ETW PBM Think Tank

[TinCow]

With the release of ETW getting closer, I've started thinking about how the Throne Room games will change to adapt to the new engine. It's obviously difficult to make any specific plans without being able to play the game, but we do know a few things about it. I've started this thread simply for brainstorming purposes, so feel free to add any ideas you have, or point out interesting info about ETW that might affect games here in the Throne Room.

It appears that family members are being completely split off from generals/admirals, which I gather will remove them from fighting battles altogether. This may mean that the series of 'mega-games' that have evolved from WotS onwards might be impossible to translate over. If they are possible to translate, they will require serious re-working to adapt to the new engine. However, the 1 vs. 1 multiplayer campaign map opens up interesting possibilities that might be worth exploring and could result in some very interesting games.

What I'm imagining is a combination between the classic succession game, hotseat games, and WotS-style games. Two factions are chosen to be the player controlled factions. Players then sign up to join one side or the other. The game then proceeds in 10 or 20 turn 'terms' with one person in complete control of each faction, and all that entails for a MP campaign. This is then spiced up by having the non-serving players from each faction act as the Senate/Parliament/Angry Mob that vote on who will serve in the next term, as well as voting on objectives that the elected player must accomplish during his term. Perhaps failure to reach these goals results in being barred from running for re-election.

One serious hurdle with this is that all players running for election would have to be willing (and capable) of playing online multiplayer. Hopefully there will be a lot of people up for this, but it could be a difficult obstacle to overcome.

[Skullheadhq]

The Creative Assembly makes online campaign in ETW. So we dont need PBeM anymore.

[TinCow]

Blasphemy!

The campaigns are an excellent addition, but they're only 1 v 1. There's a lot of fun to be had with large groups of players, so there will be plenty of PBMing to do in order to make that possible. In a 1 v 1 game, you're just competing against one other player. In larger games, it becomes a very social experience and allows for interesting alliances and politicking between various groups of people. ETW will have just as much a need for PBMs to harness that aspect of entertainment as RTW and M2TW do.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I admit that, while majorly anticipating ETW's release, I really haven't followed its mechanics. Thus, I can't contribute to this brainstorming session as much as I'd like.

However, I do see a workaround to the splitoff issue: Perhaps a two-tiered system, with FMs on top and generals/admirals on the bottom. Each family member could sponsor a few generals, depending on the ratio. These generals would work to increase their FM's influence, thus in return getting them more rewards. The system could work a lot like LotR, in that a general needs to find a sponsor if they really want a say. In addition, that general could work to influence their sponsor's views about subjects and thus play an indirect role in the debating process. Each FM would also get one general/admiral under his direct control (i.e. they're played by the same player) in order to provide enforcement and such, in addition to getting that player some field action.

Basically, this system would offer something for everybody. The players that mostly want to fight battles and work the game could take generals, and the players that want to interact with others could take FMs.

This makes sense in my head but may not translate well to the forum, so I'd appreciate some feedback/clarification requests.

[Ramses II CP]

Why not let the family members vie politically for control of the generals to lead their armies, while the generals scheme from below. I can see Senate sessions where successful generals are assigned every ten turns by vote to 'houses' or 'families' or whatever. Force the family members to issue their orders 'in character' so that the general has flexibility on how he implements them, etc.

An added layer like that just makes things more interesting in my book.

[GeneralHankerchief]

That could work.

Maybe have a system similar to the current LotR rankings one in which the number of generals an FM can have is directly tied to the amount of land he owns. Generals have control, to a degree, of their army but are still somewhat bound by their FM's orders.

I still believe that whoever plays an FM should also directly control a general (RP it as that FM helping out with funds or something) just to enforce things and prevent rampant generals going rogue.

If we could mod the game to make generals become FMs under certain conditions that would be perfect.

-edit- Again, I'm just pretty much spilling out whatever comes out of my head with no thought to organization or anything.

[TinCow]

Hmmm... those are interesting ideas. The two-tiered system worked will in WotS and provided a way for people who didn't have the game (or have the time to play it) to join in. If ETW really does split the roles in this manner, the two-tiered system might work well. Perhaps we could even split apart the duties. Maybe only family members get to be 'Chancellor' or something, but only Generals get to fight battles, though that would void the idea of family members not needing the game (or, at least, some of them would need the game).

