Code of Honor

[RabidGibbon]

I also dont like the 5 max rule. As Wishazu points out it penalises those factions with limited unit choices, and doesn't guarantee balanced armies.

Take this example:
Legal army (Seleucids)
5 Cataphracts
5 Scythed Chariots
5 Companion Cavalry
5 Armoured Elephants

Illegal Army (Seleucids)
10 Levy Pikemen
6 Peltasts
2 Millita Cavalry
2 Companion Cavalry

I know this is an extreme example but I think it makes my point clear.

There cant be any doubt about which is the most balanced or Historically plausible, yet under 5 max its illegal. If this code is going to promote a rules system (even indirectly through using it for its tournament) I dont think it should be the 5 max rules which seem quite ill thought out to me.

As I mentioned above I think a limit on the number of elite units would be a neat solution, though we would have to classify what counts as elite.

Cav Spamming could be coutered by a cap on the number of cavalry units, perhaps with a dispensation for traditonally Cav heavy factions. However a cap on the number of elite units would make spamming more difficult for these factions. ie: no all cataphract armies.

Arrggghhhhh, I've gone off on one about fiddly little rules again when were supposed to be discussing how to make the game a more place for everyone.

I wouldn't have a problem putting my name to Tomi Says charter as it stands, despite my earleir post on the balance clause it's probably futile to argue over wording - I think people will either understand what this code is aiming to achieve or miss the point altogether.

Perhaps something could be entered about accepting defeat graciously when defeated? Im just thinking of those times when your footmen have won the battle and then have to spend half an hour chasing that 1/4 strength unit of cavalry into a corner.

[Crandaeolon]

As I mentioned above I think a limit on the number of elite units would be a neat solution, though we would have to classify what counts as elite.

How about putting a max limit on units above a certain denarii level? For example: 7 max / 750 would mean that you may have only 7 units whose base price is 750 denarii or more.

It may not be possible to nail down a good catch-all denarii level, but might still be worth investigating...

[Wishazu]

ok cool, i think we should get back to the matter of sorting out the code, then we can work out the rules for the tourney, maybe make it a regular thing with the winner being given a special title at the .org or something :)

[Agravain of Orkney]

I suggest keeping the focus on behavior. Things like treating others with respect, no swearing, not quitting early when you are the host, not anchoring to the red zone, no spam-blobs .... things like these make for an enjoyable game between the involved players. In a Code of Honor I would stay away from things like trying to control the composition of armies, banning units or factions, etc. These are really game balance issues. They are important to tackle but I think should be done outside the realm of an honor code.

[AquaLurker]

I suggest keeping the focus on behavior. Things like treating others with respect, no swearing, not quitting early when you are the host, not anchoring to the red zone, no spam-blobs .... things like these make for an enjoyable game between the involved players. In a Code of Honor I would stay away from things like trying to control the composition of armies, banning units or factions, etc. These are really game balance issues. They are important to tackle but I think should be done outside the realm of an honor code.

Yes behavior is really important, but what I think the people are trying to do here is to make the game more enjoyable with more tactical depth. I can be a spammer and have good manners but my opponent will not enjoy the game.

Of course I am not saying that by fielding a balance army your are allowed to be rude to your opponent lol. When it comes to manners it all comes down to the players to observe their own behaviors. Of course people with bad manners will put themself in a bad spot, people will avoid playing with them. No body can be responsible for your behavior and the consequences.

[AquaLurker]

I don't think egypt should be ban, I agree that banning a faction from a game is quite silly, if egypt is to be ban, then so should rome.

[RabidGibbon]

I'll set up a seperate thread to discuss army lists/max unit rules and tourney rules as this thread seems to be going off topic. I'll call it Army Lists.

[Nigel]

Just trying to get in another comment before you go off and write the next version.

To remain with a particular team game, even after having been defeated, as a demonstration of sportsmanship

This actually has been a point of some discussion in an earlier MTW thread. While some people see it as a sign of courtesy to stay till the end, others see it as rude to drag out a lost game unnecessarily or find it annoying to have to remain to the end.

My view of this is that it is ok to quit from a lost game if you want to as long as you say clearly (and in good spirit) that you admit your defeat "and thx, gg and cu". You may also want to check with your allies first, that it is ok with them if you leave and, of course, make sure the game wont crash for the others.

That said, I usually find it too exciting to see who wins in the end and I also enjoy the after-battle-talk so I usually do stay on. But if others are on a tight shedule and want to get on with things, that should be ok.

[RabidGibbon]

Re: Always staying to the end of a game.

I dont know about Mediveal TW MP (So called friend's had my copy since I got broadband, got to get it back ) but Rome TW does have the admit defeat button, so theres no need for people to hang around until the end, unless of course there the host, so a "Always admit defeat graciously" clause might cover this.

The real problem as I see it is people who quit when they know they have lost and leave their opponennts to finish off an AI controlled army, which is about as much fun as carving up a turkey (And the Turkeys a lot smarter), so if people agree perhaps a clause about always admitting defeat before exiting a battle might be in order.

