Contemplating a return to the Throne.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Some of you more ancient players might remember Askthepizzaguy, back before he sold his soul to become a Made Man. Back when blitzcraft was still a thing that made men gasp.

Askthepizzaguy was thinking about returning to multiplayer campaigning. But, some things still hold this faction leader back. There would have to be some ground rules.

I'd been thinking about discussing a set of house rules which would make a game interesting enough to me to pull me out of mothballs and start the aggravating process of finding download links and patches and all that scary nonsense which takes hours, on the long shot chance I might have a good time with one of these things again.

One of the things that might make me contemplate it more seriously would be feedback on this idea. Who is still interested in Medieval 2 total war, preferably of the Stainless Steel or Broken Crescent varieties? Who thinks they'd like to try another campaign? Who has experience and isn't known for just dropping out and forgetting to do their turn?

And most importantly, who is willing to discuss some house rules? Please post here if you'd be interested in such.

[Mithridate]

I am, i was not around when you where active but i play a lot over on the TWC where im hotseating Game Staff and are pretty active here i daresay.

Currently im quite busy with work and the other life, but id very much like to be part of this.

[Myth]

Welcome back ATP!

I'm up for either mod, up for discussing rules and so long as you don't insist on weekends I can play regularly.

[Visor]

I don't mind discussing rules. Don't have a copy of the game at hand (which is probably good for time management) but I know a few things about the mods and rules.

[Nightbringer]

I'm up for all them there things. In fact, there is such a discussion happening here, which would maybe be of interest. If not, please feel free to start up a thread with whatever ideas you may have! :)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ok I have some ideas, which I will share now. These ideas can be discussed piecemeal, and may not all be used at the same time.

Questions will be boldgreen, suggestions I'd like comments on will be boldblue.

1) The usual anti-exploit/cheat rules,

I'm sure there's a standard set that can be cut and pasted here. What do you guys currently use?

What I'd like to see on the agender if they aren't there already:

No spies may be used for the purpose of opening either settlement gates, or forts, ever. Under any circumstances. All siege battles must contain a screenshot which shows there is siege equipment being used, either catapults or better, or constructed battering rams/ladders/towers.

Fort spam is not allowed. A maximum of one occupied Fort per province. You may build a new one if you abandon the previous one completely, no spies/agents or anything inside the fort. The abandoned fort either disappears, or can be captured by an enemy force. Anyone at war with you may capture this fort, anyone not at war with you may not capture this fort.

Why these two rules: The game becomes all about amassing spies and reloading to make certain your spies gain experience fast, and then putting a mass of spies in any settlement you want to capture, and then abusing the ever living daisy out of the AI where a gigantic garrison of armored troops may be goaded into leaving the province, running around until they are exhausted, and killing their commander, then mass routing them. This is entirely unrealistic, blatant abuse of the AI, to create scenarios where the game is unplayable unless every single player uses this tactic. And that destroys all roleplaying and fun that can be had.

Fort spam is when you cause severe delays to an attacking force merely by abusing zone of control and forcing every battle to be a stupid siege battle again and again, because you build 8 forts in a mountain pass and now it's impossible to plow through even though IRL you'd be able to just move around a lone fort with basically no garrison. This is abuse of the zone of control system. My massive army will not be stopped by a wooden palisade containing a single archer, it doesn't matter if he's ROBIN HOOD. He cannot stop my advance.

You get one whole fort per province to block off your border as best you can. But with proper siege equipment, you know I'm going to blow through it, so you'd better garrison it if you want it to delay me. And for your benefit, I cannot blow through it with spies, I need to use catapults or better, so there's some actual fighting involved, no matter how cheesy.

What happens if these two rules are in effect?

This means you will need actual armies to attack or defend things. You can't protect an entire border of your empire with a couple generals and some fort and spy spam, and defeat invasion armies with AI abuse. This means wars will have a shred of realism involved, not the same one tactic over and over.





2) Being a good sport guidelines.

No sending nasty OOC private messages, and renaming your provinces into insults, that sort of thing. I think this one is pretty obvious, but you'd be surprised.

