M2TW PBEMs possible?

[Amon_Zeth]

Alright, I see. Maybe there is some way to make M2TW make each turn add a year to the king's life, so that it moves quicker, so that you don't have kings that age super slow?

[Lucjan]

I don't see why it'd be an issue to just ignore it. We had no problems whatsoever ignoring who was supposedly the faction ruler and faction heir in the WotS pbem, because everybody understood the Consul was elected and the 'faction heir' simply didn't matter as a trait.

[Ignoramus]

A good MTW2 PBEM would be on Venice. Because it's a republic, it could be done like the WoTS.

[Braden]

Question: What does a “Turn” in M2 equate too? Is it still an abstract concept of compressed time (as CA were originally doing) or are the turns actually labelled as years now (as the community wanted)?

I’m asking mainly as an unabstract concept of time is one quite essential thing in PBeM’s.

We have battles and reports and elections tied into Years and whilst the concept of a turn is ok for allocating a length of a “reign” isn’t it going to be somewhat unsatisfactory when we start transposing a game into a PBeM campaign with all its reports, write-ups, stories etc?

It won’t stop me taking a minor part in a campaign (I can’t run the game anyway) but I just wondered if we’d considered it before we get into this matter further.

(if you’re wondering, yes, I’m still concerned that whilst the game itself plays well and has better bits-n-bobs….it just doesn’t have the same campaign “feel” as M:TW and that in an effort to compress lots more “bling” such as the Americas into the game, CA have lost the soul of what made a campaign game truly absorbing for me.)

[TinCow]

I think we could actually incorporate the non-selectable heir into the game mechanics. It would be somewhat wrong IMO to completely ignore the monarch, but we could easily give him a legislative veto. Let's say he can veto any legislation he wants, unless it receieved a 2/3 majority of votes. (maybe 3/4?) Since we would know for sure exactly which characters are in line for the throne, I would say that the King would also have a veto over players taking control of his children. In order to assume the role of a Prince, you'll have to be on good terms with the King.

Also, we should consider what we are going to use in place of influence, since it no longer exists. Obviously Authority for the King (if he even gets a vote, perhaps keep him out of all votes and let him only veto.) Piety is a possibility, as is loyalty.

Just brainstorming, there are a lot of possibilities for improvements to a WoTS style game in M2TW.

Question: What does a “Turn” in M2 equate too? Is it still an abstract concept of compressed time (as CA were originally doing) or are the turns actually labelled as years now (as the community wanted)?

It's labeled as turns on the main campaign screen, but the year is displayed inside the information panel. Each turn is currently 2 years. Apparently people have already found a way to alter the amount of time that a turn takes though, so 2 or 4 turns per year shouldn't be a problem.

[Braden]

I see. My main concern was with keeping track of Avatars ages and how long they had to live etc. Obviously very difficult if you have an abstract "turn".

The method of government in the Medieval era leads to problems for a communual PBeM such as we have with the Senate one.


Perhaps we could figure out some form of Baronial based Government? With the King as a figurehead only (never to be used as a player Avatar).

However, that would also mean that the whole bloodline of the Royal house would have to be excluded as player Avatars (except Princesses perhaps).

Certainly Englands and Frances strong “Baronial” base would be a good starting point, but I can’t comment on the other factions.

Is Venice still a Republic in the actual game, can someone check?


------------------------------------------

[Lucjan]

Actually I disagree with England and France.

The electoral counts of the Holy Roman Empire or the Diet of Poland would be much more relative to a senatorial style of play.

[Avicenna]

an effort to compress lots more “bling” into the game

[Dutch_guy]

A few observations about relevant aspects of M2TW:

(a) With M2TW, there seem to be no titles to speak of, so there's no simple "in-game" representation like those wonderful legion banners we enjoy in WoS. A shame, but I guess it gives us some freedom. However, I have a feeling that trying out a decentralised PBM might work better say with EBs Greek cities, where the division between cities is represented by in-game ethnicities.

(b) I'd be reluctant to do 4TPY with M2TW. Out of the box it is 0.5TPY and we'll start doing violence to history (Gothic knights at Hastings etc) if we deviate too much from that.

(c) The ratio of generals to provinces feels like RTW - ie slightly more provinces than generals. So the provinceless Counts may be necessary at the beginning but would not be an important game mechanic.

