Anyone interested in a new MTW2 pbm?

[Zim]

Hello,
I've been thinking about starting a new pbm campaign for MTW2. Probably about 20 turns per person, with whatever houserules everyone can agree with.

Would anybody be interested and, if so, what faction would you like to use for it? I'm rather partial to the Russians and the Moors, but there isn't a single faction I dislike playing.

Edit: tentative player list, in order of their posts in this thread:
Zim
Warmaster Horus
Ignoramus
Bob_the_great
YAKOBU

[Warmaster Horus]

Well, how about a good old succession game PBM?
Maybe the Moors, then?

[Zim]

I always liked the succession style games done for the first MTW, but thought the general consensus was that with two turns per year(in the aging of generals, at least) the reign of a king was too long for that kind of play. Maybe with some houserules to prevent the first couple players from speeding through the game too quickly?

The Moors are fine with me.

[Warmaster Horus]

Or maybe we can mod the game, or find a mod that makes it work correctly?

[Zim]

Hmmm...it probably wouldn't be too difficult to mod the family members to age one year per turn like in MTW.

[FactionHeir]

Actually that isn't possible unless you mod the exe file.

[Zim]

Actually that isn't possible unless you mod the exe file.

Drat.

[econ21]

Each player controlling the game for 20 turns is probably optimal. Full reigns are too exhausting and leave other players twiddling their thumbs.

In KotR, we've settled on 10 turn innings so 20 should be plenty.

[Ignoramus]

I think that we need to do it with a mod that makes the years work properly, otherwise it's very difficult to pretend that you're the reigning sovereign.

[Ferret]

id be happy to join a new one

[Zim]

Econ21 and FactionHeir, are you interested in joining or just stopping by to help out?
Alright, now that we have enough people for the game we can start to resolve a few neccessary issues before starting the game.

-I'm thinking hard/very hard for the difficulty, so that the AI gets the money it needs badly to keep up, but isn't quite as insanely suicidal as on vh campaign difficulty. does that sound ok with everyone?

-Is the Moors an acceptable faction for everyone?

-Anyone have a preference over when they are in line for the game (early, mid late)?

-Any house rule suggestions?

And lastly, the two issues which will have the biggest effect on who can play and gamestyle:

-Should we play 20 turns per person, or a succession game?
The former will make the turns go faster and prevent the first few players from gobbling up the map and leaving little for the others to do(a problem that could also be easily resolved via house rule or player agreement), but it could take away from the feel of running a kingdom for the full reign of a king.

How do people feel about mods, or about just modding the desc_strat folder to make each turn 1 or 1/2 a year?

[Privateerkev]

I'll make clear that I'm just stopping by to give some advice. I am playing the Moors right now in my SP. And while they are fun, there are a couple problems.

One, you need to figure out a rule with Jihads. They are way overpowered and prone to abuse by the Moors due to the fact that there is an abundance of Jihad targets in the beginning of the game on the Iberian Peninsula and you get an Imam that can call them. This would allow you to both take over large chunks of the map right away and maintain a giant army with no upkeep. Could make for a too-short too-easy game.

If you are going for a succession game where there are "houses", like in KoTR, there are only 3 houses which won't be too balanced because two houses will just gang up on the third. Four is better and more balanced.

The starting sultan is 60 years old and will die soon after you start the game.

[Zim]

Hmm, the faction choice isn't set in stone but that's going to be a concern for any faction that can jihad/crusade.

-How does everyone feel about a rule that only the target of a Jihad or Crusade can be attacked by the jihadists/crusaders? With exceptions provided for removing opposing armies sitting in your path, and taking one or two settlements to set up if the target is far from home(i.e. the Holy Land)?

I was thinking of a succession game more like the old MTW1 pbms, where one player plays the first king, then the next plays his successor, and so forth. I haven't looked at KoTR much, but I think its system is rather more complicated.

If the faction starts with an elderly leader, I'll take the first turn.

Thanks for the tips.

[Privateerkev]

No problem.

Its true that all catholic/muslim factions have the crusade/jihad potential exploit. But the Moors have their targets right there so its easier to exploit. When your catholic, you have to send your crusades far from home. Moors can keep their Jihad army close to home and use it to just keep their whole army upkeep free. When your worried about desertion, you just take the settlement, then wait 10 years for the next jihad on the next city right next to you. I guess all muslim factions have this potential for abuse but you mentioned the Moors and it happens to be the one I am playing SP at the moment.

So, even if you don't use the Jihad to expand too fast, you can still use it to keep a massive army that your infrastructure normally couldn't support. With so many other advantages that you have over the AI, this seems potentially a bit unfair. Just something to keep in mind.

[FactionHeir]

Sorry, I am already in 2 PBMs at the moment, so I won't be joining a third. Besides, I got my own in planning ;)

[gibsonsg91921]

do a med 2 tw one FH and use a cool small faction

[FactionHeir]

Of course m2tw. Faction isn't decided yet, but let's not hijack Zim's thread, eh? :)

[YAKOBU]

Hi everyone

Thought I'd posted on this thread last night but my comment isn't here so here goes again.

