Results 1 to 30 of 60

Thread: M2TW PBEMs possible?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member Member Avicenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Terra, Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, somewhere in this universe.
    Posts
    2,746

    Default Re: M2TW PBEMs possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Braden
    an effort to compress lots more “bling” into the game
    Student by day, bacon-eating narwhal by night (specifically midnight)

  2. #2
    Senior member Senior Member Dutch_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Holland.
    Posts
    5,006

    Default Re: M2TW PBEMs possible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Econ
    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. ..

    I'm an athiest. I get offended everytime I see a cold, empty room. - MRD


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO