Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Hotseat Rules Compendum

  1. #21
    Chieftain Khuzaymah's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,288

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    You are turning it around, but that does not change the case. If let's say Gondor is at war with Mordor, whilst Rohan and Mordor have no dealings with eachother. I might be mistaken, but in my experience neither Rohan nor Mordor would even get the option to offer an alliance to one another in the diplo screen.

  2. #22
    Aldor's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    My cozy nest full of prey bones.
    Posts
    1,772

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    Quote Originally Posted by Chieftain Khuzaymah View Post
    You are turning it around, but that does not change the case. If let's say Gondor is at war with Mordor, whilst Rohan and Mordor have no dealings with eachother. I might be mistaken, but in my experience neither Rohan nor Mordor would even get the option to offer an alliance to one another in the diplo screen.
    In WTW I tested it:

    If Lannister (ally: Joffrey) makes peace to Tully (ally: Stark), no alliance can be offered.

    However, a marriage alliance is possible between Lannister and Tully once a ceasefire is accepted. This will cause Stark to ceasefire Lannister and Joffrey to ceasefire Stark.

    It might not be possible in TATW.
    Last edited by Aldor; December 25, 2013 at 01:27 PM.
    Retired GS member, admin and local moderator in Hotseat Subforum. Voted best TATW admin.

  3. #23
    knight of meh's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,707

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    no princesses in third age mate ^^

  4. #24
    Aldor's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    My cozy nest full of prey bones.
    Posts
    1,772

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    Quote Originally Posted by knight of meh View Post
    no princesses in third age mate ^^
    I know. It might not be possible in TATW.
    Retired GS member, admin and local moderator in Hotseat Subforum. Voted best TATW admin.

  5. #25
    Aldor's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    My cozy nest full of prey bones.
    Posts
    1,772

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    Forts

    - Rules for sieges apply
    - Not allowed to to lure the attacker into the fort by disband/suicide sally to set up a trap.
    -
    Not allowed to besiege a fort solely to deny the besieged army from participating in battles (with enemy forces next to the fort).

    - Not allowed to sally from forts (except for sieges lasting longer then 1 turn) unless victory or draw is achieved.
    - Allowed to disband troops
    OR
    - Variations on (not) allowing suicidal sallies and disbanding possible.
    Retired GS member, admin and local moderator in Hotseat Subforum. Voted best TATW admin.

  6. #26
    Miles
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Wales... New South Wales.
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldor View Post
    Forts

    - Rules for sieges apply
    - Not allowed to to lure the attacker into the fort by disband/suicide sally to set up a trap.
    -
    Not allowed to besiege a fort solely to deny the besieged army from participating in battles (with enemy forces next to the fort).
    - Not allowed to sally from forts (except for sieges lasting longer then 1 turn) unless victory or draw is achieved.
    - Allowed to disband troops
    OR
    - Variations on (not) allowing suicidal sallies and disbanding possible.
    I seriously disaprove of this rule. It just seems like too sensible of an action, as you are dividing your foes armies by dividing your own force yourself. It also stops the enemy from retreating retreating into the fort after losing the battle.

    If anything looks like an exploit for me when it comes to sieges, it's these "forced drawouts" that seem all the rage these days.
    - Player-made (non-permanent) forts require a minimal garrisson of 4 units.
    While I can see why this is a rule as prevents players from stalling the enemy by whole turns with multiple layers of forts. This is easilly negated by siege and spies, and this counter creates an interesting dilemma for the attacking player: Do you run a pure infantry and cavalry army, risking being stalled by forts for the time it takes to build seige equipment; or do you bring artillery so you can instantly stomp over fortifications, but leaving your army otherwise slower (and potentially vulnerable to hit and run tactics).
    The Meta-Game potential alone is worth having this rule Abolished.
    - Spies aren't allowed to spread plague, unless needed to open the gates in a succesfull siege during the same turn of infiltration.
    But this is TOTAL WAR! You should be using every tool in your arsenal to subvert your enemies. Besides, this should be easily counterable with the house-rule that spies need a minimum of X% to even enter the city, and the plague-spy's chance of getting in there goes down the more watchtowers, units and spies are near the spy's target.