[Imorthorn]

I have just read over the The code of honour, and it sounds llike a good idea, but i would off thought most clans where allready using some sort of code of honour to begin with, we at the lords would be glad to part of this has it can only improve the quality of the rome online community


Imorthorn

www.lordsofmidnight.tk

[Tomisama]

I think this is an excellent job. Only one which I can see potential problems with:

(5.) To consult with my allies, and inform my opponents before taking a specialized army composed of other than a conventional balance of unit types.

Thank you Sir Argavain. Yes, this one is a real stickler. It started off as:

To always play with an army reasonably balanced according to unit choices available for the particular faction chosen.

Which would probably be the best description of what is meant by conventional, and would be variable from faction to faction.

But what makes the second sentence un-universal is that some teams employ cavalry and infantry specialist armys within their team’s armies group. And some individuals “do” want to experiment with unbalanced armys. I think that there is nothing wrong in that, “if” you opponent knows that you are “not” bringing a standard line-up.

You don’t have to tell them exactly what you are bringing. The announcement can be made along with “no art, no ele, no egypt, no con” (and I will not be bringing a conventional army). “mostly cav?” “Yes.” “Ok!”

The whole objective is to avoid unwarranted accusations of “spamming”.

Hey, if you want to bring an all cav army fine! I think I know how to deal with that, but I need to know “before” we hit the field, to make the proper compensating troop selections. That would give me a “fair” chance to provide you with the “best” competition.

It is the honorable thing to do…

P.S. No they didn’t send messengers to each other, but spies and scouts would be bringing back the news on exact army composition well in advance of any actual contact. The best we can do is give each other a little warning

[[seminoles]shadow]

I think its a great idea and would love to do it

[Tomisama]

In retrospect a statement of “no con”, or “no bal” (which is probably better), meaning to alert opponents to intended balance variations, has another edge!

Stating “bal” or “balanced” would let your opponent know that you are expecting a conventional game. If they agree then you know what to expect also.

To nail down interpretations of “conventional” and “balanced”, a simple equation can be used.

The total number of a units of a particular unit type “selected” (mounted, sword, spear, range), must be directly proportional to the percentage made “available” for selection for that particular Faction.

For example the mounted units available to Romans would be 24% (no more than 5), but Parthians could bring 50% (up to 10 mounted units).

Combined with financial and unit max limits, I believe a very manageable game scenario can be built with only a few words.

We will see I guess.

If you would like to have your player name presented on the Code of Honor web page,

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/code/CoH%20Page.html

representing that you personally accept the responsibility of being bound to The Code by Oath, we can start taking Code Members now.

Simply click on the email link below. Insert CoH in the subject, and your player name as the message. That is all that is needed. Community wide announcements will be coming up, but no need to wait for all that to happen

roninwarlords@hotmail.com

[[WOT]{G}SparhawkI]

Greetings my friends
Strength & Honour to you all.
I think the Code of Honour is a great idea

i only have reservations about this talk of balanced armies & limiting choices. Are we not better & more honourable to learn how to defeat those which we find most threatening?
and thus increase our skill & enjoyment of the game without putting restrictions on the enjoyment of others.

If you are interested in more detail on my views on this see
http://p219.ezboard.com/fclanwars354...picID=15.topic

I seem to be somewhat of a lone voice for tolerance on this matter but none of these so-called spam armies are unbeatable, think outside the square, find enjoyment from finding ways to defeat these armies

I remain, as always, your humble servant

[WOT]{G}SparhawkI
General & Ambassador
Warriors Of Troy RTW Clan

[Wishazu]

hello mate, welcome to the .Org your point about the armies is fair but we are not really afraid of facing these armies, we just want to be able to play decent games, its so much more fun playing a thinking opponent rather than 1 who puts all his eggs in 1 basket and just rushes at you.

[CMDR Coconut]

I like the idea too. I'm in for a try.

I can't stand cheaters and those that take advantage of flaws in software to make themselves as "gods".

The more realistic the better and that takes nobles.

[AquaLurker]

Are we becoming nobles??? I am afraid the peasanst might revolt lol

[AquaLurker]

How about be humble? lolI find that there not really much stuff to add to the code of honor.

But let us dicuss about the rules for the balance or "historical accurate troops"(not that RTW have historical accurate troops) because this is the main reason why the Code of Honor is started. To give the games we wish to play a more tactical depth and that's include dealing with losy troops like militia hoplites.

If you guys are familiar with table top war games such as Warhammer fantasy, they have a system where certain troops are classified as core, special and rare. There is no limit to the number of core troops unit you can take unless they some kind of specialize core troops, there are limits to the amount of special troops and rare troops that you are allowed to take.

We can adopt this system for RTW Code of Honor games for those who are interested in it. It is just like the elite system as mentioned by the others previously, and I believe that this will make the game more enjoyable in a more tactical point of view.