Frankly, I think it should be illegal to ever destroy any of your infrastructure by selling it. This means any provinces about to be captured are usually rendered worthless by the owner, and it takes forever to rebuild it. Infrastructure can be destroyed by means of capturing the province and sacking it/extermination, and then the computer randomly pops some things destroyed, like ports. But no selling of structures, ever. If something is built in the province, it is now a prize which can be taken if captured by the enemy.

I don't think we'll ever stop the reloading thing. Some players won't reload, some will, those that do will have an edge. Therefore I think it should be frowned on, but not a boot-able offense.




3) Roleplay objectives.

Okay, now that I've talked about the non-fun stuff, I actually had ideas about how to enhance the experience.

Sometimes we get so bogged down in playing against the game and the other human players, that we forget we're supposed to immerse ourselves.

Suppose we are given some objectives, at the start of the game, Risk-style. You know, when you play the version of Risk which is not total domination, but like... capture these two continents, or capture all enemy capitals, etc?

We could do that sort of thing here. For example, the Byzantine Empire could be given a hidden, mod-determined objective which, if met, causes him to be declared the game winner.

The objective could be-

• Hold Rome, Jerusalem, Cairo, Constantinople, and Palermo, and eliminate at least one faction from the game.

And, just to keep things from blowing up in our faces,

The objective being met only counts after turn number 35, let's say, to prevent the strong-early factions from simply blitzing their objectives. If they do that, they'd have to hold all those provinces as well until turn 35.

Or it could be as simple as:

• The Holy Roman Empire must conquer the last of the Byzantine Empire. (Non-neighbor, near-equal strength faction).

All that matters here is that the Byzantine Empire loses its final family member in battle against the HRE, or the HRE captures the last province. As long as it is the HRE finishing off the last of the Byzantines, the HRE wins the game.




Or, if we're feeling particularly ambitious:


4) "Hidden alliance Versus The World".

A mafia-like game where three factions (out of perhaps nine total players) are selected by an impartial moderator to be allied from the start of the game to the end, and their objective is to either defeat all the other factions in battle, or force the surrender of all other factions, or hold more total provinces than all the remaining human factions.

The other factions are like townies in a mafia game, suspicious of the motives of all the other factions, but forced to work together against the hidden enemy surrounding them.

This hidden alliance can be technically at war with one another, even capture each other's provinces, but the combined whole only wins the game if they meet their alliance win condition. The factions cannot ever form an actual in-game alliance, where their armies will appear on the field of battle on the same side.

The non-allied factions would also have a win condition of needing to hold at least X number of provinces, so they would need to behave at least somewhat aggressively, otherwise it's a simple matter to just dogpile any aggressive faction. The "townies" would need to expand or lose, as well. So it will be difficult to tell the Hidden Alliance factions from the others.

One rule that would be necessary for such a game to work, would be the rule that provinces cannot be traded via diplomacy.



We could also try:


5) "The 500 pound Gorilla"

A game setup where the moderator assigns one somewhat distant faction a large territory right from the start of the game, and all the others have a normal-sized territory.

The objectives are otherwise normal, but if the small factions fight among themselves, the 500 pound Gorilla will pick them apart. At the same time, the small factions cannot win unless they defeat all the other factions too, so they have to gain an edge in power even if they fight on the same side as the other factions.

The small factions would have a common enemy of needing to stop the hugest threat, but cannot completely trust one another either.

That's the idea. Instead of the usual cookiecutter game, we could really spice things up by adding some curve balls.



And for any of these, I think Stainless Steel or BC would work best. Large map, and a large number of territories per faction, which means early eliminations could be difficult.

That's just off of the top of my head. What do you guys think?

[Nightbringer]

Good ideas, and funnily enough, a number of them have actually been being used pretty commonly since you left. Here is our basic common ruleset.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Each player has 48 hours to complete his turn (not counting weekends). After that the Admin may skip his faction or he can be subbed.

Do not bypass or ignore zones of control to lift a siege (or in any other way).

Do not attack ships in ports.

Armies boarding ships in ports can't stay there for more than one turn.

Don't leave blockaded ports without beating the blockading ships first.

Don't stack merchants in armies or forts to get more than one to stand on the same resource (Merchant Fort)

No surrounding armies or agents to destroy them. (Surround&Destroy)

Don't attack units who were left next to a settlement in order to capture it on the same turn in order to cheat the garrison script. In fact don't cheat the garrison script period. (this only applies vs AI factions)

Don't use repeated offers for bribe to increase your faction leader's dread.

Enable "Unlimited men on battlefield" in order to not abuse when leading battles vs the AI (PM me for instructions, though SS has this on by default)

Armies that are defeated in battle by a player that comes after them in the turn list may not move the following turn. This is to make it fair for people who are defeated by players that come before them in the turn list, and thus lose all their movement points

Armies that are defeated in battle may not be attacked on the following turn, as they are banned from moving, either by the game mechanics or by the rule above. They must be allowed to move first, or must be reinforced. If the defeated army retreats to a settlement or fort, this rule does not apply.

Ballistas can't open anything, catapults can open wooden walls, trebuchets or better can open anything.

Assassins are allowed to target anyone but the players are limited to one assassination attempt per turn. It must be the first action they do, before they spend money or do anything else. Upon a successful assassination the game admin can load that player's save and attempt the assassination. If the results are different there will be penalties for cheating.

Spies are limited to one infiltration of a settlement/fort per turn, and it must be the first thing the player does, or the second one if the player also wishes to attempt an assassination. Upon a successful infiltration the game admin can load that player's save and attempt the infiltration. If the results are different there will be penalties for cheating.

Crusades and Jihads cannot be called, joined or used/exploited in any way.

ONLY religious buildings can be destroyed upon the conquest of a settlement and ONLY if they are of a religion different than your own.

No trading of provinces to receive free troops. If you trade provinces, make sure they have no garrison prior to the exchange.

No deliberate deals that would put you in debt above -10,000 florins.

Spies
You'll notice that we do allow a small amount of spy use, but I don't think even that has been allowed in all games. I would certainly be fine with simple no spy games.

Forts
We have not tried limiting forts to only one per province, and things have been somewhat interesting with real entrenched lines being built up at times that require serious siege equipment to get through. I don't see any harm in trying out limiting it like this though.

Insults
I think we can all agree that we don't want any of that, and a no name calling with in game city names is no problem.

Infrastructure Destruction
Already banned in all games we play at this point.

Risk Style and Hidden Alliance
Awesome ideas, would love to try that out.

500 pound Gorilla
We sort of did this with Wrath of the Khan II, but the gorilla/mongols ended up being too weak. Could certainly do a game where the gorilla gets more buffs though.

Off the top of my head
Well, there is the crusades allowed catholic factions only game that is starting to get organized. Just trying to get a stable group together at this point for that, but really I would be up for pretty much whatever people are interested in doing.

[Myth]

In all of my games (which are around 50% of the games of 2012) I have always banned spies and always will advocate banning spies. Desire to use spies crept in from the TWC and it works well for AI smashing and especially if it's a lead battles game (and most of our games were LB until most recently). I however don't like spies, even If I loved how Silver Shield and Mithridate use them. Never got used to them, never use them in SP to open stuff (though I do use them prolifically for scouting) and I think they are a gimmick.

If we have to talk history, lengthy sieges and parleys are what usually happened in medieval times. Pitched battles were more rare and siege assaults were quite rare as they are very costly. Usually one would assault if pressed for time or if they have a tremendous advantage over the defenders. The armies of the first crusade vs. the garrison of Acre? Assault. Count Robert besieging his neighbour over a land dispute? Definitely a drawn out siege. Cities and castles falling to treachery was even more rare. It's not as easy to organize this and one person can't effectively cripple the defence of a castle. Sure he can open A gate (out of many gates) on the most outer layer of walls. And then what? Considering that the assaults could go back and forth and battles happened at torn down gates and walls and the defenders held successfully, getting a gate opened is not really an automatic "we get inside and kill them" moment.

You'd get inside and end up as chopped liver because you'd get surrounded and cornered in a small clearing past the gate, and you'd have stones, crossbow bolts and javelins flying your way, while a wall of pikes or spears keeps you pinned. A city could fall to treachery if all the wells were poisoned or if a fire is started inside but it's still a lot more work than one agent can manage. So yeah, I think spies should remain as scouts only.

Regarding fort spam - this is the first thing you have to learn if you are playing lead battles. Fort spam or die is the name of the game there. Lead battles with no forts is basically a turtle fest where everyone camps in their cities. That's why TATW is not good for hotseats IMO.