  7. #27
    Arrow2daknee's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    2,858

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    Quote Originally Posted by Swiss Army Cheese View Post
    I seriously disaprove of this rule. It just seems like too sensible of an action, as you are dividing your foes armies by dividing your own force yourself. It also stops the enemy from retreating retreating into the fort after losing the battle.
    If anything looks like an exploit for me when it comes to sieges, it's these "forced drawouts" that seem all the rage these days.
    You would then be able to block an entire army with one unit. Also, this rule doesn't even come up often since no one is usually stupid enough to put an army next to their fort, but it's still a good rule for when retreating armies retreat next to a fort. And what do you mean by "forced drawouts?" I'm confused.
    While I can see why this is a rule as prevents players from stalling the enemy by whole turns with multiple layers of forts. This is easilly negated by siege and spies, and this counter creates an interesting dilemma for the attacking player: Do you run a pure infantry and cavalry army, risking being stalled by forts for the time it takes to build seige equipment; or do you bring artillery so you can instantly stomp over fortifications, but leaving your army otherwise slower (and potentially vulnerable to hit and run tactics).
    The Meta-Game potential alone is worth having this rule Abolished.
    Just.... no.

    But this is TOTAL WAR! You should be using every tool in your arsenal to subvert your enemies. Besides, this should be easily counterable with the house-rule that spies need a minimum of X% to even enter the city, and the plague-spy's chance of getting in there goes down the more watchtowers, units and spies are near the spy's target.
    Yea, let's play a WTW hotseat with no rules, see how fun it'll be. It'll definitely be TOTAL WAR tho.

  8. #28
    Miles
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Wales... New South Wales.
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrow2daknee View Post
    You would then be able to block an entire army with one unit. Also, this rule doesn't even come up often since no one is usually stupid enough to put an army next to their fort, but it's still a good rule for when retreating armies retreat next to a fort. And what do you mean by "forced drawouts?" I'm confused.
    A forced drawout is when you attack an army next to a fort for the sole purpose of killing all the reinforcements that come from the fort. This leaves the fort after the battle completely undefended and open for attacking.
    I've seen this exploit in multiple youtube hotseats and I find the concept rather unsporting.

    And so what if you can block a whole army with 1 unit, that still divides your forces just as much as theirs.
    Yea, let's play a WTW hotseat with no rules, see how fun it'll be. It'll definitely be TOTAL WAR tho
    I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

    On a tangent, I've been watching some head 2 head Shogun 2 campaigns, and it honestly frustrates me how often I see players hamstrung themselves with certain rules, such as no forming a coalition with the AI. Like, when I go looking for head-to-head campaigns on youtube want I want to see is players using every trick in the book and even some that have yet to be written.

    Something I've always wanted to see in a hotseat is a Muslim faction allying the pope, so that when a Catholic player attacks the Muslim faction, the Catholic guy gets excommunicated and everyone starts a Jihad or a Crusade on the newly excommunicated player. Like, wouldn't that be funny? But that can't happen with the standard "No allying the Pope" rule.
    Or another neat trick for a Crusade: Have your princess marry a nearby crusading general (regardless of whether or not you are at war with them), and then the crusader's very expensive stack'll just melt away.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    I dont think you have any experience with HotSeats do you lol?

    hotseats are nowhere near comparable to head to head campaigns especially not from different games

    The rules made here are made out of experience and to make the game as fair as possible for every player. I doubt you have looked carefully in hotseat rules and just read them and disagree. Play a good amount of HotSeats before complaining. These are mostly standard rules.

    also, the youtuber hotseats are far different from twc. The youtubers barely got experience and therefor get stomped by the ones that do. The youtubers play with less rules making it less fair for some factions. on twc most people have more experience, know how to play m2tw and know how to HotSeat.

  10. #30
    Miles
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Wales... New South Wales.
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Hotseat Rules Compendum

    None at all . You'd expect someone with such a low post count (with half of those being in the Game of Thrones TV show thread) to have ever participated in one?
    I only learnt what a hotseat even is in the past year or so, which is after I lost regular access to a computer that can play Medieval II. They were like provincial campaigns in Rome 1, something archaic that I couldn't figure out what they meant.

    I am quite aware of the differences between hotseats and the head-to-heads of later games. By that point in the post I was just waxing poetically.

    The plague thing was something that puzzled me in that it didn't seem like something that could happen often enough that people would think of making a rule against it. Back when I still played Total War, I could never figure out how to reliably start a plague so that I could spread it, no matter how much I tried to raise the squalid conditions of my settlements with overpopulation.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •