Page 1 of 43 123456789101126 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 855

Thread: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign] - SCOTLAND OPEN

  1. #1

    Default [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign] - SCOTLAND OPEN

    Britannia
    The Isles of Chaos

    The games have begun.
    Admin - Joerock22
    Co-Admin - Jadli or Ramble12

    Using a slightly modified Britannia campaign, see spoiler for .rar file download link:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    http://www.mediafire.com/file/vh80q4..._isles.7z/file
    ( + hotfix - extract into british_isles/data/world/maps/campaign/imperial_camapign)



    Players

    England - Turkafinwe
    The Baron's Alliance - paladinbob123
    Scotland - VACANT
    Ireland -
    PeaMan
    Wales - Zender9
    Norway - Der Böse Wolf


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This is me, trying to get back into the concept of hotseats, trying to integrate to at least some extent on TWC, and trying to get some sort of roleplay out of the mix. Don't hurt me. I'm rusty, and I'm definitely horrible with formatting. I'm also wordy, so my sincerest apologies for advance making you read this wall. I promise I don't do it all the time.


    The British Isles have been a bed for war and chaos since the Normans came across the English Channel. No, that's not true. The Isles have always been a chaotic place, dotted with kingdoms, Covered in war, with nations trying to win the hearts of people to take up arms for causes that they usually couldn't care less about. Of course, they care when invading armies are storming their lands.

    There were the Romans, who came across the channel and tried to conquer the Isles. They only partially succeeded. There were the Saxons, a primal force of British fury that seemingly won the war of power for a while. Then there were the Normans, who beat them to a pulp and took their place. None of them ever boasted uncontested domination of the Isles.


    It is the modern state of England, descendants of the Norman legacy, that is in a position to assert its authority over the entirety of the Isles. Yet, while the goal seems so close, it is truly still far away. The Welsh are lead by a new uniting upstart who is more than happy to contest England's superiority. Ireland, an almost secure English haven, has united under one King and become a true royal thorn in the side of the English command there. The Scots have never looked upon England as a superior power, and there's even upstarts from Scandinavia stirring up trouble. Was that enough? No, of course not. Now there's a band of Barons demanding the limitation of the King's power, and it won't be long before they start to cause trouble. England has a choice - work with the Barons and keep peace, if only for a little while, or mercilessly assail them until they howl their adoration and loyalty to the feet of the King. Fighting them is costly, and serves only to weaken them. Unity is advisable, at least for now. But letting them continue could be considered a sign of weakness, and their demands can only get worse. This is all while the Welsh want their taste of English territory, the Irish want their homes back, the Scots seek greater power and the Norwegian pests continue their antics...

    The Baron's Alliance is in a unique state for being the first true front against the English Crown. They stand for the People of England, the Law, blah blah blah. Truth is, they stand to drag the King down and bring up their own power in its place, and for once, they have the unity and means to have a shot at it. Yet there are many enemies around, many places loyal to the king, and other nations are quite likely to use the chaos of any open combat to tear into the English provinces. Thus, it is in the best interests of the Barons to declare their status as being a solid force, and then make further declarations to see how far the King can be tested. For now, they will likely wait, even act on the King's behalf for some task or another. But they cannot be held back forever...

    Wales, a place in dire straits for some time now, has been momentarily relieved by the potential issues of the Baron's Alliance and other issues across the English territory. The time is now, not long after the official declaration of independence from Wales, to secure a legacy and show the English who the true masters are. From there... what then? Will they strike at the Scots? Will they help liberate the Irish, or conquer them? Will they engage in combat with the Norwegian newcomers? Perhaps they will make alliances with some of these nations, or be conquered by them? Perhaps they will see the merits of aiding the Barons, or offering to aid against the Barons in exchange for a temporary respite? Time will tell, as well as the first moves of the newly united Welsh state... it is these first moves, and early pacts, that will determine their future...

    Ireland has been a scattered, ineffective territory - until now. Now, Ireland is in a position to become possibly a real country, a place of its own again, and this time with the strength of character that can only come from the true backbone of a king. The Irish must first deal with the English invaders, but from there, they have possible issues with the raids of the Norwegians, or even the Scots, or perhaps even the Welsh. Or perhaps England will quickly get over its squabbles and send a far greater force across the small sea to ensure Ireland stays "in its place". A king to unite the Irish brings opportunities, but it also brings problems and gambles, as well as hard decisions to be made...

    Scotland, a proud, old land where independence is key and where southern traditions and sophistication are simply unnecessary. That was then, at least. Now, England is a potent enemy, capable of being a true threat to the Scots should it settle its problems quickly and strike to the north. Now, the Norwegians have established a foothold to the north, and the first clear target is Scotland. If the Scots can defeat them quickly or convince them to move elsewhere for the time being is the question at the moment. Scotland will need to become united in order to face the possible issues of expansionist factions in the British Isles that are bent on being the greatest faction on the Isles. If Scotland can get its own borders in order, perhaps Scotland will be in a good position to emerge as a power to rival the traditionally powerful English... perhaps, they'll be able to do much better than just raid a few border towns...

    The Norwegian presence is small, and honestly, the glory days of taking the Isles ended many years ago. However, the King has decided that a change is in order - it is ripe time to take advantage of the issues and wars looming on the Isles to create a new territory, a place where colonies can form and last many more years than the colonies of the past. It will not be an easy task - the people of the Isles are no strangers to war, and will likely not take kindly to the interjection of old invaders. Still, perhaps pacts can be made, short term as they may be. They may take the geographically convenient route, and harass the Scots. Perhaps they can help tear the English down... or align with the English and put down the upstart other factions. Perhaps they can cause trouble in every theater, keeping everyone weak, so they can be handled piecemeal. Such actions would take considerable cunning from the Norwegian lords. The lack of knowing what the Norwegians are about to do can be considered one of their strengths, yet that position makes it difficult for them to trust anyone, let alone for anyone to trust them...

    War is brewing across the Isles, and the first actions of the various lords will change the course of history forever. Only one people can emerge as the greatest nation of the Isles. Yet it's a long, hard road to get there...

    Rules
    The rules are pretty simple and resemble the norm on TWC, so if you've done other hotseats on this site, nothing here should be too surprising. Roleplay-related contents come in the Mechanics section.

    1> No exploitation of bugs or game mechanics.
    Including, but not limited to...
    1) The naval fort bug: No using ships to bypass a fort's or a settlement's Zone of Control.

    2) Spam siege bug: Besieging a fort/settlement with a force far superior in it, in order to either prevent that army from reinforcing or in order to cut down settlements income is not allowed. Same goes for blockading ports with ships.

    3) Ambush fort bug: No luring men in ambush position into ZoC of forts\settlement's as such robbing them of their movement points.

    4) Siege reinforcement bug: when the army is adjacent to a fort or a settlements that has been put under siege it cannot reinforce armies adjacent to him which he should have been able to reinforce on normal occasions. Attacking an army which the siege reinforcements bug applies to is not allowed
    Navy inside ports attacked bug: no using this bug to attack ships which are inside ports.

    5) Yoyo armies\forts bug: no attacking an army which the bug has been used on multiple times. You can see when this bug occurs, as the enemy army enters the fort and then leaves it.

    6) Attacking ships inside the port - Attacking ships that are inside ports is not allowed.

    7) Recruitment pool fill up - Queuing up units in the recruitment slots to increase artificially units/agents maximum number you can recruit in one settlement.

    8) Recruiting mercenaries in forts with depleted movement points - Using forts to get illegal maximum movement points to mercenaries in a depleted army.

    9) Using ships to get more movement range - Using ships to give more movement range to armies on seas.

    10) Placing armies inside ships that are inside ports to render them inaccessible and invincible until the settlement is out of the owning player's control..

