{Game Closed} BC 2.02 : Holy Lands campaign (WSR)

[Kaizer Merlox]

Excuse me, Could we possibly put this rule up as well.


Destroying buildings inside a settlement under siege is prohibited.

[crazyguy1916]

Excuse me, Could we possibly put this rule up as well.


Destroying buildings inside a settlement under siege is prohibited.

I think that autoresolve only takes care of that.

[TriforceV]

Excuse me, Could we possibly put this rule up as well.


Destroying buildings inside a settlement under siege is prohibited.

an interesting idea, ill have to consider it.

[Kaizer Merlox]

considering by the time a war is over, the game never gets interesting due to the victor only has junk.

[crazyguy1916]

Oh do you mean the defender that is hopeless destroying his buildings?

[TriforceV]

Oh do you mean the defender that is hopeless destroying his buildings?

Yeah, there is an issue in the game where players under the threat of losing a city (which is usually under siege) or otherwise, expect the worse and thus pillage their own buildings.
This can be used as a strategy for players who, while they lose their city can at least gain some coin, and bitter the victors winnings.
The result is that the attacker gains a city devoid of anything of value, and many times a good producing city which has over 20-30 turns worth of buildings projects is completely ravaged becoming an empty shell and will never come close to recovering throughout the game.
Too often it happens unfortunately, and large swaths of towns/cities/castles become wastelands of old battles.

So i'll say again, an interesting idea, and I see where your coming from Kaizer. The only problem is a question of enforcing the rules and defining it (like maybe only restricting pillaging if city is underseige)

But before we get to specifics, I would like to see if anyone has any objections towards this possible innovation to the rules...?

[Kavhan Isbul]

I think prohibiting players from ruining buildings while under siege is a good idea, and enforcing should be easy as the siegers are likely to complain if it happens.

[TriforceV]

I think prohibiting players from ruining buildings while under siege is a good idea, and enforcing should be easy as the siegers are likely to complain if it happens.

Fair enough, and if they do complain -- buildings can be recreated through the console and the person who sold the buildings for money can be fined for it

[crazyguy1916]

Triforce think you should put up a faction list, just to avoid confusion?

[Beserker42]

The building preservation rule sounds like a good idea to me as you wrote it Triforce. I agree with crazy guy that we should post a list of claimed factions as i think we have enough people to start. A couple people need to decide which one of a couple options they are going with and then we can get this show underway.

[TriforceV]

alright teams and new rule has been posted at the front.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Just some further clarification of the rules - I understand that spies cannot be used to open the gates to any kind of settlement, and that forts are not settlements and therefore fair game.

However, would we still be allowed to infiltrate settlements to try to increase unrest? I would say yes, since nothing to the contrary has been written in the rules, but I just wanted to clarify and confirm.

[TriforceV]

Just some further clarification of the rules - I understand that spies cannot be used to open the gates to any kind of settlement, and that forts are not settlements and therefore fair game.

However, would we still be allowed to infiltrate settlements to try to increase unrest? I would say yes, since nothing to the contrary has been written in the rules, but I just wanted to clarify and confirm.

This is acceptable
I'm not trying to reduce spies to being worthless, they can still spy, open the gates of forts, (defend forts!), and cause unrest in a city.. so they will be still be useful just not overpowering.
So if someone like you Kavhan who is a spy hound wants to focus on spies you can do that, where as someone else who wants to focus on siege warfare, can do so and be brought to the same level.
Also the reason why everything is acceptable into opening forts is because, forts can be build anywhere to protect strategic locations, entry points, and for this reason should have their own problems, don't forget

[Kavhan Isbul]

I am not arguing the rules, just wanted to make sure what would be allowed and what would not.

Actually, I am happy to see the whole spying warfare and blitzing taken out, as I am just a newbie to hotseat games and I have nowhere near your expertise on spies. I am deffinitely pro battle-mode, but not pro-spies - the 2 shouldn't be confused.

[crazyguy1916]

Shouldn't we be able to use battle map on rebels? There have been several instances where the autoresolve says that I suffer a crushing defeat, even though I can get an even victory on the battle map.

[TriforceV]

Shouldn't we be able to use battle map on rebels? There have been several instances where the autoresolve says that I suffer a crushing defeat, even though I can get an even victory on the battle map.

I think its either one or the other, if I choose autoresolve only, then you can't play battlemap, even with the rebels.
It will be more difficult to capture rebel lands yes, but the same goes for everyone else.

here is a few pointers for autoresolve,

- keep a mixed regiment of troops (seems to help)
- Fight with a general who has good command
- the better the troops, the better they will perform.

[CiviC]

I would take Rajputs but I don't see the reason to give Seljuks to the AI. It will favour Abbasids, Georgians, Khwarezm and even Omanis and Ghaznis and this is unfair for other "cornered" factions.

[Kaizer Merlox]

I did give Triforce the suggustion of making the Seljuks rebels and giving them some very good rebel defenses. and good garrisons, so that they wouldn't exactly be steam-rolled.

[CiviC]

I did give Triforce the suggustion of making the Seljuks rebels and giving them some very good rebel defenses. and good garrisons, so that they wouldn't exactly be steam-rolled.

I don't think we should alter the balance of the game. For some Seljuks seem to powerfull, for me Crusaders are overpowered, Rajput's elephants are unstoppable, etc. I say to leave the game as the creators intended. I subbed a lot Seljuks in BCWSR and they do not seem overpowered in an autoresolve game. Without Omani help they had few chances to defeat Abbasids.

[Kaizer Merlox]

Well, thing is that Seljuks are heavily developed, Really any good person at this game will simply do a tactic which destroys the PC, Which is a simple process, Simply you find their stacks of armies, and place stacks 4-5 around them, while the rest of the army goes to conquer their empire, during this time the AI will spend most of it's time attacking and taking over forts.