(d) We have to bear in mind the castle/town distinction. Dukes of towns may feel shortchanged but towns at the margin are arguably best for the kingdom as a whole (specialise troop production in a few upgraded places; let the rest be cash cows).

My instinct would be to fix on a faction first and then sort out suitable arrangements. I think it's a given that we want some WoS type elements - notably elections of players; "motions" constraining them; and delegation of battles to the "lower house" generals on the ground - although the nomenclature may change. How we package this for role-player purposes and whether we need to add extra elements, such as provincial decentralisation, may depend on the faction we choose. Personally, I don't think we could run two WoS type games simultaneously, although multiple traditional PBMs would be possible.

a ) I don't quite understand what it is you mean with 'in game representation', the legion banners are still here but then again I must be missing something here

b ) I agree, the balance is OK as it is now. Although the amount of turns (~225) may be a bit low.

c ) Well, I guess this differs per game. In my current English campaign ( turn 75 or so ) I can field armies with two family members an army. That said, Rennes and Caen do need a governor.

d ) Indeed, personally I wouldn't want to be used solely to govern a town, but who would ? If we decide to incorporate the Upper / Lower house concepts, then we could have the upper house members governing the towns and cities.

Now if we wish to start a M2 PBM in the current WotS theme, we should chose a faction in which this is easy to incorporate. This would severely reduce the possibilities since only the HRE and the Byzantines are empires...

The Idea allocating a province to a player is a good one, although it would require a ton of micromanagement and communication with the faction leader. ..

[Amon_Zeth]

A good MTW2 PBEM would be on Venice. Because it's a republic, it could be done like the WoTS.

I second this.

[flyd]

In addition to being a Republic, Venice might offer some interesting gameplay options. Rather than the expand in every direction as quickly as possible thing, we could instead establish a maritime trade empire. Perhaps we could have a rule that, outside of northern Italy, we would only capture littoral provinces.

[Mount Suribachi]

One of the things that has "spoilt" TWOTS for me was the relentless rushing of our neighbours in the early game. So un-Roman, and resulted in us just blitzing the map.

Of course, missions from the Pope or CON would over-ride such a no-conquest rule?

[Dutch_guy]

One of the things that has "spoilt" TWOTS for me was the relentless rushing of our neighbours in the early game. So un-Roman, and resulted in us just blitzing the map.

Of course, missions from the Pope or CON would over-ride such a no-conquest rule?

Not necessarily, the only conquest missions the pope gives are crusade missions. Which is probably only good for the storyline. The pope has never, as of yet, asked me to conquer anything other than a crusading target. It has only asked me to stop the destruction, albeit of a fellow catholic

The HoN missions are varied, and don't only contain missions which favor the blitz. Blocking ports, engaging in diplomacy, and subterfuge missions are the usual types you get.

[econ21]

One of the things that has "spoilt" TWOTS for me was the relentless rushing of our neighbours in the early game. So un-Roman, and resulted in us just blitzing the map.

It might be an idea to have a brief post-mortem on the WoS when it is done - what worked, what did not, how it could be improved.

Personally, I thought the pacing of conquest was about right. From a gameplay point of view, it gave each Consul - and many lower house generals - something to do. From a historical point of view, we were playing a 4TPY mod, but I think it would be roughly historical if viewed at about 0.25TPY speed[1]. I know that my reign was the most aggressive though. In retrospect, Carthage and Greece being unable to cope with the sea barrier did mean securing Italy left us in a very safe position. I probably should have been more cautious. Once we broke out into Illyria and Greece, all hell seemed to break loose and we were not really in control anymore.

Of course, missions from the Pope or CON would over-ride such a no-conquest rule?

If you are a Western Catholic, the Pope is a definite break on conquest as in MTW. I find the CON missions very appropriate - they do sometimes tell me to take the next logical settlement of my enemy but give you a generous time allowance.


[1]Personally, I don't see the big deal with 4TPY mods. As in WoS, the broad pace of the campaign often seems more historical when viewed at official or even faster. Interpreting TW too literally, like interpreting religious texts, seems hopeless. In that respect, I have some sympathy with M2TWs deliberately fuzzy treatment of time. I don't seem the "short" game length of M2TW being a problem - I am vague on the numbers, but I think it is twice as long as the WoS is likely to have lasted.