New Kingoms hotseat

[Myth]

Britannia, Teutonics or Crusades

Lead battles or Autoresolve?

Who's in and what are your preferences? We need to get more games going!

@actionhanc @PilaPis @Buzghush @Kilij Æ Varyl @fallen851 @SilverShield @LooseCannon1 @Nightbringer @The Outsider @TheCeLL @Darth Feather

We have plenty of potential players. Why not start a few wars?

[Nightbringer]

Britannia!

[Myth]

hahah, I see what you did there

Why not both indeed? We can have 2 games running.

[Mana Æ Varyl]

I probably could do two games, if that's what others want. Perhaps one could be fought battles and the other autoresolve. The problem with Britannia is that I will play the Welsh, and then get beaten by human England. The Baltic campaign would be fun and I think I'd be better off as Lithuania(Paganism will conquer!) than as Wales. Why must all the factions I love be soo outmatched? Anyhow, a fought-battles Teutonic game gets my vote. A autoresolve Crusades would be a good game as well, which also seems like the most balanced option.

[Myth]

I think I have a fair shot at beating an equally skilled English human player with Wales. But Britannia is all about diplomacy IMO. 1on1 it won't be a fair fight if England gets to keep its Irish holdings and has nothing to fear from marauding Norse and Scotts. If they have to fight to keep Ireland then they get into negative income pretty quickly. I've won both times in the two Britannia games i've participated in. One was as England, the other one was as Ireland.

The first game I had a huge epic 30 turn fight with Wales and Ireland and managed to eventually prevail, but I was on the brink. It didn't help that It was my first hotseat ever. I had a stern ally in Norway (Zim) who kept Scotland busy and raided Ireland very heavily. We decided to have an allied victory because I don't like having to deathmatch a loyal ally just to get 1 guy to win in the end, though strictly speaking, English infrastructure and unit production were off the charts past turn 35 and I had canons, so Norway would have lost eventually due to the inferiority of their settlements and roster.

The second game I was Ireland with Nightbringer on the English throne. We had a secret alliance from turn 1 and basically steamrolled the opposition. I got what I wanted with Ireland - since it was an autoresolve game, they need time to go past their scrappy tier 1/2 units. I was given that time, and more. I moved my capital and settled fat merchants on those lovely resources, to get about 2500-3000 of corruption-free income per turn, and boomed Dublin and the other cities for trade. The result was that when I landed into Scotland I had constructed elite AR stacks and could muster more on a constant basis. England completely crushed wales but that is to be attributed to the inexperience of the Welsh player compared to Nightbringer.

In both games, England was the pivotal faction in the game. They can win with any 1 other faction as an ally, and they can lose horribly if it's everyone vs. them

Forced autoresolve in Britannia means England and Wales dominate, while cav and skirmisher oriented Ireland has a hard time at least erly and midgame. Scotland also fields bad AR units relative to the AP heavies that Norway gets.

A lead battles Britannia game is much more interesting. But the permanent stone forts feature will mean that it could turn into a huge slugfest (not being able to construct forts at will slows lead battle games a lot). It will make all the factions equally deadly however.

The Crusades campaign is very interesting. However, making it AR means the Turks and the Egyptians will be weak, to the point of being useless. Making it lead battles can lead to huge 15 turn standoffs like we had (I was Egypt and @Visorslash was the Kingdom of Jerusalem). Neither takes to crossing the desert where you can't for tup, or they will be annihilated by the enemy full stack of cavalry.

Lead battles crusades games with fixed allies seems better as an idea IMO.

The Teutonics campaign is very imbalanced power wise. The TO is absolutely beastly. Any one faction they focus on will get snuffed out. The key to their defeat is either the TO overextending, or getting Poland to backstab them when they move out. But I fear that a smart TO player can turtle and still win due to the superiority of his roster. I've not seen Novgorod played to their strengths yet. I think they can be a much more dominant factor than I've seen so far.

AR for the Teutonics will condemn everyone to death by Order Spearmen. I honestly think I can 1v3 with that faction, that's how broken it is in forced AR. Lead battles for the Teutonics at least will give Poland (with its pikes and jav-cav) and the Mongols (with their HAs and eastern generals) a fighting chance. Out of all the factions, Norway is probably the most screwed. At least I haven't seen anyone put up a fight as them vs. Denmark.

Oh, and Denmark can field a scary fleet, but that's not enough to keel over an entrenched TO on the mainland, as I proved to Nightbringer last time

Win or lose though, they are FUN and dynamic scenarios that play out within 20-30 turns of game start. Which is refreshing from the long, grand campaign style games.

[Mana Æ Varyl]

Wales certainly is powerful, the Morgannwg spearmen are easily the best AR unit in vanilla/kingdoms. It's no wonder why KGCM nearly doubled their upkeep. Against a nation with the size and rescources of England however, Welsh players don't have room to make a single mistake, and even if they don't, a decent England player will win in the end. I'm totally fine with the challenge, it'll be a good learning experience no matter the result. You certainly have had some really cool experiences and I hope to have just as many.

I can't say I've had much experience with the Crusades campaign(I've only played Byzantium in a three player hotseat). However, I just don't see how the Turks or the Egyptians are 'useless' in AR. Saracen militia are a nice AR unit that is(unlike most high-level spearmen) trained in cities. This allows for all city play which would create a excellent economy which could support larger armies. With Byzantium being a bit of a wildcard and with the possibility of complex diplomacy(think of a secret alliance between the Byzantines and Egypt), I see the Saracens having a chance if played right.

I am quite aware of the extreme might of the TO and the AR power of Order Spearmen legions. Hence why I voted for a fought battles Teutonic. I also can see that even in fought battles, the Teutons still have the best armies. I still think Teutonic would be extremely fun however, and if others agreed, we could decide to not have a human TO(or if an inexperienced player wants to be TO), but then I'd probably have a significant advantage. I just love how all the religions are present in Teutonic and it allow for an epic fight of proselytizing and priest slaying. It also, I feel, has the most dynamic possibilities when it comes to alliances, besides TO vs Lithuania, there really isn't any completely inevitable wars.

Regardless what we play, I am glad to be able to put my experience and theory(mostly the latter, however) to the test against a new community. I anxiously await to hear what others are interested in playing. (^_^)

[Myth]

I've lost one Teutonics game due to inexperience and letting Visorslahs backstab me while I had underperforming infrastructure. I also lost a key army when I shouldn't have. Being stuck with no money for forts gets you done in pretty quickly. The second Teutonics game I daresay I won singlehandedly, though simply because I chose a lesser player to be a firm ally as Poland. A benevolent Poland means the TO can kill pretty much everyone else. And that was a lead battles game.

Too bad it went into the dark recesses of the TR because Poland turned out to be a cheater, but the biggest contenders then - Liuthiania, Novgorod and Denmark, couldn't organize effectively. Lithuania, although lead by an outstanding player ( @phonicsmonkey ) just couldn't take the OP TO starting position and army. Also, I was able to bypass a zone of control blocking the siege on a crucial TO city port into the Baltic sea. Note that it wouldn't have made the war turn around at that time, but it would have given me enough pause to let Novgorod consolidate their stuff and come at me. By the time they did, Lithiania was out of the game. Denmark took even longer to consolidate versus Norway (a heroic last stand by the Norse player), and by the time they came to cooperate with Novgorod I had too much money, too much land and a completely secure southern border in Poland.

Your theory about the Crusades is great, but IMO impractical. Check out the rosters for the KoJ and Antioch - their heavy infantry will come and wipe out the muslims by turn 8 IMO. Spearmen are decent, but when faced with 18+ defence spears it's futile. In AR games cost efficiency is the name of the game, and they will simply lack it. Not to mention that one cannot afford the luxury of settlement conversions when faced with war on turn 2-3.

IMO the Crusades expansion needs to mix up christians and muslims as allies on teams, or it needs lead battles.

[Nightbringer]

I think trying out Teutonics as a lead battles game sounds a lot more promising, and would definitely be up for that.

I agree that the Britannia game basically comes down to how successful england can be diplomatically, but I kind of enjoy that.

Crusades, though, is kind of a tricky nut. I agree that egypt at least has a really hard time with autoresolve, but lead battles leads to a long stalemate. Fixing alliances in a balanced, with crusaders split up, would really break the feel of the campaign to me. I think the best potential might be for byzantion, seljuks, and egypt all allied against Kingdom of Jerusalem and Principality of Antioch.

[Mana Æ Varyl]

Your theory about the Crusades is great, but IMO impractical. Check out the rosters for the KoJ and Antioch - their heavy infantry will come and wipe out the muslims by turn 8 IMO. Spearmen are decent, but when faced with 18+ defence spears it's futile. In AR games cost efficiency is the name of the game, and they will simply lack it. Not to mention that one cannot afford the luxury of settlement conversions when faced with war on turn 2-3.

Actually in terms of roster, I would dare say that the Turks have an even better roster than the crusaders. For one, the crusader spearmen only have 16 defense, which is equal to saracen militia. The dismounted hasham are equivalent to dismounted knights of Jerusalem/Antioch, but unlike the knights, hasham cost less upkeep and can get an armour upgrade. The Egyptian Tabardiyya are also quite excellent, but they are hard to get, so this is disregardable. Honestly I'm abit underwhelmed with KoJ's infantry selection, unless there's something I'm missing, it just seems worse. However you are probably right about the crusaders being able to dominate their foes very quickly. I simply lack the knowledge about the early game in the Levant to be able to make judgement there. In simple terms of roster though, I feel AR is perfectly fine in Crusades.


What do you guys think about possibly not having a TO player in a Teutonic hotseat? I for one, hate to limit others' choices, but really, 20 defence spearmen trainable from regular castle without barracks is completely ridiculous(not to mention the fact they start with a bunch and have four castles to train even more with), even in lead battles they are extremely hard to defeat. They also have other excellent units that will dominate regardless if lead battles or AR. Besides Teutonic campaign already has more factions than Britannia or Crusades, so taking TO out wouldn't be too bad in that regard.

[Visor]

The Crusades campaign is very interesting. However, making it AR means the Turks and the Egyptians will be weak, to the point of being useless. Making it lead battles can lead to huge 15 turn standoffs like we had (I was Egypt and @Visorslash was the Kingdom of Jerusalem). Neither takes to crossing the desert where you can't for tup, or they will be annihilated by the enemy full stack of cavalry.

I remember this. My plan (if I recall the game situation correctly, I've played a few crusade games), was to hold you in your ports, have a naval advantage, and take your coastal territories with catapults which I were building in Gaza. I took out your free reinforcements easily iirc, and was able to basically pin you, though I would never be able to finish the job until catapults in a lead battle game.

[Myth]

Actually in terms of roster, I would dare say that the Turks have an even better roster than the crusaders. For one, the crusader spearmen only have 16 defense, which is equal to saracen militia. The dismounted hasham are equivalent to dismounted knights of Jerusalem/Antioch, but unlike the knights, hasham cost less upkeep and can get an armour upgrade. The Egyptian Tabardiyya are also quite excellent, but they are hard to get, so this is disregardable. Honestly I'm abit underwhelmed with KoJ's infantry selection, unless there's something I'm missing, it just seems worse. However you are probably right about the crusaders being able to dominate their foes very quickly. I simply lack the knowledge about the early game in the Levant to be able to make judgement there. In simple terms of roster though, I feel AR is perfectly fine in Crusades.


What do you guys think about possibly not having a TO player in a Teutonic hotseat? I for one, hate to limit others' choices, but really, 20 defence spearmen trainable from regular castle without barracks is completely ridiculous(not to mention the fact they start with a bunch and have four castles to train even more with), even in lead battles they are extremely hard to defeat. They also have other excellent units that will dominate regardless if lead battles or AR. Besides Teutonic campaign already has more factions than Britannia or Crusades, so taking TO out wouldn't be too bad in that regard.

Hmm.. I haven't analyzed the Turkish roster, having played only 2 partial Crusades games and none were even close to the Turks. The question is which buildings do they need to recruit these quality troops? Perhaps they have potential.

A Teutonics game without the TO is a bit underwhelming IMO. Better make it a lead battles game and have all the players on the key factors be of equal skill. A powerful Poland and Novgorod will make the game interesting. OS die well enough if it's lead battles.

I remember this. My plan (if I recall the game situation correctly, I've played a few crusade games), was to hold you in your ports, have a naval advantage, and take your coastal territories with catapults which I were building in Gaza. I took out your free reinforcements easily iirc, and was able to basically pin you, though I would never be able to finish the job until catapults in a lead battle game.

Then it would be a stalemate, because i'd recapture them from forts with siege weapons set up inland. Also, you needed trebuchets to knock down stone walls. I had already started recruiting some when the game got abandoned.

That coastal capturing happened to me when Nightbringer as the much larger Moors rolled me over when I was Sicilly. I had learned from that, so coastal defence is having multiple stacks within striking distance of a coastal city. About the navy, I think my ships were clearly outmatched and I lacked the tier 2 ports the KoJ gets so early. So perhaps I would not have been able to project power to your own shores until the Byzantiens came down (they had a huge fleet committed to wiping yours out).


So guys, why don't we start 3 new games?

[Nightbringer]

Sure.

I vote for
-one lead battles Teutonic
-one autoresolve Britannia.
-one fixed alliances (KoJ+Antioch vs. rest) autoresolve crusades.

[Myth]

I want to be Norway in Britannia, Poland in the Teutonics and Antioch or the ERE in the Crusades.

[Mana Æ Varyl]

Oh, nice, picking factions already. Wales for me in Britannia, Lithuania for me in Teutonic, and I'll take whatever's left in Crusades, I just don't want to be KoJ if possible.

[SilverShield]

think those maps are just too small and theres just too lil room to really get something epic going. i myself am having a hard time imagining those small maps being any fun really

[Nightbringer]

they definitely are smaller and less epic, but they make for some nice really fast paced games in my opinion.

As for factions, I'll let others get their first choice in then see what's left over. :)

[Darth Feather]

Count me In. I would probably vote for a Teutonic campaign. I allways feel brittania is less attractive and more boring (too small a map I guess)
Crusades would also be fine by me.

[Myth]

@Darth Feather choose some factions then

We need more players! Please choose factions and let's get it rolling!

[Darth Feather]

I'll probably want poland if Teutonic

If crusades: preferably venice, if impossible I'll take the byzantines

Should it be brittania: ireland.