Proposal: Greek Multiplayer political AAR

[AspisPhalanx90]

So,while i was sitting around the radiology department for an appointment, i had a thought. What if i could get a few RSII players who enjoy AARs and the Greeks, and create a RolePlaying campaign, with each member being the "leader" of a particular city, holding discussions here about policies, attacks, lending aid to an army, etc etc. It would be fairly complex, but i think doable, and would be fun.

As of now i have a rough setup.

Basically, the following cities would have a member as a leader, with more or less added depending on how many people want to participate (the definate ones are starred)

Athens*
Sparta
Rhodes*
Thebes
Corinth
Syracuse*
Bosphorans*
Bithynia
Massalia*

Im not sure yet how to implement actually fighting battles and such, but im open to plenty of suggestions to make this work.

Basically, this would require people enthusiastic to the idea, so at the very least we could get a good council of the greeks like discussion going (much like this thread, but Greek isntead of Rome http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=513)

PM or whatever to give feedbakc and let me know what you thing/are interested in

[Rouke]

I am interested! Count me in

EDIT: Hmm noticed how you selected Thebes over Crete...Any reason?

[C.Maximus]

Im interested.. it would be like hotseat except we would all be the same faction : Free Greeks And we would only be able to command units that are from our city... This would mean it would have to be co-op... we could however RP pitched battles and do a custom battle as merely a decision decider or whoever is in control but for the most part it will have to be an alliance sort of thing.

[AspisPhalanx90]

Yep, exactly...and hopefully, with some good ol' inter-city squabbalings

[C.Maximus]

Yep, exactly...and hopefully, with some good ol' inter-city squabbalings

Well the inner-city squabbalings will have to be completely RP and online custom battle style (if there are any) so they cant really effect anything on the campaign game except maybe to settle like a dispute. Say I am Athens and you are Sparta (we cant allow sparta to play untill sparta is conquored) and you want to start a war with the Romans and I do not, we can settle it in RP chat or perhaps in a custom battle senario, but you couldnt come take me over as we would be the same faction.

[AspisPhalanx90]

yah thats what i mean, we'd all be still one faction. Diplomatic/politically...not with combat in that sense lol

[C.Maximus]

ok, we shouldnt have too many people Messilina will fall quickly (unless we work really hard to destory rome fast in the game, which i dont see happening with something like this) But Athens, Sparta and Syracuse will be the main 3 factions, maybe the colonies in the black sea area as well so maybe 4-5 players at the least?

[RenovatioImperii]

each city should have a limited budget based on is true income.
Money made with buildings like "treasury" should be divided among all players.

[traxx91]

I am interested too. I would love to play as the Bosphorans, the problem is that I am not an native english speaker so I am not that good.

MfG

[JohnGlave]

This looks really interesting, I've been playing a Free Greeks campaign; and their roster is really diverse. I like the idea of each "King", "Ruler", or representative in the Assembly (I've been reading about the Peloponnesian War lately) having their own budget represented by the city's income (maybe either gross or net income?). Anyway, I'd really like to play as Syracuse or Rhodes. Maybe it could work by swapping the save game around?

[C.Maximus]

I would like to do Athens, but I was thinking we all need to control multiple settlements and wait untill Sparta is conquored before we can allow the Spartan player to join. I would say yes, pass around the save game but the question goes "How do we defend" do we have one day where we are all on at teh same time and hit end turn and whoever's army is getting attacked gets the sav. file sent to them? or does one person who we trust defend, or do we all play auto-resolve?

Anyways... Athens is my first pick, and if we do combinations perhaps Attica, then Syracuse and Rhodes and Crete, then the Peleponese, the Bosporan colonies ect... like groupings.

[traxx91]

I think it would be the best to give the save to the person getting attacked. This whole thing will take very long for just one round, but I really think its a great idea.
My proposal for the combinations:

1. Athenai
Capital: Athenai
Settlements: Kornithos, Thebes (+ Thermos, would make them a bit imbalanced)

2. Surakousai
Capital: Surakousai

3. Rhodos
Capital: Rhodos

4. Bithynia
Capital: Nicomedia
Settlements: Sinope

5. Bosporan
Capital: Pantikapaion
Settlements: Chersonessos

6. Crete
Capital: Khudonia
Settlements: Euhesperides (Cyrene)

7. Massalia
Capital: Massalia

Emergent: Sparte, maybe Byzantion?

'Free'-Settlements: Solonae, Nicopolis (+ Thermos)
When someone conquers a new settlement, it should belong to him.
I am not sure what could be done with the free settlements. Their income should be split between the players, but who defends them? Maybe give them to some rather weak states like Massalia?
Anyway: just a proposal.

[Nota']

How are you going to deal with the fact that one players large army will detract income from other players large population settlements?

[JohnGlave]

How are you going to deal with the fact that one players large army will detract from other players large population settlements?

Well, I would think that every player would have the budget of their city (the true income in the settlement details scroll)? So that it didn't affect the other cities. Although I think surplus budget should be spent with decisions made by an Assembly maybe? Say the Leader of Sparta says that they'd like to hire some new hoplites, but they've used up all their budget, they could request the Assembly to give them money from the surplus budget (if there is a surplus that is)?

These are just my suggestions.

[C.Maximus]

So anyone down for this or has the idea kinda died?

[AspisPhalanx90]

It didn't die...classes are just a little heavy at the moment lol

[C.Maximus]

maybe we should look into the idea again when winter break happens.

[Tesla]

Well, I would think that every player would have the budget of their city (the true income in the settlement details scroll)? So that it didn't affect the other cities. Although I think surplus budget should be spent with decisions made by an Assembly maybe? Say the Leader of Sparta says that they'd like to hire some new hoplites, but they've used up all their budget, they could request the Assembly to give them money from the surplus budget (if there is a surplus that is)?

These are just my suggestions.

though what if a city is in a negative income ? then that player would have to "lend" money every time from the others

[chaplain118]

I've looked at this idea and would like to offer you some words of advice (with my experience in YATS and that this is essentially what YATS used to be)

1. Keep it as simple as possible, the more complicated it is, the more difficult for players to continue playing
2. Make sure there is a clear set of rules on the operation of the AAR - ex: intercity warfare, nearby armies being included as "allied" unit from other cities

For the money issue, I can offer you guys what we do in YATS: assume that all of you are together as one political unity despite having separate goals. Which means the money you make all goes into a single treasury (like the Peloponnesus League and Athens). Then each city works out a budget and propose it to the other players and then each city goes off to make their changes. This also adds a bonus of say, a city is besieged and needs an army, but the recruitment proposed is rejected by the other cities, then does this city ask for an allied army to be moved to where they are and fight the enemy, or will they try to sit the siege out themselves?

Good luck with this

[traxx91]

@ Tesla: No city has a negative income. What makes the whole thing difficult is the fact that the RTW engine divides the upkeep for all armies between all cities. F.e: when syracuse has 10 armies, all cities have to pay for that.
So to calculate the 'real' income, of every player, we firstly have to summate his army and agent upkeep.Then we have to calculate the 'real' income of every city. Example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This city has an 'RTW Income' of -4205, but only because I have a lot of armies in this campaign. The upkeep for these armies are the 5689, for the agents the 501 you can see on the screen. Together: 6190. So to get the 'real' income of this city, we have to add the 6190 to the -4205 = 1985. In short: the city will increase the factions wealth by 1985 every turn.
As I said, to get the 'real' player-income, we have to add the upkeep for the units and agents the players owns and subtract this upkeep from his 'real'-city-income.
To make it easy I will just say the player owns 20x Hoplite of Bosporan (20x 504) and 2 generals with 60 men (2x 770). All together 11634 upkeep. He has the cities Skuthike Neapolis (RTW-Income: -4205; real-income: 1985) and Pantikapaion (RTW Incom: 20643; real-income: 22352). This means the player will get 1985 + 22352 - 11643 = 12874 denarii this turn.

So for this ARR we would have to do all lot of math every turn, but I am fine with this.

I hope you understand this, its hard in english for me

Edit: I think your are right chaplain, this would be veeeery difficult, your idea seems to be better.