The idea of one FM and one General each is interesting too, but it might be limited if the game doesn't supply us with many family members. We'll have to wait and see when the game comes out, but I have a feeling that the size of the family tree will be a lot smaller if they don't act as generals as well.

[Skullheadhq]

Perhaps we could mod the 1v1 campaign to be like...erm....1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1

[ULC]

Well, one of the more important issues with this idea of a two-tiered system is that fact family members are essentially exclusive to the "Monarchy" type government - Constitutional Monarchies and Republics will likely have elected or appointed officials that may exist solely on the whims of the Upper and Lower Classes. They will most likely fill a function as ever present governor of a Province, or as a Minister handling specific affairs such as the Navy/Military and Technology, providing continuous bonuses and penalties based upon traits.

Thus, it's quite possible that the only continuous roleplayable characters will be Admirals and Generals.

[TinCow]

Yes, that's very true. One possible way around this would be to divorce players and in-game avatars. Instead of RPing a specific in-game persona, people could simply be a random nobleman or other prominent figure of some kind, perhaps a successful merchant, retired general, senior civil servant, etc. People simply make up the person they want to RP, without any pre-set determinations of any kind. Though these people wouldn't exist in the game, this only really impacts them living and dying. We could still let them own provinces and 'employ' generals and admirals, who would be theirs to control. We then allow acquisition and loss of provinces and ranks in a similar style to the curent system (though the feudal system will have to be completely overhauled to reflect the different political arrangements of the timeperiod). Influence already seems to rely more on the actions of the player rather than the stats of his avatar. It would be relatively simply to continue this evolution and remove stat influence from the game altogether.

Thus, separating the players from a specific in-game avatar will only really remove the life and death bit. This also has the added convenience of allowing players to be anywhere they want at any time. This could open up more options for easier PvP. Perhaps people with bordering provinces can attack each other even if a general isn't present. The two garrisons simply fight it out, and the winner takes the other's province, without any in-game movement necessary. We may even be able to add some kind of basic PvP system into the game that can be done in peacetime as well. Maybe surround another player's lands with your own provinces on multiple sides and 'absorb' his province? Perhaps put in some kind of monetary system that allows a player to actually purchase another's land, either willingly or as a 'hostile takeover.'

[ULC]

Actually, let me take a bit back about not being able to Roleplay administrators. It's highly possible that even in a Republic/Constitutional Monarchy, there would be a pool of Administrators to choose from or put up for election. If that is how it works, then it would be easier to Roleplay an Administrator, since the game mechanic for election and advancement would already be contained within the game, requiring less rules made by the players to govern it.

So then the basic idea already put forward of the people playing as Administrators as direct governors and those playing as Admiral's and General's as commander could work. The basic game structure could work like this -

First level - King/President/Chancellor/Prime Minister: Owns all Provinces at a start of game and hands them out to Administrators to govern. All Administrators owe some form of allegiance to the First Level, possibly in the form of payment or the First Level having the sole power of Impeachment of lesser officials without need of consent.

Second Level - Administrator/Official/Secretary: Own a Province given to them by the First Level. Based on income determined by whichever mechanic (possibly a Treasurer, since it would be even more realistic to have one at this point) to train officers and levy troops. Second Level would sponsor Generals and Admirals, and sponsorship can extend beyond their province, enabling them to offer better sponsorship to another Officials Generals and Admirals - however, there would need to be a mechanic to limit it's use.

Third Level - Generals/Admirals: Control armies, and are responsible for all defenses of the Province of their Sponsor. Can conduct offense actions with official sanction based upon degree of action. Able to levy basic non-state troops, but requires Sponsorship for state troops. This allows some degree of Freedom, enabling a Third Level player to go off on their own, but it is risky to do so.

Thoughts?

[woad&fangs]

Ministers govern your old world holdings. Governors govern your colonies. Ministers are voted into office but the player appoints governors. In a Monarchy the player can appoint both, there are no elections.

A 2 tiered system could work.

We could set it up in-game as a monarchy but role-play it however we choose. A new player would decide which province they wanted to govern(provided it didn't already have a governor-avatar), then the Monarch(GM or elected position or permanent position) would sack the AI governor and the player could pick which of the possible replacements he wants as his avatar. I think we would have to have an in-game rule against sacking Governor-Avatars for this to work.

