the level of prestige required. For example, if you have 3 infamy (on a 0-10 scale) it could subtract 30% from the amount of prestige you gain from any action.
Alternatively, Infamy could give additional prestige points to players that capture cities or take resources from you.
Stability could also be made into a prestige point modifier potentially.

I don't want to highjack you game though, I'm just throwing out ideas.

I also really like the concept of national ideas, and I think having a good variety of these with significant bonuses would be really fun. They could potentially play into the whole prestige thing as well, modifying the amount of points you get for certain types of actions. Making them secret choices by players could also be interesting.


Anyway, I am definitely interested, and would love to hear what you think of my ideas.

[Myth]

So long as we are clear on the rules I'm game. Oh, and not getting negative impact for no Cassus Beli is too big of an advantage to be allowed at turn 1. I know I'd take it over any of the other options for sure. Provided we work out a system of how infamy is addressed diplomatically.

[Rougeman]

im in

[Húrin the Steadfast]

Nightbringer:

AI influence means which kind of effects does your settlements have, whether negative or positive. If a settlement has a lot more positive effects then negative, then it will influence the stability by a small amount. I am still thinking about that, how well that can be abused.

Adding number of regions controlled to the calculation is a good idea. I will implement that, however it will have a small impact on the stability.

The penalty effects on low stability would be financial. But also sometimes a small portion of units would be deleted due to low stability of your faction which would make the troops desert. Also reducing some population on some cities. These are only in the cases of very low stability though.

About infamy: It is not a matter of who you can trust or not, you can still make those decisions yourself. It is there to prevent factions landgrabbing too much too quickly and playing more carefully. The bonuses other factions will get are financial. For example, if you capture a certain settlement from the infamous player who has gone over the limit, you will get an amount of florins from it. Possibly even not need a casus belli to attack that faction.

I really like your idea of Prestige and will implement it like that with some added conditions. However not having vassals, as i believe that can be abused.

Infamy being a Prestige modifier is a good idea. However the scale will be like this:
Everyone has 0/30 infamy at start. If you go over 30 the other faction bonuses comes into effect.

Stability will also be effected by Prestige and Prestige will be effected by Stability.



Anyway i believe i have enough together to create the hotseat including the rules. I will update the first post.

You can already start picking factions, as you know the mod is SS 6.4 so gogo.

Oh and by the way, if there are any artists out there, i would be glad for a large rectangular title screen. I cant offer you anything for it though, just putting it out there.

[Rougeman]

England