Broken Crescent Hotseat: Commanders of the Faithful

[The Lemongate]

Final Map:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I could also provide you with the list of Turkish/Arab names for all those Anatolian cities I renamed to greco-roman names if you want it.

As for the victory conditions, I've been thinking about them and I'd rather just keep them as guidelines. It would probably be more interesting to keep it free-style.

For example, if the Mongols fought both Seljuks and Ghaznavids, it would be quite easy for the Rajputs to quickly snatch 10 regions from a weakened Ghaznavid Empire before the Mongols had 25 regions and 3 capitals, which would force the Mongols to some rather odd strategic choices.

Anyways, I might just be neurotic on that last part.

[phonicsmonkey]

Final Map:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I could also provide you with the list of Turkish/Arab names for all those Anatolian cities I renamed to greco-roman names if you want it.

As for the victory conditions, I've been thinking about them and I'd rather just keep them as guidelines. It would probably be more interesting to keep it free-style.

For example, if the Mongols fought both Seljuks and Ghaznavids, it would be quite easy for the Rajputs to quickly snatch 10 regions from a weakened Ghaznavid Empire before the Mongols had 25 regions and 3 capitals, which would force the Mongols to some rather odd strategic choices.

Anyways, I might just be neurotic on that last part.

Hey, thanks for the map! Ok if I link to it in the first post of this thread?

And the names would be good too - I took to naming my captured cities after fallen Caliphs, but ran out after An-Nasirya, Az-Zahira and Abu Bakria (moved on to present family members: Sulaymanya, Al-Mustansyria etc).

Regarding the VCs, my intention was to force the human players to fight both the Mongols and each other, giving the Mongols a chance of victory - as well as giving the Mongols an incentive to behave like...well, like Mongols! Because if we all gang up on you we probably beat you, right?

So in your example, the Rajputs would get beaten on by other factions before they could win by knocking out the Mongols.

The Mongols wouldn't need to worry - they could just carry on getting their territories and fight off the Rajput attacks, right? Because the Rajputs need to destroy the Mongols to win, but the Mongols don't necessarily need to destroy the Rajputs..

[Merlox]

... This may sound extreme, but, Historically the Mongols captured most of that map we see here now. You should make the Winning for the Mongol... 50... 60 provinces?

[phonicsmonkey]

... This may sound extreme, but, Historically the Mongols captured most of that map we see here now. You should make the Winning for the Mongol... 50... 60 provinces?

Historically you are of course correct, but I think that would be too hard for them in this particular game because all of the factions are well developed.

[Ramses II CP]

I'm definitely in for this! I think we should probably rule out the Omani territories (And all other AI/rebel stuff) from being considered as part of the 'take 10 more provinces' rule. I am also willing to sign an OOC unbreakable alliance with the Ghazni if you're concerned I'll take advantage of my uniquely beneficial location.

The money is really starting to roll in for me right now, and I can slaughter some Mongol stacks if I catch 'em in the open. My limitation is going to be distance and production; I still don't have a decent castle west of Delhi.

[Ramses II CP]

Oh, and one more thing! We'll have to set the Faction Capitals as an OOC matter because in game they can be moved a little too easily to make that a valid Mongol victory condition.

[Merlox]

Correct and Incorrect... Sadly though.. All of the nations forces were not being fortified, most likely where they were, as Europe was the next stepping stone, the Rest of the crusaders, such, =p When the Mongols hit. THEY HIT. XD

+, they had superb gear, but also another sad thing is, They would get wiped out if you left them at this game, the armies of spies and assassins are better than just a few armies with seige engines, and no spies

[The Lemongate]

I'm definitely in for this! I think we should probably rule out the Omani territories (And all other AI/rebel stuff) from being considered as part of the 'take 10 more provinces' rule. I am also willing to sign an OOC unbreakable alliance with the Ghazni if you're concerned I'll take advantage of my uniquely beneficial location.

The money is really starting to roll in for me right now, and I can slaughter some Mongol stacks if I catch 'em in the open. My limitation is going to be distance and production; I still don't have a decent castle west of Delhi.

Oh, and one more thing! We'll have to set the Faction Capitals as an OOC matter because in game they can be moved a little too easily to make that a valid Mongol victory condition.

Actually, that's why I say: let's use the "victory conditions" as guidelines. See what happens with diplomacy, opportunity, etc.

[phonicsmonkey]

I'm definitely in for this! I think we should probably rule out the Omani territories (And all other AI/rebel stuff) from being considered as part of the 'take 10 more provinces' rule.

This was my intention with the VCs I proposed - only territories taken from another human-controlled faction would count.

Oh, and one more thing! We'll have to set the Faction Capitals as an OOC matter because in game they can be moved a little too easily to make that a valid Mongol victory condition.

We could just include specific city names instead of saying 'Faction Capitals'. Ie. 3 of Baghdad, Rayy, Ghazni, Cairo or Delhi, like in EB...

Actually, that's why I say: let's use the "victory conditions" as guidelines. See what happens with diplomacy, opportunity, etc.

Does anyone else want this? My preference is to have fixed VCs that we spend some time drafting now so that they work out in practice. I don't see how guidelines are going to produce the desired in-game behaviour between the non-Mongol factions.

[Quirl]

"Victory conditions" as guidelines? Then what would the actual victory conditions be? I don't think I'm totally understanding this...

Anyways, why do we need to decide the victory conditions for any other players other than the mongols (who, obviously, don't have default victory conditions in BC). The Seljuks would immediately lose land to the Mongols and so wouldn't be in any huge advantage in default victory conditions. And default victory conditions still pitch players against each other (the Seljuks, for instance, have to capture Baghdad).

So, I really don't think we need to decide victory conditions for anyone other than the Mongols, which we might make a bit easier or harder to obtain than the other factions'.

That's my opinion, for now.

[The Lemongate]

Haven't we just declared the Seljuks victorious while they haven't met their preset victory conditions? That's what I mean by guidelines. The Seljuks won because it makes sense to declare them the winners now, not because they conquered 60 territories + Baghdad (since it would make little sense for them to fight the Caliph at this point). But I don't mind having a set of victory conditions either if guidelines make it too fuzzy.

[phonicsmonkey]

"Victory conditions" as guidelines? Then what would the actual victory conditions be? I don't think I'm totally understanding this...

Anyways, why do we need to decide the victory conditions for any other players other than the mongols (who, obviously, don't have default victory conditions in BC). The Seljuks would immediately lose land to the Mongols and so wouldn't be in any huge advantage in default victory conditions. And default victory conditions still pitch players against each other (the Seljuks, for instance, have to capture Baghdad).

My feeling is that the default victory conditions wouldn't be appropriate to the new game - for instance, the Seljuks could win easily within a small number of turns, and the Ayyubids (for example) would have little or no chance of winning.

My idea was to create a new game from the end of the current one, with new VCs that attempt to level the playing field a little.

Haven't we just declared the Seljuks victorious while they haven't met their preset victory conditions?

Yes, and we could do the same kind of thing in the new game if we encounter a situation that makes the VCs seem silly or redundant.

But I think it best to at least start with some fixed VCs so we can 1) give the Mongols something specific to aim for and 2) give the other factions a fair shot at winning, and a reason to do something other than just team up and kill Mongols.

That's my view, but as always I'll go with the majority - I want this to be fun for everyone, of course.

What do Zim and barca think of the VCs?

[Zim]

Victory conditions seem fine to me.

[phonicsmonkey]

So, just to summarise what I have so far:

Rule set

- The same rule on exploits etc as the old game
- 48 hour turn deadlines
- No spies or assassins to be used
- Battles to be fought (VH/VH) or autoresolved at the choice of the player

Mongol Victory Conditions
- Take and hold 25 provinces
- Sack three of the following cities: Ghazni, Rayy, Delhi, Baghdad, Cairo (NB. These don't have to be held, they can be captured once, sacked and abandoned)

Non-Mongol Victory Conditions
- Outlast the Mongols
- Take and hold 10 provinces from another Non-Mongol, human-controlled faction

I'm thinking maybe up the Non-Mongol provinces to 15? What do you guys think?

Also, I tried to set up and test the game last night and found my version of MedManager wasn't working.

Scanning the forums it seems this might be a conflict issue with either Kingdoms or SS6.2...There's a newer version of MedManager which I can try, or I can try to do it on my laptop where I have no versions of M2TW or mods installed at all.

Watch this space - if I need help I'll shout out.

(Out of interest, does anyone NOT have Kingdoms and SS6.2 installed?)

[Quirl]

Rules seem fine with me (and I don't have stainless steel installed right now).

However, why exactly are we not using spies and assassins? Is that a balancing thing or did people just find them really that annoying?

[phonicsmonkey]

However, why exactly are we not using spies and assassins?

A few reasons I'm suggesting that rule:
- The Mongols don't have any, and we can easily keep them from having any by destroying shisha bars before they take our cities
- There's still some plague around that we could spread to any Mongol-held territories pretty easily and cripple them early on.
- One lucky round of assassinations could wipe out the Mongols in a single turn.

We could still use spies for spying I think, but not for opening gates and spreading plague. But not assassins.

Quirl, do you have Kingdoms installed?

[Quirl]

Well, I'm not sure how I feel about not being able to use spies. I've never liked the way siege equipment works in medieval, especially BC. Siege is just so slow on map and ballistas don't even open gates in BC!

Plus, not being able to use spies really blinds us on the battlemap.

As GM, can't you spawn spies for the mongols in map? I don't think that would be unfair.

Quirl, do you have Kingdoms installed?

Of course.

[phonicsmonkey]

As GM, can't you spawn spies for the mongols in map? I don't think that would be unfair.

Pretty sure this is not possible in the scenario we're considering. If it were a new game we could mod the files to add / remove agents from particular factions, but given we're trying to use a game which is already established any modifications (other than those possible through the MedManager facility: campaign difficulty, unit size, TPY and date) have to be made through the console.

And I'm not aware of a console command to add / remove agents. I'd be happy to do this if there were such a command and everyone was in agreement.

Re: Siege equipment, I think it's a good thing that ballistae don't open gates, for realism. Catapults and trebuchets I can just about handle in that respect.

Siege weapons aren't quite so slow in BC from what I've experienced in this game - I've been able to get catapults from Baghdad to Syria in three turns - that's not bad, is it?

I appreciate, however, that you are a long way from the Mongols - but that's an advantage to you in other ways.

Think of it this way - the slowness of our siege equipment gives the Mongols a little head start, which will help make them formidable. They can't recruit (as far as I'm aware), so they'll be blitzing with their starting stacks (all fifteen of them!) which we'll need to take out as quickly as possible.

This is another reason for having 'short-campaign'-style VCs..

What does everyone else think about the spy issue?

[Ramses II CP]

I don't know if I'll ever get to siege weapons, so cutting out spies will quite likely prevent me from having a chance of victory. I'm okay with that though if I get a crack at some decent Mongol stacks.

BC's Mongol wars are some of the most fun I've had with MTWII. Their generals, even in 1.05, can 'swim' through thousands of cheap spearmen, and don't even think of bringing javelins against them. It makes for some great fun!

[Quirl]

Oh, I thought that the "create_unit" cheat enabled spawning of agents. Reading more about it just now, though, I don't think it does.

I'll do whatever, then...

[phonicsmonkey]

I don't know if I'll ever get to siege weapons, so cutting out spies will quite likely prevent me from having a chance of victory. I'm okay with that though if I get a crack at some decent Mongol stacks.

One thing I could do is add_population with the console so you have a big enough city to build the siege engine factory.

That would level the playing field a little with the rest of us (who, I believe all have siege engines available? is that right?)

[barcamartin]

I'm fine with whatever to be honest. As long as we agree on something, it should be fun. :)

Btw, "taking 15 provinces from a non-Mongol faction", does that mean 15 from one faction or 15 from several factions combined?

[phonicsmonkey]

Btw, "taking 15 provinces from a non-Mongol faction", does that mean 15 from one faction or 15 from several factions combined?

Thanks, that should really read 'take 15 provinces from non-Mongol human-controlled factions' - so you could take 5 each from 3 different players.

Of course you'd still need to beat the Mongols. And let me tell you, that's not going to be easy!

I won't go into detail here (because it will make the game more fun if there's an element of mystery involved) but I tested the game last night and the Mongols are totally badass.

In fact, so much so that I'm considering relaxing the rule on spies to allow us to use them to open gates, but not to spread plague. And assassins would still be banned.

What does everyone think of this? It would also mean I don't have to do anything to intervene like adding population for Ramses so he can build a siege factory.

I think the game is more or less ready to go, so if I can have everyone's comment on the following ruleset, I'll go ahead and make the new threads and post the first save (for Zim) as soon as we are all agreed.

Rule set

- The same rule on exploits etc as the old game
- 48 hour turn deadlines
- No plagued spies to be used to enter cities or castles.
- No assassins to be used.
- Battles to be fought (VH/VH) or autoresolved at the choice of the player

Mongol Victory Conditions
- Take and hold 25 provinces
- Sack three of the following cities: Ghazni, Rayy, Delhi, Baghdad, Cairo (NB. These don't have to be held, they can be captured once, sacked and abandoned)

Non-Mongol Victory Conditions
- Outlast the Mongols
- Take and hold 10 provinces from Non-Mongol, human-controlled factions

[Ramses II CP]

Don't make things easier on us. I could rip through the Mongols with 2 or 3 stacks of elephants. Admittedly it'll take me some time to generate those, and it's a lot different when a player can build forts, etc. but even with that in consideration if you give me spies at the pace I can currently produce them (~12 per turn) the Mongols will not have much of a chance. Forts won't protect them in the slightest, and will become death traps for otherwise decent troops.

[Ramses II CP]

I would also add, don't add any population for me. If I get to siege engines then I do, and if I don't that'll be okay too. My nation was crippled for half it's play time by the Ghorid war and I shouldn't get a bonus just because I let that happen.

[phonicsmonkey]

Don't make things easier on us. .....if you give me spies at the pace I can currently produce them (~12 per turn) the Mongols will not have much of a chance. Forts won't protect them in the slightest, and will become death traps for otherwise decent troops.

Fair enough.

I'm inclined to give Ramses' comments a fair amount of weight given how prodigiously he stomped the Mongols in his Rajput AAR.

So, back to no spies unless there's a majority in favour of them.

[Quirl]

lol. Are spies in or out???

I would personally rather be able to use spies. I respect the opinion of Ramses, too. But we've all seen Lemongate's ability with inferior Roman forces and being outnumbered. I don't think he'll be easy prey with superior forces and plenty of them! Mongol AI is challenging, but certainly beatable. I doubt the same will be the case for Mongol, human controlled (or, rather, "Lemon powered" ).

Also, confining the mongols to siege weapons will really slows their pace. As it is now, I think the Mongols have early game advantage. Our armies aren't really very prepared and built up to the efficiency of the Mongol stacks Lemon will start off with. If Lemon is forced to trudge through with siege equipment, rather than be able to blitz and sack cities to gain additional income (holding cities he considers defensible) I think we take a key advantage away from the Mongols, not to them. It will be our responsibility to hold off a Mongol blitz and build up our forces, hopefully gaining the advantage later in the game.

But that's all just my opinion. Regardless, I'm definitely with you on the banning of assassins and spreading the plague.

[The Lemongate]

I tend to agree with Ramses' assessment as well. From what I've seen of this game, Rajput armies are currently the best ones out there and the only ones I'd fear from the start.

But I believe I might have something to thwart them. Well... maybe. Last time I tried that trick it didn't work out too well.

Also: are we getting a new diplo thread? story thread? OOC thread? I don't believe this "part II" will be so short. It could be made into its own, "unique" game, if you will.

[Quirl]

Sorry, I updated my last post after Lemon replied.

Also, are Deathstars banned? They're not that OP. With enough farm boys, we should be able to take one out...

[The Lemongate]

Mind you, if most people favor spies in, then I don't mind.

However, the Mongols will never have spying capabilities in this game. Making money with them is very hard. Once they capture a city, their upkeep kicks in, and, as I was saying to phonics your debt runs up faster then a fleeing Georgian.

So building up a spy network from scratch is nearly impossible.

Actually, the best mongol strategy is to pack 4 nightfighting max dread, max command generals with full stacks next to one another sieging a town and capturing it the next turn.

The mongols start with siege equipment. But it quickly becomes an obsolete, slow moving tag-along, far from the front lines. Then again, I'm not sure how quickly I'd blitz going vs players compared to going vs AI.

Vs AI and autocalc'ing, a quick test had the initial "punch" of the mongols blow off around Rayy on one side and Ghazni on the other.