{Game Closed}Broken Crescent 2.02: New Beginnings { Now Recruiting Omani }

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul

I think option 2 is best - allow spies to open as many gates as they can, but limit their percentage for success, to make it a lot harder. This way, there will be plenty of incentive for players to develop siege machinery, as spies will not guarantee success, like they do now.

Option 3 is too complicated and creates a lot of potential for arguments - let's say a player immediately after me violates the rules, but I only discover when my turn comes, after more then 10 players have played their turn. If we have to replay all these turns, it will be a problem.

---

Option 2 is limiting spies ability to open gate which means - That they will be unable to open gates at all:disgust:

And yeah for Option 3 if someone abuses the rules in regards to spying there will be no option to redo the turn, rather if you find out after 10 players have played their turn for example then that person who abused the rules will be put into suspension and his next 5 turns he will not be allowd to use spies to open settlement cities.

Anyways, you realize that Option 2 is pretty much saying that No spy can Open any gate whenever (also will be monitored).

Ill add you for option 2 unless you want it changed,

Finally, I did look into changing the % of spies rate of success for opening gates,
But it only works on a individual basis, and everyone would need to upload the same file inorder to take ahold of the limitations, and if they decide not to, accidentally or maliciously they would have an unfair advantage... catch my drift?

I can to offer to allow the spy to open the gates but with minimal 80 percents of succes.Any gamer has the right to claim to see the screenie of the evidence of spy position.In order to get 80 percents you need to have 4-5 spies in a town...

I agree with garato, We should have it 80% (or 100%+, thats my own opinion) for human players, and then if one does so happen to take it by spy, They will simply have to provide a screenie.

This will greatly limit the spies, but it will make it still an option, making it more like a team of spies doing the job, not just 1 lone man. >.>;

i vote option 2, 1 will turn the hotseat into a game where the person with the most spys wins, which is not some thing i want.
and 3 will make things more complicated than they need to be:tongue:

I don't care, whatever happens, I'll go with it.

Look everyone, Option 2 - no spies opening gates would also mean it has to be monitored, and there is also room for cheating when someone opens a gate in rebel lands, unaware to people...

So if it goes down with No 2, id be down for no spies used to open gates in settlements (towns-huge city's) but as it goes with forts,.. I think they should be allowed to open the gates in forts, or else forts would be extremely overpowered..:tongue:

One downside to many forts is that if you have 1 catapult with 4 guys, you can take out 5-6 forts lined up in a canyon in 1 turn...

Spies is just the quick way how to do things, but when disabled, people prolly not declare war on eachother until they receive catapults. Then it will be seige fest, Either way. it's impossible to avoid...

So far the standings are like this

Nakharar - Option 1
Empedocles - Option 3
Sarkiss - Option 2
Aslanamca - Option 1
Kavhan - Option 1
Irishblood - Option 2

Option 1 : 3 people
Option 2 : 2 people
Option 3 : 1 person

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaizer Merlox

One downside to many forts is that if you have 1 catapult with 4 guys, you can take out 5-6 forts lined up in a canyon in 1 turn...

Spies is just the quick way how to do things, but when disabled, people prolly not declare war on eachother until they receive catapults. Then it will be seige fest, Either way. it's impossible to avoid...

---

Well seige weapons will only be part of the later game, (much later),.. Until that happens 5-6 lined forts will need about 10 turns to penetrate, and seiging a city with a full stack will certainly mean favor is in the defender of the city..

I misunderstood option 2, so I would like to change my vote to 1.

I also like the idea about opening gates only when the chance to do so is 80% or better, which every player needs to prove with a screenshot. Or we can make it 80% for settlements and 50% for forts.

I agree with kavhan. Vote 1 If you can not do the 80% with settlement, 50% with fort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaizer Merlox

I agree with kavhan. Vote 1 If you can not do the 80% with settlement, 50% with fort.

---

I'm not involved in this campaign, but just out of curiosity, how will you implement this rule. Can you control the players?

I guess they'll have to make screenies to prouve every siege (another complication) ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CiviC

I'm not involved in this campaign, but just out of curiosity, how will you implement this rule. Can you control the players?

I guess they'll have to make screenies to prouve every siege (another complication) ...

---

I have to agree, screenshots do not tell the whole story, you may have 4 spies.. move them all into a settlement take a screenshot, then replay the turn and use only 1 spy to take the city (less then %80)

It is an interesting idea, but ultimately doomed to failure, and is open for abuse.

It is difficult to control the players,we know there were some players cheating even we said no cheating in the other hotseats.

I think we must disable the option 3

This hotseat will be slow enough with this many people i like option 3 but it will really take too long either way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aslanamca

It is difficult to control the players,we know there were some players cheating even we said no cheating in the other hotseats.

I think we must disable the option 3

---

Its not too difficult to control the players, if they are caught cheating and disobey the rules, we simply kick them out,
obviously people who cheat one way or another do not deserve to continue the game.

as for controlling the players, this is far from what I want.. I believe the players should have control of their own kingdoms,
Option 3, as ive said for the the 3rd or 4th time is a system in which it monitors itself, where victims of the infraction will bring it too my attention, and if dispute should arise, I would investigate it.

Therefore Option 3 will remain, until it is plainly obvious that it has no chance of succeeding,.. but we aren't at that point yet.:thumbsup2

It's Very Simple,

Here is an Example of Option 3

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If I'm the Rajups and I go to war with the Ghorids, And lets say hypothetically Ghorids decide that they want to capture more then one settlement with spies that turn.
So next turn I find out that the Ghorids have captured 2 Settlements instead of 1, it will be my duty to report this to the Admin (which oddly enough is me).

From this point on the Ghorid's can admit that they broke the rules, or deny it. If they do Deny it, then Me as Admin will get involved, look at the turn in question and rule in someones favor -.

For those who broke the 1 settlement per 2 turn rule or have falsely accused someone of breaking it will receive a 5 turn suspension of not using any spies (infact this won't be a sever warning) the person who breaks this rule does it at the risk of a 5 turn suspension, so its more like if you break it you will have consequences..

Now while the person is on his 5 turn Suspension, and if he uses spies again to open settlements :thumbsdow Then he will be kicked out of the campaign.

So as you can plainly see!, there is no CONTROLLING players, or heavy monitoring the situation,
If I as the Rajupts am stupid or careless enough to not report that the Spy laws have been broken on my kingdom.
Then the abuser can get away with the cheat:whistling But why would I do that? Obviously my kingdom has been cheated -- and It would affect me for not reporting it.

The Damage would be done, however, and no retaking of the turns would occur, but the person who would be the victim of this ambush or breaking of the spy laws, would now have 5 turns in which the player is unable to use spies to his advantage -- giving the other player who was the victim a clear advantage

We can make it so that Everyone who Attacks a settlement (state in bold letters) in the forums tell us which settlement they used their spies ability on.

Look I understand everyone things its complicated and possibly overwhelming --

:doh:
But I think its a decent rule

For me an experienced campaigner - I understand there are problems with both Option 1 and Option 2,

This Option 3 is a simply a comprise between both positions, one that would retain the spies as a useful agent to recruit and use, while also limiting the fact that they are overpowered.

Finally

I will make a List of the current Votes on the 1st page of the Forums - It will be tallied on the July 13th when the game has started, so remember to place your vote, as the Majority rules:thumbsup2

P.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nakharar

This hotseat will be slow enough with this many people i like option 3 but it will really take too long either way

---

I'm confused, what does the rules of spies have to do with how long it takes to go through a turn?,
:hmm:

...

can you not simply limit spies availability? 1 spy per 4, 5 region only, so that we cannot recruit more unless we expand? similar to how merchant recruitment works.

thats a good point its REALLY easy also i could make it so Spies are recruitable once every what 5 turns...so that would mean you would nee dalot of brothels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nakharar

thats a good point its REALLY easy also i could make it so Spies are recruitable once every what 5 turns...so that would mean you would nee dalot of brothels

---

Is there a way to do this in a way that applies for all players?

If so, a better solution could be to simply increase the wages for spies to 600 florints, like in the German reconquista mod for example. Then players will face serious financial problems, and most would not be able toa fford hordes of spies.

However, the main question is whether such changes can be implemented in a way that would ensure that they would apply to every player?