I would like to join a M2TW PBEM if ok? I have only been involved in MTW and RTW PBEM's previously.

I have just in the middle of doing all factions on the short campaign and found Russia to be the most difficult. Could I suggest this faction as it gets round the crusade/jihad issues?

[Zim]

YAKOBU, you're welcome to join us. THis will be my first MTW2 PBM, also (have done a couple RTW ones).

Russia is one of my favorite factions, but I don't think playing the Moors or another Muslim or Catholic faction will be a problem. I doubt anyone here will exploit jihad/crusade mechanics, and someone determined to blitz the map will be able to without them, if not as quickly.

What do you think, everyone, shall we play the Russians, the Moors, someone else?

If we can get a faction settled on I'll start an OOC thread where we can hash out the rest of the rules.

[Ignoramus]

I personally think that we should play as the Scots. They are one of the hardest factions really, as they can easily be outclassed by the Danes and English.

[Zim]

Bump

And also: I think I'll vote for Scotland, too. Their unique units are cool, but hardly overpowering, they start fairly small and isolated(yet still in threat from two factions with better unit rosters early on, England and Denmark). I think they'd make a good faction for a succession campaign.

I have a feeling this PBM may bog down a bit if I drag my feet, so I'm going to wait a day or so for people to give input on faction choice and some of the groundrules I mentioned, and then start a MTW2 PBM (insert faction we chose here) campaign:OOC, where we can finish up setting the game rules up and get a start on it within the next few days.

[Warmaster Horus]

Well, faction choice doesn't bother me. I played around with practically everyone of them, so...

[Ferret]

i'd be happy to do Scotland with Succession rules.

[YAKOBU]

Hi everyone

I'm happy to go with Scots too, although their island does make them easy once England are dispatched.

A couple of house rule suggestions:

• no mercenaries or limit 1 per stack?

• limit on number of settlements you can take in your reign?

My reasoning is firstly that with full access to mercenaries I've walked over other factions. Secondly by restricting number of settlements taken per reign we again reduce rushing as well as giving everyone a chance to play while the game isn't over and done.

[econ21]

If we are playing 20 turn reigns, I am interested. If it is full reigns, you may not need me.

YAKOBU's houserules sound sensible, but how many settlements should you be allowed to conquer per turn? Four?

One alternative or additional way to curtail rushing is to outlaw sacking and extermination - if you have to occupy settlements, it stops you fuelling your war effort by big injections of plunder.

Perhaps even a houserule prohibiting declarations of war? If we are Scotland, it would be good to allow England to build up a while, before taking her down.

I like a 1 ship/2 passenger unit houserule for immersion (I have a hard time envisaging my army on one boat...).

Personally, I would keep to CA's creative chronology of 1 turn = 2 years. It means you have more chance to experience cool historical stuff like the Mongols, gunpowder, the plague, Timurids and America. I suspect if we simply switch to 1 turn = 1 year or 1 turn = 1/2 year, the building and unit upgrading will get out of sync with the date (Gothic knights too early etc).

My preference for the PBM would be if people try to role-play their King's traits and provide a write-up of their reign (doesn't have to be Shakespeare, but at least some record of what they did).

[Zim]

Econ21,
I think we are going to try to make it an old style succession game, sincew several people have expressed interest in one. It may be a failed experiment doing one with MTW2, but I think it's worth a try. You're still welcome to join, although I understand your misgivings about getting a turn after all those other people.

I'm thinking maybe a limit of no more than nine or so territories per reign average. with five players that comes out perfectly to the 45 needed to win, and allows players to conquer significant amounts of territory without blitzing the map. Of course, if player one only conquers his way to 5 territories, player two could go all the way to eighteen.

If anyone objects to that, we can just leave it to the players' judgment, with a request to leave something for the next few guys to do.

If I play first, I plan on not being aggressive towards England. Gotta let them build up to be a challenge.

I like the one mercenary per army(Yakobu's) and 2 passengers per boat(Econ21's) rules.

I was thinking one turn per year, but if people prefer the vanilla pace, that's fine with me.

I thought all pbms were roleplayed and had writeups.

Anywho, I'm going to start an OOC thread with the rules for the pbm tonight, then we can finish hashing them out. I hope to get the first turn played this weekend.

[Ignoramus]

If econ's willing, I could also start a MTW:VI one as well, which is kinder to full-reigning kings.

[Zim]

I started the OOC thread for the PBM, with the rules I think we're using. Not too late to change any, though. If noone objects to my taking the first reign, I'd like to start it this weekend.

Here it is
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...58#post1640258

Ignoramus, if you do start a MTW:VI game, I'd like to join it, too. I'll have to learn the trick for running it on newer video cards first, though (got a link explaining it somewhere).