New hotseat proposal!!! Only commited and serious players.

[Empedocles]

Yes…I know…we have enough hotseats….but I was thinking that we can start a new hotseat with few bud dedicated players….

So….let’s start the discussion. Here are the rules (WIP)

1º Spies: Only allowed to open forts and AI settlements. It is not possible to open the gates of human controlled cities/castles.
2º Forts: No restriction here.
3º Autoresolve: ON. Fighting battles is cool but the AI is too damn stupid….
4º Fog of War of war enabled. Why? See nº 5.
5º Declaration of war: 1 turn before starting any hostile action the attacker must declare war via PM or in the Thread. I believe this option will be fun to experience with. This will avoid blitzkrieg and will give peace a chance.
6º Ceasefire-Non aggression pacts MUST be obeyed. If you agree to a ceasefire it is not possible to withdraw from it. Agreeing to the number of turns is more than encouraged.
7º 48 hour deadline, but keep in touch please!!!

What happens if someone violates the rules:
1º, 5º: The player is automatically expelled from the hotseat.
2º We can tolerate 1 exception, but some consequence will be applied.
3º and 4º: Not possible to break.
6º: -5000 denarii for breaking the truce

As you may know hotseats take time to finish, at least we are talking about 4-5 months. If you are free now but you will enter university in 2 months it is advisable that you don’t join this hotseat. If you STILL want to join then it’s up to you to find a replacement.
The ideal situation would be a proper warning 2-3 weeks before leaving. You already know when you won’t be able to play…plan accordingly.

I am thinking of 6 players top. I have not yet decided the mod to use, so I may open a poll later. SS or BC? Early campaing or late campaing?

What do you believe? Is it possible to play like this? Can we respect each other and don’t break any rules?

regards

[TriforceV]

Yes…I know…we have enough hotseats….but I was thinking that we can start a new hotseat with few bud dedicated players….

So….let’s start the discussion. Here are the rules (WIP)

1º Spies: Only allowed to open forts and AI settlements. It is not possible to open the gates of human controlled cities/castles.
2º Forts: Only 2 per region allowed.
3º Autoresolve: ON. Fighting battles is cool but the AI is too damn stupid….
4º Fog of War of war enabled. Why? See nº 5.
5º Declaration of war: 1 turn before starting any hostile action the attacker must declare war via PM or in the Thread. I believe this option will be fun to experience with. This will avoid blitzkrieg and will give peace a chance.
6º Ceasefire-Non aggression pacts MUST be obeyed. If you agree to a ceasefire it is not possible to withdraw from it. Agreeing to the number of turns is more than encouraged.
7º 48 hour deadline, but keep in touch please!!!

What happens if someone violates the rules:
1º, 5º, 6º: The player is automatically expelled from the hotseat.
2º We can tolerate 1 exception, but some consequence will be applied.
3º and 4º: Not possible to break.

As you may know hotseats take time to finish, at least we are talking about 4-5 months. If you are free now but you will enter university in 2 months it is advisable that you don’t join this hotseat. If you STILL want to join then it’s up to you to find a replacement.
The ideal situation would be a proper warning 2-3 weeks before leaving. You already know when you won’t be able to play…plan accordingly.

I am thinking of 6 players top. I have not yet decided the mod to use, so I may open a poll later. SS or BC? Early campaing or late campaing?

What do you believe? Is it possible to play like this? Can we respect each other and don’t break any rules?

regards

Ahh.. sorry Emp, I'm routing for you, but your rules are too well extreme,

I have a few problems with them...

#1 & #2 -- If your only allowed to build 2 forts, then you should limit spies, if your going to allow spies opening forts, then you should be allowed to have as many forts as you can.

#5 & #6 -- If only we were all enlighten gentlemen, who would honor our words , but the truth of the matter is everyone is different, and throughout history, ceasefires for whatever reason have been disregarded and broken.. It's just part of the game -- Although, I agree there should be an incentive to keep an agreement, Perhaps if you break the agreement your fined a certain amount of Money -5k, but kicking someone out is too extreme, Same with Declaration of war, If you want to put FOG OF WAR on, that's your business, but you should have amble time to see your enemy coming a mile away and his highly unnecessary, it also makes anything you do obvious, and ruins some of the games greatest aspects.