Fort blocking your provinces is vital IMO. If you've had the pleasure of playing a LB game vs. Sivler Shield you'll see how forts are to be used. I like their particular strategic value. Also, they can be neutralized via Diplomats who can bribe the weak garrisons inside.

Limiting fort spam can be done in other ways like playing a mod with PSFs (Britannia for example) or playing a mod which makes them too expensive to spam (2500 gold a pop in the Crusades expansion, likewise in Broken Crescent I think?)

However limiting forts to one province only makes it so that we can't play lead battles at all, and also it gives a great advantage to large factions. Large factions have more armies so they can advance out of several routes to check-mate you for a certain province if you can't fort up. They also have more settlements so the loss of one or two can be afforded if the needs arise (and losses will happen because you can't be everywhere at once). However for a small faction which really has just one or two main troop production centres, losing those means good game and bye bye.

An alternative limit on forts can be a base number for all factions + 1/3 their settlement count (rounded down). IF we have a base number of 6 forts allowed per faction and we have a war of Scotland vs. England. Scotland has 3 settlements, England has 7. The Scotts have 7 forts allowed, the English have 8 allowed. If the HRE joins in and they have 11 settlements at that point, they'd have 9 forts allowed.

So while growing bigger does grant you more forts, the difference between differently sized factions is not as staggering as with a 1 fort per province rule and the small guys can make use of their 6-7 forts to really spike their homelands against larger aggressors while the big factions are also big targets and they really can't afford to do the same for just one front.

Of course, fort limitations will also influence faction choice, and the big and safe corner factions will be sought after even more. Now if we are talking Stainless Steel then everyone will want to be the Moors, Egypt, England or the ERE and unless someone like me picks Sicilly just for fun then we'll be at an impasse. And since faction choice has determined who wins and who loses on so many occasions here I for one won't be picking the oddball factions this year

Regarding your ideas, I can tell you that the secret objectives idea was suggested by me some time ago. it requires an amin who is not a player though and as such I think we'd best put it on the backburner. We don't have enough players to spare dedicated admins for games.

Something like Glorious Achievements could also be fun.

Broken Crescent is very interesting and we h ad started a game (Empires of the East) but the save got corrupted and players dropped out. I'm all up for a BC game. I'm also interested in a Stainless Steel game, especially if version 7.0 comes out soon. SS Late era in particular strikes my fancy for HS mode.

Regarding lead battles vs. autoresolve some people have requested we return to pure AR and leading vs the Ai. I'm OK with all options, though I enjoy the freedom of lead battles where horse archers and light army compositions make for deadly stacks, while AR is just spam of one unit type depending on what the AR engine of the particular mod favours. You spam infantry in vanilla and vanilla-esque mods and you spam archers and maybe some cavalry in Stainless Steel.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I can say that I have had extensive experience with both the use and abuse of forts. To the point of nausea. I haven't been around here for a long while, but I'm the furthest thing from a newb you'll find.

The limitation of one fort per province means that you can put a fort around one of your invading army stacks, if you're worried about your forces getting annihilated by the enemy due to the poor battle AI. That's fine.

The issue I see is when people do that thing where they send a lone general to pop like 3 or four or nine forts all around the invading army, garrison them with like depleted peasant units, one per fort, simply to frustrate movement via zone of control, and then stop people from opening those forts with spies, and since you will then have to open all the forts with things like catapults, you'll exhaust the movement of your siege weapons.

I don't want to deal with a mountain pass where it takes me five turns just to get through because I didn't bring a catapult and there's four nigh-empty forts in the way. People do that, and I think it's beyond unrealistic.

One fort per province means you can have some defenses around your leading army, but if those defenses are broken and your army inside is broken too, legitimately since we have no spies here, that means the defender can bring his depleted and exhausted forces into battle against your other forces you might have camped behind it. Which means spreading out might be a good idea.

Ultimately, I just don't want to have to play through umpteen empty fort battles every turn. I'd love for there to be players who can agree to those terms. Would it really cramp anyone's style that badly?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Basically, A fort for defense is fine. Forts as stumbling blocks make no sense. They didn't build 100-mile wide impenetrable walls completely blocking off mountain passes in real life, and they didn't do it five times in the span of a month, to frustrate an invading army.

Realism. It's not just for historians!

[Myth]

Well yes, @Visorslash did exactly that in the first Teutonics game to my last good stack. He surrounded it with a ton of forts and thus immobilized it. It was a perfectly organized backstab and it took apart armies that would have otherwise pummelled the inferior Danish units he had to work with. However think about this: 9 forts at regular price is 4500 gold, not counting the price for 9 units (at least 100 in upkeep per turn). So it's really a financial toll on anyone but the largest empire or a guy who has been left alone to boom 10 coastal provinces for 20 turns.

What about two forts per province per player? And also, I didn't mean to imply you are a noob, you've been playing hotseats when I didn't even know about TW games so...

[Visor]

Only difference with that was it was offensive rather then defensive, though I certainly understand your point.

[Ferret]

Just wanted to signal my interest.

I prefer autoresolve, but mainly just because I'm on a laptop that is certainly not built for gaming. It does also have the benefit of making fort abuse much less of an issue. I'm with ATPG on that topic though, fort spamming is pretty tedious to contend with.

Oh and I'm pretty sure you two didn't play in the first Teutonic hotseat, I distinctly remember hosting that myself...

[Chaotix]

You wouldn't leave me, would you ATPG?

But what about all the time we shared in the Gameroom? Does that mean nothing to you any more?

I feel like I don't understand you. We can't relate. You're like a completely different person.




Okay I took that far enough, it's starting to sound creepy reading it back ...needs a puppy dog eyes smiley somewhere in there.

Let me know if you guys plan on starting anything, I will see if I can dig out my old M2TW disc so I can get my butt handed to me once again.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Just wanted to signal my interest.

I prefer autoresolve, but mainly just because I'm on a laptop that is certainly not built for gaming. It does also have the benefit of making fort abuse much less of an issue. I'm with ATPG on that topic though, fort spamming is pretty tedious to contend with.

Oh and I'm pretty sure you two didn't play in the first Teutonic hotseat, I distinctly remember hosting that myself...

The sole reason why I don't like autoresolve is because it means there's no strategy, just best-infantry unit spam.

However, something like this could work:

Versus Ferret, only use Autoresolve, and Ferret will only use Autoresolve versus you.

Sort of an opt-in, opt-out kind of thing?

Because I feel we can have the best of both worlds.

[Nightbringer]

could work i guess, would definitely be a bit of a head trip strategy wise though.

As to fort spam. I actually kind of like it. Yes, it blocks you off in ridiculous ways, but it is expensive to do so and if you are carrying siege equipment you can just punch your way through no problem. To me at least, it actually makes the game much more deliberate. If you get yourself out of position without siege equipment, you can easily be cut off. It also makes it far easier to advance because it is so dangerous to march out into open ground in a lead battles game especially. Without the option of a fort screen i would probably do far more camping in cities, waiting for them to attack so i can cut the down in the field then counterattack.

As I said though, I am certainly fine with trying out a game with strict limits placed on them. I haven't actually tried that so who knows, maybe I will like it even more.

[Askthepizzaguy]

could work i guess, would definitely be a bit of a head trip strategy wise though.

As to fort spam. I actually kind of like it. Yes, it blocks you off in ridiculous ways, but it is expensive to do so and if you are carrying siege equipment you can just punch your way through no problem. To me at least, it actually makes the game much more deliberate. If you get yourself out of position without siege equipment, you can easily be cut off. It also makes it far easier to advance because it is so dangerous to march out into open ground in a lead battles game especially. Without the option of a fort screen i would probably do far more camping in cities, waiting for them to attack so i can cut the down in the field then counterattack.

As I said though, I am certainly fine with trying out a game with strict limits placed on them. I haven't actually tried that so who knows, maybe I will like it even more.

The tactic is so powerful that it forces everyone to copy it in order to stay in the game, just like spy spam and assassin spam, and just like the abuse of AI by luring garrisons out and exhausting them.

If one faction is at war with the other, one is using the tactic and the other is not, it's almost a foregone conclusion. No spies versus an army of spies means you lose. No forts versus forts means you lose. No assassins versus tons of assassins means you lose. One faction lures out all your garrisons, you don't, you lose.

When it gets that imbalanced and it's a tactic that must be spammed by everyone, it takes away from the game, doesn't add to it, IMO.

Although I see how others can enjoy using it, I've gotten over it. :P

[Myth]

Soo... What about two forts per province then? BTW ATP the AR engine was modded in SS, so infantry doesn't really give the best results any more. 3 Scholarii units can take out 8 spearmen with 16 defence and 150 mpu.

How about using the Casus Beli system from the CK games in regards to lead battles or AR? Everyone has to declare a CB when starting a war, and that determines what other factions can and can't do about it. CBs should cost something, an invented resource. Let me brainstorm:

Declaring war requires the spending of Kingdom Power. Kingdom power rises by 1 each turn the faction is at peace and cannot grow beyond the total number of settlements the faction holds. At turn 1 everyone starts with 1 KP.

After a war ends successfully for the aggressor, a truce of 4 turns is automatically declared between the two factions. If any of the two factions decides to break the truce they will have to pay a penalty of 10 KP. Going into negative KP means you can't start other wars until you get to at least positive 1.

If the aggressor feels the war isn't going as planned he can sue for peace, thus expending all his accumulated KP and being prevented from calling war against that faction for 8 turns. This is not a mutual truce however and the defending faction is free to call war upon the unsuccessful aggressor.

Regional Conflict CB: The ruler of a faction declares war for the obtaining of a single province and it's capital settlement. The war ends when that settlement has been taken or if the aggressor sues for peace. Other factions cannot help the defender unless they have blood ties to their dynasty (princess marriage alliance). Others can help the aggressor though if anyone other than the aggressor takes the settlement the aggressor gets penalties as if he has sued for peace. Costs 1 KP. Both sides must use autoresolve.

Invasion CB: The ruler of a faction declares up to 1/2 his total number of held settlements to be taken from the opposing faction. The opposing faction must be larger than the aggressor by at least 2 settlements or otherwise the cost is steeper. The aggressor must declare which settlements he is waging war for upon declaring war. Costs 4 KP. If the opposing faction is larger by 1 settlement only it costs 7 KP. If both are the same size it costs 9 KP. Cannot be used versus smaller factions. Other factions can help the aggressor if the enemy faction is 3 settlements bigger than the aggressive faction. The defender can enlist the help of blood allies. Can lead battles if the opposing faction is larger by 5 settlements. The defender must use autoresolve.

Forming of an Empire CB: The ruler must declare an empire or must already be an empire (HRE and ERE count as empires). The Empires have a pre-set list of settlements within them (this will be posted later). England can call the forming of the Brittish Empire, Denmark - the Empire of Scandinavia, Leon-Castille - the Empire of Iberia and so on. This CB allows free waging of war against all factions which are holding a settlement within the Empire's De Jure territory (as I said, a list with empire names and their De Jure lands will be generated prior to the game). However upon declaring it all affected factions can freely ally and wage war with the aggressor. The aggressor can enlist the help of blood allies. The aggressor may not sue for peace upon declaring this CB. Costs 12 KP. Both aggressor and defenders may use AR or LB to their discretion.

Holy War CB: The aggressor calls holy war upon a faction which is of a different religion. The war ends when the enemy faction capital (the city which was capital at the time this CB was used) is captured and converted to 51% of the aggressor's faith. This CB costs 7 KP but upon successful completion it provides 10 KP, so it can be used as a KP generator. The aggressor may lead battles against the enemy faction, the defender has to autoresolve. Suing for peace costs 15 KP instead of the usual 10. Other factions may join to aid their brethren of the faith.

Great Holy War CB: The aggressor calls for a Great Holy War which aims for the complete destruction and conversion of the enemy faction. Ends when all settlements are taken by factions of the aggressor's faith and converted to 51% of their faith. Costs 16 KP. Other factions may join to aid their brethren of the faith. All aggressive factions may lead their battles. Only the defender may lead battles, the rest must autoresolve. Great Holy War CB can be used ONLY if the religious centre for that religion is held by a faction of that religion and is at least at 75% of that religion:

Rome for Catholicism.
Constantinople for Orthodox Christianity
Mecca for Islam.
Pagans get an exception that they do not have a religious centre. Instead they may use the Great Holy War CB if they have a total of 8 pagan priests stationed within the religious centre of the religion they are targeting.

Extermination of Heretics CB: Only Catholic factions can use this CB versus Excommunicated Catholics. Ends when the Pope reconciles the defender, when the current faction leader of the defender dies or when the defender pays a penance of 15 KP to be spared. Any Catholic faction which is not excommunicated and which has at least 4 Papal standing may join the aggressor. Any Excommunicated faction may join the defender. Automatically ends with free reconciliation for the defender if a Great Holy War is called upon a Catholic faction.

You like?

[Visor]

I like the idea, but way too unfair to the defenders especially not allowing them to lead battles most of the time.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have Stainless Steel, but I do not have Broken Crescent and I'm not sure which versions and other modifications you folks generally use.

Furthermore, many of the old places to download these mods have very old download links and some of them no worky.

Is anyone here a bad enough dude to rescue the President, so to speak, and provide a one-stop post that contains all relevant download links a prospective player like myself may need? Links that work are bonus points.

[Myth]

Erm, for all your download needs go to the relevant TWC subsection.

SS is here.
BC is here.

Visor: that was literally written in one go. We can tweak the rules and numbers. The idea is what matters. We also need a "No Casus Beli" war which should set you to negative 20 KP and can only be used if you have at least 10 KP. It allows the agressor to wage unrestricted war versus one faction, but he can't get aid. The defender can ask anyone for help.

We also need a workaround for dynastic marriages for Muslims who don't have princesses.

[rickinator9]

I would like to try getting into hotseats again...

[Mana Æ Varyl]

I love the hidden alliance idea, I can't believe I never thought of it myself!

Totally should do a game like that...

[Myth]

I love the hidden alliance idea, I can't believe I never thought of it myself!

Totally should do a game like that...

I say we go for this.

Stainless Steel 6.4 Early Era to let us build up. All the rules that ATP asked for seem cool with me.
@Askthepizzaguy should I start a new thread and make a title image? We need a name for the game. How about Cloaks, Daggers & Swords?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well here's the thing. The Hidden Alliance game has to have a neutral party or the game host select the scumbags. Since they have to be impartial they can't be a scumbag, and they'd also know who they all are so they can't be a member of the other independent nations squaring off against the scummos.

I haven't played multi in so long, I don't think I could host such a game. But I could offer something else, especially since I may not have as much time as I thought.

I couldn't help with host-related duties such as checking for cheating, handling player disputes, or keeping an eye on the game to make sure it's running properly, but I could play as a neutral party nation off to the far side of the game board, and only I would have knowledge of who the Hidden alliance factions were, and I wouldn't be allowed to reveal that data to anyone at any time. I also would not be allowed to declare war on any other player controlled faction.

Then I could just turtle. And maybe cover for someone who was away from their computer and needed a turn advanced.

This way, one of you more experienced "Game Hosts" with the time to actually host can actually play the durn game without being spoiled.

If for some reason it was absolutely necessary for the game host to be spoiled, I could be on hand to reveal the pertinent data.

If we were playing Stainless Steel Early Era, I could play as the Khwarezmids, as they get attacked by the Mongols and they are very far from the main action. That would be the perfect neutral/corner/turtle nation for me to play.

We should also have the players' input on the rules. Which new rules are we adding in? Which old rules are we keeping/tossing?

Before we rush into the game, let's agree on those little details. Perhaps a new thread discussing the game in question, sort of a sign-up sheet, which also doubles as a rules discussion thread?

[Myth]

Since this is your return to the TR I feel it's not befitting you to be out of the action. We do need an admin for the game who must not be a player in this case. I can admin it. But the only real issue is choosing the allies.

Can we get someone, maybe @TinCow to just roll a RNG off a list of the participating players and just PM those two who are allies? That way all active TR members can play. Our games don't require much administration and checking for cheating but even if that happens, one player using the admin pw and doing it is fine.

[Nightbringer]

I agree, I think us three should be able to bully one of the other admin's into picking our little alliance for us. I know I would be up for this game!

[TinCow]

Can we get someone, maybe @TinCow to just roll a RNG off a list of the participating players and just PM those two who are allies?

Yes, I can do that. Just let me know who to pick from and when I should do it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Alright, but as mentioned, my time is going to be pretty limited. That's a disadvantage to whatever side I end up on.

[Myth]

Not really. If we make it autoresolve a turn shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes, and we average 1 turn per week nowadays.