Broken Crescent 2.02 Campaign With Special Rules (BC 2.02 WSR) - KYPCHACKS ARE AVAILABLE

[Nakharar]

i dont know why were still arguing. Since the game is autoresolve and Fog Of War is off spies are useless so why not allow them once again i say again

the ONLY reason why Spies are used hugely in other hotseats is because 1 player wants the advantage to fight their own battles instead of the enemy as the AI is rubbish.

[CiviC]

i dont know why were still arguing. Since the game is autoresolve and Fog Of War is off spies are useless so why not allow them once again i say again

the ONLY reason why Spies are used hugely in other hotseats is because 1 player wants the advantage to fight their own battles instead of the enemy as the AI is rubbish.

Spies opening the gates still give you the huge advantage of blitzing. You don't have to transport the slow siege machines with you or to wait one turn untill rams, ladders, towers are built. It's stupid to think that in order to conquer cities and castles an army only needs some skilled spies.

During the first part of The Hundred Years' War, the English made many raids into France, chevauchees, most failed because in order to be fast, these raiding parties had no siege machines with them. The French simply stayed behind the walls of cities and castles. Also the English needed so badly some spies at the Siege of Orleans ... I guess if the English had some skilled spies with them to open the gates of cities France would be now just an English province. Only that in real life there are no spies opening the gates.

The real problem is that spies opening the gates it's not even an exception (I guess there were some sieges were gates were open by treason but they are very few), but in hotseats is the rule in 90% of cases and every player has tens of spies and all sieges get the magic "opening of gates" even with counter-spies inside - they are easy to eliminate with assassins. This brings us to another problem - assassins. A player can produce tens of them and cripple the opponent by killing generals, family members, enemy agents, etc. So in the end the player who manages to spam the map with most agents gets to win.

Take this campaign as an experiment. Most of you already are enlisted in a "normal" campaign. This will be a different experience, and I guarantee you it will be a more relaxing and less demanding campaign, and it won't take so much of your time (battle are autoresolved, less micromanagement of agents for example, etc.)

[garato]

[QUOTE=CiviC;5527095]Spies opening the gates still give you the huge advantage of blitzing. You don't have to transport the slow siege machines with you or to wait one turn untill rams, ladders, towers are built. It's stupid to think that in order to conquer cities and castles an army only needs some skilled spies.
[/QUOTE]

ABSOLUTLY!

tHE SIEGING IS VERY EASY IN THE MT2W.But in reality and history that was most hard and bloody occupation.All warlords were trying to avoid a seiging proccess.We know a lot of facts as a small garrison could hold on a settlement but surrounded by huge armies during years even.
Its funny and silly as a players can take all empires without armies at one or two turns.

[aslanamca]

But I'll give you an example to how spies are unrealistic : lets say FoW is turned on, you are Ayyubids and you have one spy in Khwarezm near Samarkand. It took to that spiy 4-5 turns to get there, but somehow he can transmit to you infos about Samarkand in real time. How can he do that? Maybe by satelite or e-mail? If a spy who is at the end of the map can inform you instantly, why is no FoW more unrealistically?

Yes agreed civic,your example with spies is really a good example.I am bored of FoW and using spies.Let us see which is better a campaign with spies and FoW or a campaign with autoresolve without spies and FoW.

[Sarkiss]

1. Sarkiss, this is medieval era, not Antiquity. News travelled fast already and there was no "Terra Incognita" in Middle East. One turn represents one year (or half a year?), anyways more then sufficient to find out what is going on in the world. It's absurd to think you can keep secret the location of Baghdad, or who owns Constantinople or that Mongols invaded Khwarezm.

2. But I'll give you an example to how spies are unrealistic : lets say FoW is turned on, you are Ayyubids and you have one spy in Khwarezm near Samarkand. It took to that spiy 4-5 turns to get there, but somehow he can transmit to you infos about Samarkand in real time. How can he do that? Maybe by satelite or e-mail? If a spy who is at the end of the map can inform you instantly, why is no FoW more unrealistically?

1. who said news travvled faster than in Antiquity? rubbish. roads were in better state i Antiquity just so you know, and no cars were yet invented. what terra incoqnita? did you not read my examples? Egyptians and they neighbors, what terra incognita can be between the two? did Hannibal travel through terra incognita?

i am not reffering to settlelmets locations, that is an obvious knowledge and one can get it by simply launching the game as another faction and see what is where, at least at the beginning. what im saying is that it was and still is very hard to track the movement of enemy forces. espacially when this enemy tries his best to conceal it.

2. where did you see that in takes a spy 4-5 turns to get there in reality? in reality he would have made a couple of trips back and forth within this time. so there, there is your answer how he reports the news back

im still gonna play this game though, just trying to keep real things real. no need to say something is made to make game more realistic when its not

[Kaizer Merlox]

"...and as for assassins.
This is again another dynamic to the game, It isn't as EASY as you would think to kill off an entire family of a large nation, first you would need many adequate assassins and spies to detect family members (something which would take you atleast 10-15 turns)... "by Triforce

Without a debates, I d like to remind to Triforce.I killed the Seljuks leader on 3th turn in BC1.5 HS.And Seljuks faction went to hell.

Uhhhh... Assassins by turn 3? X_X;

[CiviC]

OK Sarkiss lets end the argument and hope there will be enough players to join. Untill the game starts maybe all bugs will be adressed too.

[Sarkiss]

yep. is there many bugs though? i havent noticed much with 2.01.

[Zombimode]

Im interessted, but how exactly is this played?

Faction: Turkish Sultanate

[CiviC]

Im interessted, but how exactly is this played?

Faction: Turkish Sultanate

Is this your first multiplayer campaign?
Also I understand you're willing to take Turkish Sulatanate?

[Zombimode]

Yes and yes

[Cyrus Kabir]

ERE for me

[Commander Ruunu]

I'll take Ayyubids and I have one question: how do you make sure that anyone fight with auto battle? Is there some kind of file tampering even possible?

[CiviC]

I'll take Ayyubids and I have one question: how do you make sure that anyone fight with auto battle? Is there some kind of file tampering even possible?

When I set the campaign, I'll check (or uncheck?) the box "Autoresolve battles". Unless someone finds out how to cheat this option, manual battles are disabled and when the battle screen appears you only have the option to autoresolve. If someone cheats, we'll figure it out seeing how "successful" he is in winning against all odds.

Good to see another old companion in hotseats!

[bleach]

KOJ FTW!

[Oman2nd]

Can I has Georgia? I really wanna get a BC hotseat in with them. I assume we're using 2.01?

[Douchebag]

ABBASSID CALIPHATE!

[CiviC]

Can I has Georgia? I really wanna get a BC hotseat in with them. I assume we're using 2.01?

We'll play the latest version as long as it is compatible with other campaigns.

[garato]

Are you all sure about autoresolve?We play new mod-I d like to value AI.Anyway-in M2TW,the battles are most funny thing.Autoresolve too primitive .Only numbers of soldeirs.We can to create a new rule.Don't attack if your army is bigger then AI army-for example.

[Empedocles]

it's more realistic to autoresolve battles. and it makes blietzkrieg less probable.