Anyways, I'm routing for you Emp, I'm sure some people will enjoy the campaign, but its too mechanical right now for me, and not enough space to breath and enjoy the game the way i would like, good luck

[Nakharar]

i agree with Tri, im getting busier but if its deditacted comited players that arent random i dont mind, just fix the forts issue as Tri said

[Empedocles]

ok. forts are out.
Rules updated.

regards

PS: DoW rule for me is a must. of course if nobody finds it interesting I would have to limit my wishes.
Think about it. no more blitzkrieg from turn 0. Every faction has a chance.
Tri, take for example what you did with sindh's cities from one turn to the other.

[Empedocles]

btw, fog of war is enabled, meaning that you don't have satellite vision of what happens in the other site of the world, which makes spies more useful.

[TriforceV]

ok. forts are out.
Rules updated.

regards

PS: DoW rule for me is a must. of course if nobody finds it interesting I would have to limit my wishes.
Think about it. no more blitzkrieg from turn 0. Every faction has a chance.
Tri, take for example what you did with sindh's cities from one turn to the other.

Yeah what i did with Sindh cities, I understand
But thats because in BC NB 2.02, its not autoresolve, and spies can access settlements -- major difference, A surprise attack if the rules were no spies allowed, mean't those land would still be under his control.... But its alright, ,
good call on the forts, I might end up joining this campaign

[Empedocles]

Yeah what i did with Sindh cities, I understand
But thats because in BC NB 2.02, its not autoresolve, and spies can access settlements -- major difference, A surprise attack if the rules were no spies allowed, mean't those land would still be under his control.... But its alright, ,
good call on the forts, I might end up joining this campaign

I can't live without you. You know that.

[Kavhan Isbul]

If the DoW rule stands, I will pass - with no spies opening settlements and auroresolve ON, it is pretty pointless anyway. But my major problem with it is that it is completely unrealistic, just like the rules about holding people up to their promises.

If you feel that someone has been dishonorable, then simply do not trust him in the future, in this or any other hotseats - justa s simple as that. A fine? Meaningless without any means to enforce it.

One final thing - how about banning merchant forts? I feel they are an exploit, not much different from Dewy and his glitching feats.

[Empedocles]

although I understand your position I believe that the DoW is the complete opposite. It's totally realistic to have a turn warning that country X will attack you.
As it stands now it's like the king get up of his bed and receive the news that during the night all his armies have vanished and his cities are under siege. And the enemy may even a faction who was his ally just the night before!!!!

No country was ever taken by such surprise (I understand that the turns here represent 3 months, but in terms of gameplay they represent a second) since the rumors of war were something really important during the timeframe. Merchants passed from city to city spreading these rumors, spy networks were active, etc etc.

The "Holding people to their promises" rule is more debatable... you are right. it's impossible to enforce.... but that does not mean it's unrealistic. Hostages were taken to assure that the other king would follow an agreement.

regards

[TriforceV]

No country was ever taken by such surprise (I understand that the turns here represent 3 months, but in terms of gameplay they represent a second) since the rumors of war were something really important during the timeframe. Merchants passed from city to city spreading these rumors, spy networks were active, etc etc.

You nerver heard of smoke towers?, not only were they relevant in ancient times, but right up until the rennissance.
The purpose of these towers, was if an army was invading they could send smoke signals and alert the city. If there was no such thing as a being caught unaware, there would be no need for these towers, similarily, we can recreat it with out own watch towers, which do the same thing

But there is plenty of historical evidence that people were caught unaware, one prominent example of such was the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusading armies, which was unexpected but happened to the dismay of the Byzantine empire.

And yes spies did give some information, but often the target wasn't neccisarily known in buildup of armies, only the elite know the real target, and on it goes..

Look, its really simple, you don't need a turn to figure out someone is going to attack you, with spies, and watchtowers monitoring the lands, you can see a military buildup, and army on its way, If someone is clever they can hide or mask these advances, (go by water, hide in trees), I don't neccissarily think this is a bad thing. All you need to be is more clever and monitor you weakspots even harder.

Surprise attacks, are part of history, Sun Tuz mentioned it, and spies and smoke/watch towers would be rendered useless if people just TOLD them they were going to war, It does happen, but i think its more rare than those attacking without warning

[Kavhan Isbul]

Realism aside, the 1 turn warning rule basically means small factions have little chance against bigger foes, especially in the beginning of the campaign.

Take for example Georgia and the Seljuks. As someone, who has played with both factions, I have come to the opinion that Georgia's best chance is to attack immediately, destroy Turanshah's stack and gain advantage against an otherwise far superior foe.

True, it works both ways, as big factions can surprise small ones as well, but while with a surprise attack a small faction may have a chance, with no surprise attacks bigger factions always have the advantage.

[Nakharar]

In my opinion after reading all of this

-Instaed of this 1 turn warning rule why dont we just do no wars in the first 5 turns, if this rule is to take place reputation is NEEDLESS, i dont trust someone who betrayed someone else so that kinda handles this..., and giving a 1 turn warning just makes that person better reputation if i attack India but say in advice, Sindh would know atleast this guy is hounrable....

[Nakharar]

Also im in, my faction will be either, Ghorid, Ghazni or Shah.

But i think if theres 6 factions the ones that MUST be taken are:

-KoJ
-Ayyubi
-Romans
-Turks
-Seljuks
-Rajputs or Ghazni or Ghorid( a Eastern)
-possibly Shah

[Kaizer Merlox]

Now, I'll say my part on this, This whole thing is stupid, It is fully broke, and you can not fix this.

First of all, Limiting spies is a laugh, wanna know why? Because Balistias just take the place of spies, then it's gonna be a balistia rush. Unlike how stupid noobs didn't know how to block spies with counter spies, There is no block with a balistia, Not even citidal walls can block it's mighty bolts.

Spy wars took some skill, building spies and assassins, and always keeping it occupied, but not balistia wars, you use them to just steam roll no matter what.

Look at whats happening with the new 2.02 game, It's just turn 5 and every one spammed the balistia makers no doubt. Garato did a good job complaining on "Oh how spies were so nasty..." just because he didn't know how to use it, but either way. Any one knows how to spam the balistias and have them roll over any thing.

And now you guys are crying about how to make the "Perfect" game. There will never be a perfect game unless if they make it so players can fight eachother. and let's face the facts. that will never happen. So wake up guys, We've been hotseating for years just like this, Why do you want to try to switch to what we all know will be a worst game?

[Nakharar]

technically Ballistas can be stopped, destroying them before they reach the settlement, fort chains, ambushes, and destroying the building....

[Empedocles]

indeed. and they reduce your movement points of your armies a lot.
I will probably start the recruiting process of this hotseat during this week. sorry for the delay.

regards

[Kaizer Merlox]

chain forts do nothing to balistias, Baistias are trains, you do not stop them, They have 75% of a foot soldier's movement, but still, all they need to do is fort right back up after the turn, and you have lost 4-5 forts (2,500) trying to stop them.

It would be more fair if balistias could only destroy large towns / wooden castle, but they can destroy citidals and huge cities...

[Nakharar]

hmm they can destroy Citadels? Is this new too BC 2? In1.05 campaign it wouldnt even open a fort in the Reckoning Campaign

[Kaizer Merlox]

it must be a new thing, and for that, i am extremely pissed off. They made it just like spies. Before you would need a catapult (11 turns of production) or Treb (19 turns) before even thinking about this.

They made it so that small dumb little balistias can destroy a citidal, (In my honest opinion, they should just be able to destroy any thing wooden... yeah?)

[Empedocles]

it must be a new thing, and for that, i am extremely pissed off. They made it just like spies. Before you would need a catapult (11 turns of production) or Treb (19 turns) before even thinking about this.

They made it so that small dumb little balistias can destroy a citidal, (In my honest opinion, they should just be able to destroy any thing wooden... yeah?)

crappp..... is this true? we should limit the use of ballistas to wood only. right?