If a player would rather fight battles he could choose an avatar on the second tier. On the second tier, people would roleplay generals/admirals. The less experienced G/As would attempt to woo governors into giving them good command positions, while the more established G/As will have multiple governors competing for their services.

With this plan I think it would be best to pick a country who focused a lot on colonization.

[ULC]

Hmm...a thought just occurred to me. in ETW we can name our units - shouldn't this allow for greater control over armies? For instance, you could truly loan someone an army of your own units, and not have to constantly keep track of them - you would name them something that would be an identifier, and viola, when it comes time to return them, it's a simple matter.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

That is a good idea! I like it!

[Ibn-Khaldun]

There are no cheats and no console in ETW! So, it would mean that it's practically impossible to run game similar to LotR in ETW!
It is possible but without the console we have to rewrite most of the rules!

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'm sure that someone will mod it to get one in.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Check this post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...19&postcount=1

In most games the console is incorporate in the game, but for Empire the console was run seperately to help aid us in developing and debugging the game. Unfortunately this does mean there is no way for you guys to use it.

This means no console. I doubt it is possible to mod one in unless CA itself gives console to us.

[Cecil XIX]

On an unrelated note, in Empire you can always recruit a general or admiral from any stack, anywhere for a fee. So it's basically what we have now, except we're forced to pay for it.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Yes, but you can't get rid of them like you can kill generals in M2TW. At least I think so cause I don't have ETW
If you hire and fire generals when ever you want then that is not a problem.

[TinCow]

ETW looks like it will require a completely new rule set, IMO. I don't think it would be practical to try and adapt the current LotR system for it. I think a new game will have to be written from the ground up.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I agree. It would take at least half a year to get used to ETW and understand most of it's features and how to use them in LotR type game.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Has anyone given any thought to the faction we'd use? So far I've only played France, but I've been kicked around by the AI enough to know that it'd be challenging, and we have enough colonies to make things interesting enough for all players.

From what I've seen so far, the campaign will definitely be harder since we just can't point our finger at a territory and then own it a few turns later anymore.

[mini]

my copy has finally arrived, so let the first PBM start!...

:p

[pevergreen]

There is no hotseat mode, no console...I just really dont see much awesomeness out of game happening. : /

[TinCow]

I'm still not quite done with RoI, but I've seen enough of the game to know that the KotR/LotR system is DOA for ETW. I think ETW PBMs will work best with a simpler system. One of the basic problems with ETW is the avatar situation. No matter how I look at it, I don't think playing an individual avatar is going to work out so well in ETW. Governors can't do anything except govern. Agents are interesting but also very limited and can't be intentionally spawned. Generals work like they always have, but they are extremely expensive to recruit and there's no way to cheat in extra money to make it easier. It would simply be impossible to spawn 20 generals in a game starting as Prussia. Thus, the only option for avatars is to make use of all of them, which seriously stifle's peoples' ability to roleplay someone they like. It's no fun if the only avatar available is a government minister that you hate with little personality and no real impact on the game.

For this reason, I think for ETW we need to abandon the idea of tying players to in-game avatars. Instead, I think electioneering and internal competition should be the primary motivational factors. We should split the Chancellor/Megas role up into multiple roles and hold elections for each of them at every session. One person controls the finances; one person controls the armies; one person control the navies; one person controls the research, etc. As the nation grows in size, the military aspect could be increasingly diversified. For instance, one person controls the armies in the north of the country while a second person controls the armies in the south. They are responsible for all operations within their 'sphere.' This could make some jobs more interesting than others, since one side of a country could be invovled in a major war, while another could be completely quiet. The person who controls the war area would thus have more to do. Control of navies could similarly be split up between fleets based in different areas.

In order to achieve the proper flexibility in these roles, I think we need to first of all vastly simplify the rules. They need to be stripped down to a basic structure for communal governance and legislation. Everything else should be decided upon by committee. I also think we should vote on legislation first before the election. If we do this, we can create temporary positions for the coming term to deal with emergencies. An Edict could split control of a particular theater of operations between 2 or 3 people, rather than the usual 1. Voting on this first would then let people run for these temporary offices in the coming election held immediately afterwards. This system would rely heavily on many people running for different offices, but since holding office would be the only way to have an in-game impact, I would expect greater activity there.

As a final note, due to the lack of a console and the inherent nature of ETW, I think the first ETW games should completely skip any ideas of PvP. We need to develop a basic system for ETW PBMs first. We can work on adding complexity to them later. We need to look at the first ETW PBM as the WotS for the next game engine. Go for a very basic structure and get it to work. Then build on it in later games.

[edit]I just had an interesting idea based on the splitting of the Chancellor/Megas role. What if we made this into a political party system, like a Parliament. Each player can choose to align themselves with a particular political party. That party has a single player who leads it (like leading a House). During an election, you vote for the PARTY, not the person. The Party that gets 50% or more of the (weighted) votes becomes the Prime Minister/Chancellor. This person then has to fill all of the 'cabinet' positions by allocating them to others. If no single party gets 50% of the vote, then whichever parties form a coalition that totals 50% or more of the votes becomes the PM/Chancellor and delegates the roles. Maybe even make the number of 'cabinet' positions proportional? If your party gets 1/3 of the votes, you also get 1/3 of the cabinet spots?

[mini]

Tincow

Your edit is how my real life government works ;)

Anyway, I think you're on to something there. But we might retard the whole party system based on player activity.
In the beginning we should proceed simple, as you first stated. I think the whole party-system is great IF we have the playerbase for it.

Whatever we do, I'm in.

[Ramses II CP]

I haven't played Empire, but on the combat front I would suggest that perhaps we should remove players from 'being' avatars and instead have them become a layer above the in game avatars. To gain control of an avatar or army for a particular battle you could maybe use a system similar to the Clan bidding in the Battletech universe, i.e. 'I can take Kiev with just five companies,' 'I can take it with four, etc.' This way there's no need for the generals to be especially recruited, and no worries over the boring role of being a governor.

A modified bidding system could be use as well, with either votes or the 'Megas' role ultimately making the decision. The benefit of the bid system is that it encourages risk taking and defeats for the player, making the AI considerably more challenging than it would otherwise be, which is important if PvP is being removed. With avatars not one to one with players the consequences of defeat are less as well, such that we may have to reintroduce risk of some kind other than just political fallout for a loss.

To try to put that in better perspective:

1. Players aren't avatars at all, they're completely invented characters 'above' the in game avatars who bid or politic for control of a particular avatar for a limited time. Bidding could be based on time, upkeep, total number of soldiers needed, or anything really.

2. This increases the challenge rating of the AI, which will surely be necessary given the lack of PvP. It also helps control spending and avoid the need for cheats.

3. Risk to the actual player may be reduced too much, such that we need to introduce some possibility of actual death back into the system (Perhaps a making the bid 'I'll lead the men personally!' have considerable weight in the process and run the risk of death).

4. Weighting the system so that votes and/or the Megas role is the ultimate decision maker, or maybe just selects who is allowed to bid in the first place, will maintain a strong role for politics in combat.

[mini]

And what about less gifted generals among us? :)

[Ramses II CP]

That's why I'd modify the system to includes politics, finances, and etc. in the bidding as well. The 'less gifted' can scheme to have themselves selected by the Megas/vote system which should carry some weight in the bidding as well. After all if it's strict bidding then someone can simply bid the bare minimum and lose without much concern.

Also a possibility is limiting bidding to those whose cities or controlled zones contributed to the army, and further we wouldn't allow people to win bids across multiple simultaneous campaigns. There should be plenty of room for everyone to get in a fight.

[GeneralHankerchief]

In the meantime, we can always go back to the old-style PBM. I admit that the WotS-type of PBM has kind of shut out the sucession games, and deservedly so since they're more immersive, but I believe that ETW is naturally suited to people reigning for a certain period of time (10 or 20 turns - this would adequately be suited to a Constitutional Monarchy type of country), controlling every aspect of the game, and then passing it onto the next player, writing up a detailed report for everybody.

The last such PBM before Will of the Senate came out, Re-unification, is an excellent read of a bunch of players doing the Western Roman Empire campaign for BI and is what drew me to the Throne Room in the first place. I'm sure that we can produce a couple of PBMs of similar quality while we work out the kinks and either CA or a mod gives us better material to work with.