    2> You either win a battle, or you reload the turn and not fight it at all. No defeats.
    3> Heroic Victories are not allowed, unless it is the only possible outcome in a scenario.
    4> Auto Resolve only, with screenshots from just before the battle and after the battle.
    5> If an army is defeated by an earlier player in the turn order, it cannot have any movement points used for one turn by the player that comes later in the turn order. Defeated forces in garrisons are exempt from this rule.
    6> You may not attack a player that has not played their first turn.
    7> Extermination is not allowed.
    8> Forts and watchtowers are unregulated. The forts are already placed on the map anyways.
    9> You cannot stop an enemy army from retreating into a settlement by besieging the settlement just defeating the enemy army in battle.
    10> Settlements cannot be gifted while in a war zone. The new owners must destroy all but one unit in the new settlement after a gifting has taken place.
    11> Buildings can only be destroyed under the following conditions: a) the territory does not border a neutral or enemy faction, b) there are no nearby enemy troops that can reach the settlement in 1 turn, and c) the settlement has been in the current owner's possession for more than 3 turns. It is prohibited to destroy buildings in advance of an assault, or a perceived assault.
    12> Refer to the mechanics section for the game's policies on the use of agents and the use of siege equipment. Not all of the mechanics are law. These two things are law.

    Game Mechanics

    This is largely a proposal of mechanics, and so, changeable. The admin might have something to say on them, who knows.

    Note that, in this game, roleplay is strongly encouraged, but not regulated. That is, you will not be harassed to a particular set of standards. However, joining the roleplay means that you intend to do roleplaying with your faction. This is intended for people who legitimately enjoy the act of presenting characters or a faction for roleplay purposes. The goal is not, at least in the short term, to build a bunch of armies and destroy everything. The idea is to create a story, to present a context, and use the mechanics above and below as well as the mechanics in game to help the roleplay efforts. Basically, this is supposed to be for people that like to actually roleplay, and not a hack and slash competitive environment. Strategy will take part, certainly, but the spirit of the game is roleplaying.

    You can be removed for sabotaging roleplay or for not roleplaying at all. While there are no strict regulations for the degree you need to take this (you can take it as far as you want if you fit in the time) the idea is that you participate in both the hotseat aspect and the roleplay aspect.

    Agent Use
    Merchants
    A merchant must have a 60% chance to succeed in acquisition before being able to take over another merchant.

    Spies
    Spies may enter settlements and be recruited without a numbers cap. In the case of settlements, you may only use the [Assault] option if there is over 60% chance of opening the gates and if there are less than 720 men in the settlement. If both conditions are not met, the spy will fail to open the gates, regardless of what the game tells you.

    Assassin
    An assassin may only kill merchants with a 60% success chance and generals with an 80% chance. Other assassins, 40%, and also spies at 40%. Each faction is entitled to one assassin, plus one more for each ten regions owned. A faction with 10 regions would have two assassins, a faction with 20 regions 3 assassins, and so on.

    Sabotage in all cases requires 70% success chance minimum.

    Actions should be recorded via screenshot; however, evidence does not need to be presented unless it is asked for by the Admin. Failing to have the screenshots if asked by the admin may result in Unrest Penalties.

    Siege Mechanics
    To be allowed to assault a settlement, you need fulfill requirements for siege artillery and siege equipment below, not only one of them.
    - Screnshots are required for all info relevant to your siege.
    Siege Artillery Mechanics
    Ballista can take out anything with wooden walls, provided there are two of them in the besieging forces.

    Catapults can take out wooden walls and forts solo; two catapults must be used to breach castle/city walls. For forts you need only one ballista.

    Trebuchets can take out all walls up to fortress solo; two are required for a fortress and a citadel. Huge cities follow fortress/citadel rules.

    Two catapults and a trebuchet are interchangeable when reading these rules. If you need a trebuchet to knock something down, but only have a pair of catapults, you're solid. If you want to counter someone's catapult that sits in a settlement, but you only have a trebuchet, then the trebuchet will overrule the catapult and count as an extra catapult.

    Riabults can only knock down the simplest level of wooden walls.

    Bombards follow the same rules of use as catapults. They can replace superior cannons in the same way that catapults can replace trebuchets.

    Larger cannons more advanced than the bombard (not monster riabult, see above) follow Trebuchet rules.

    A siege weapon can only participate once every two turns. That is, you cannot use it for one siege, and turn it around to be used in another siege the following turn or during the current turn.

    In addition, defending forces may include siege equipment in their own cities. If that is the case, you must match their siege equipment, as their equipment cancels out your own. If they have a catapult, you need to have one more catapult. If they have two catapults, you need a trebuchet to counter them and then use the amount of siege equipment required to breach the walls.

    - However, siege artillery itself is not enough to assault a settlement. Continue reading below...
    Siege Equipment
    > If there are less than 4 full units or less than 250 men in a besieged settlement, only a battering ram is required to be able to breach a set of walls.
    > If there are more than 4 full units or 250 men in a besieged settlement, you must have a 1:1 ratio of ground units to enemy ground units (you do not need to match enemy artillery or cavalry). If this condition is met, you must create a ladder for four foot units in the case of a castle, five ladders against a fortress, and six ladders against a citadel.
    > If a besieged settlement isn't big enough for ladders to have any use, a battering ram is enough. That means settlements with wooden pallisades - motte and bailley and smalll towns. (forts fall into this category too)
    > Rebel cities only require the siege equipment rules, and not the extended battering ram/ladder requirements.

    - To remind again, you need to fullfil also requirements for siege artillery, not only siege equipment.
    - You can start building siege equipment before you fullfil siege artillery requirements.

    This is an adaptation of rules used by my old group, MTWGG, on Steam for adding a little realism in sieges to the mix.

    Diplomacy
    An agreement can be considered official or unofficial. Official agreements are posted at the time of their presentation by the player who creates them, and can compose of either text in a player's post at the end of their turn, or of a screenshot(s) of the treaty as written ingame. It may also be followed by ingame diplomacy.
    Unofficial treaties can be made with no statement at all to the world at large; however, there is no true obligation to follow them.
    Official treaties may be made in one of the following formats, or created freeform and recorded in their entirety. While ingame penalties do not exist for not following them, you will lose your reliability if you break them (for the course of the game). Treaty types relative to the game are as follows:
    > Treaty of becoming a Vassal. Proposed by a conqueror, or even proposed before the conquest, that obligates the accepting faction to be in a military alliance with their master. The military assets of that faction are expected to attack their lord's enemies. While the following in-game related terms can be negotiated, a conqueror can demand up to: no more than 2 units in each settlement/5 in one turn's distance to a region in the case of recruitment, the surrender of all but two regions to the superior faction, the removal of all merchants from competing (vassal or overlord's) resources, military assistance against other factions, all under pain of a public declaration of the faction's destruction upon failure to meet the terms (should the council of nobles, aka the admin, consent to the action). Military actions, assassination attempts, and merchant acquisitions can be taken as an act of war and a breach of the treaty, and the ruling faction has no obligation to show the vassal any mercy for the duration of the game. This can be used in place for a Treaty of Surrender as a win condition, though it is not required. This is accompanied with the ingame faction becoming a Vassal.
    > Treaty of Surrender. The faction to accept this treaty becomes a vassal ingame, and is supposed to no longer participate in wars. This counts towards a faction's Win Condition. If the treaty is broken, you may be considered less reliable, and there is no obligation to spare you for this broken treaty. However, breaking the treaty will allow you to participate in war against your overlord and align with your former overlord's enemies, and no longer counts towards their Win Condition. Useful if you want another player to keep on going, but don't want them to be an all-out slave faction. Under this treaty, the surrendering faction may only attack its overlord's enemies, and hold no alliances with enemies of the

    Further treaties can be arranged between players. Players can agree to harsher variants of the above, but are not obliged to do so. Refusal of the first treaty is not grounds for destruction if the treaty contained items restricting gameplay beyond what has been allowed.

    In win conditions, three scales are used. Requiring a treaty of surrender is a third scale action, a treaty making a faction a vassal is a second scale action, and destruction is a third scale action. Typically, factions require one second scale action and two third scale actions. First and second scale factions can be used in place of second/third scale actions, and first can take place of third, if the enemy faction leaves you with no choice. Specific conditions are noted below - all you need to know here is that making someone a vassal instead of making them surrender is OK, and destruction of a faction legally is also OK in place of an otherwise standard winning condition.

    Time Limits
    48 hours, maximum 24 hour exemption. Feel free to take up the time required if it is used to prepare roleplay content - otherwise, try to get your turn in as soon as is reasonable. Your turn may be skipped or taken by the admin if you pass the time or can't make it. A week of unscheduled (ie, you didn't find a replacement beforehand) inactivity will result in the faction being relegated to a passive role with the faction leader eliminated (unless doing so would destroy the faction) until a replacement can be found. Other players will be able to act normally. Same rules for interaction apply when a replacement is being found; if you want to be a good sport, not going after the faction during that time is helpful unless they have troops in your territory/right on the edge. The admin will take control of passive factions until they are filled; roleplaying is not mandatory so long as a faction is in passive and not under the control of an outside player. A passive faction will not create units or modify its position unless there are armies in its territory, in which case simple moves to defend itself are allowed. The idea behind the elimination of the faction leader is to allow for the new player to create an introduction involving their new faction leader.

    Win Conditions

    The following conditions exist for the endgame. They shouldn't be short term goals, and roleplaying is again highly encouraged. These are conditions for you to be considered the greatest power on the British Isles.

    Note: At minimum, a Treaty to become a vassal must be posed to a faction on the turn that it would be otherwise destroyed. If the faction refuses the treaty, destruction is an option.

    A faction cannot win and be under a Treaty of Surrender or be a vassal to any state.

    You may not gift settlements to help further a faction's win conditions, nor is it in good taste and compliant with the rules to surrender when you are still capable of presenting a solid fight. If you want to quit, say so so that a replacement can be found - don't simply default at the first sign of not making your win condition. Roleplaying is, after all, a focus here, and the win conditions are more of a long term goal of being considered leader of the Isles.

    Also note that the agreements necessary to win are bitter pills to swallow, facts that should be noted during the game. It's not easy sucking up and admitting another nation is better, and it simply isn't plausible that your people are just going to understand, just like that, unless you're put under excruciating circumstances that the people can understand.

    If the Baron's Alliance is close to securing its own winning conditions in regards to England, or is at least as big as England, it may be used in place of England.

    If a faction has already been destroyed, it can count in another faction's win conditions.

    England
    > Must have Wales as a vassal state (or legally destroyed) with an official treaty stating that Wales is entirely under the authority of the English and at least an official Treaty of Surrender from Scotland and Ireland.
    > Must posses all of its starting territories, plus ten more.
    > Must have subjugated the Baron's Alliance (or legally destroyed them) to secure the ultimate power of the English King. This cannot be mitigated as per above; they must be vassals or destroyed.

    The Baron's Alliance
    > Must have England under a treaty equivalent to making it a vassal (or legally destroyed), to simulate the English crown being left with nearly zero power. This cannot be mitigated as per above; they must be vassals or destroyed.
    > Scotland, Ireland, and Wales must be subjugated to at least a Treaty of Surrender.
    > Must posses starting English territories plus ten more; the territories of vassal England can count towards this. Must control London and Dublin; England may not control either province.

    Scotland
    > Must have all starting territories and ten more.
    > Must have England subjugated to a Treaty of Surrender and have Norway forced off the British Isles completely and made as a vassal.

    Wales
    > Must have starting territories, plus 23 more, including two starting English territories.
    > Must have England as a vassal and two of three factions under a Treaty of Surrender: Scotland, Norway, and Ireland. You may create a treaty to control England alongside the Irish if you desire - or you can take them out too.

    Ireland
    > Must have the entirety of Ireland under control, plus 20 more regions, including two starting English territories.
    > Must have England as a vassal and two of three factions under a Treaty of Surrender: Scotland, Norway, and Wales. You may create a treaty to control England alongside the Welsh if you desire - or you can take them out too.

    Norway
    > Must have either England or Scotland completely subjugated as a vassal, and either Wales or Ireland subject to a Treaty of Surrender.
    > Must have all islands in the British Isles, plus 20 regions on the mainland, including three regions out of the starting territories of England or Scotland.

    Requirements for individual factions to be vassals may be swapped with the subjugation (Treaty of Surrender or more) of two other factions. Treaties of Surrender can conceivably be written to be more acknowledgements of authority - you recognize the power of a given nation, and the requirements to establish the agreement may be made more lax.
    Last edited by joerock22; March 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM. Reason: roster update

  2. #2

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    In terms of factions, I'd like either Norway, the Baron's Alliance, or Wales. I'll go with whichever one is remaining after other people pick.

  3. #3

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Appendix note - Baron's Alliance will get a decent starting position, if enough people sign up. What that position will be is not presently set in stone.

  4. #4
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    5,806

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Nice work on mixing steam and TWC rules, tho few things:

    - " You either win a battle, or you reload the turn and not fight it at all. No defeats." Almost sound like if you you were not allowing reloading, tho I guess thats just wording mistake?

    - The part with heroic victoires might be better replaced with this, as sometimes AR is just broken
    Heroic victories against players are not be allowed. However, occasionally it happens player cant get any other type of victory then heroic victory. In such cases heroic victories may be allowed, but only if the odds are higher for the attacker than 1:1.

    - Assassins shouldnt be allowed to kill any sort of general/family member, especially in a RP HS. Only with one assassin you could basicallly kill almost all generals in a faction...

    - Considering its supopsed to be more roleplay than competitive, and its relatively a small map, higher restrictions for sieges seems interesting. However, the amount of of siege eq (balllistas/catapults/trebs/etc) might have gotten a little bit out of hand. Most of settlements are less developed anyway, so you wouldnt be able to get soo many trebs anyway. Maybe requiring only 1 as per original rules would be enough. Tho, to limit it a little bit, you could use defensive siege eq - Thus if the defender had for example one catapult inside, it would "take out" invader's catapult, so he would need to...

    Got a slightly lost here tho

    > If there are more than 4 full units or 250 men in a besieged settlement, you must have a 1:1 ratio of ground units to enemy ground units (you do not need to match enemy artillery or cavalry). If this condition is met, you must create a ladder for half of your ground forces rounding up. Using 7 infantry units requires 4 ladders, 8 infantry units takes 4 ladders, 10 infantry units takes 5 ladders, and so on - not applying to cavalry and artillery.



    Got a slightly lost here. By 1:1 ratio you mean only the amount of units I assume? As finding out what the odds between the ground units would be problematic.

    > However, you must have at least 7 foot units when besieging and requiring ladders, or 3/4ths of your main attacking force (rounding up when in doubt, 5 units = 4 must be foot troops) must be foot troops. Any less than 5 units in an army can only be used in the first condition above, where the garrison force is also quite small, and the same requirements do not apply.

    I understand the 7 foor units, but I dont get the rest

    > If a besieged town isn't big enough for ladders to be relevant, skip these rules, and only use the equipment rules above.

    How would it be evaluated which cities are?

  5. #5

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadli View Post
    - " You either win a battle, or you reload the turn and not fight it at all. No defeats." Almost sound like if you you were not allowing reloading, tho I guess thats just wording mistake?
    Wording error, as reloading can't really be avoided and the idea is to simply disallow defeats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadli View Post
    - The part with heroic victoires might be better replaced with this, as sometimes AR is just broken
    Heroic victories against players are not be allowed. However, occasionally it happens player cant get any other type of victory then heroic victory. In such cases heroic victories may be allowed, but only if the odds are higher for the attacker than 1:1.

    Right then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadli View Post
    - Assassins shouldnt be allowed to kill any sort of general/family member, especially in a RP HS. Only with one assassin you could basicallly kill almost all generals in a faction...
    That can be changed too. I suppose I was simply underestimating their potency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadli View Post
    - Considering its supopsed to be more roleplay than competitive, and its relatively a small map, higher restrictions for sieges seems interesting. However, the amount of of siege eq (balllistas/catapults/trebs/etc) might have gotten a little bit out of hand. Most of settlements are less developed anyway, so you wouldnt be able to get soo many trebs anyway. Maybe requiring only 1 as per original rules would be enough. Tho, to limit it a little bit, you could use defensive siege eq - Thus if the defender had for example one catapult inside, it would "take out" invader's catapult, so he would need to...
    The idea was to accommodate fortresses and citadels being pretty huge enemies, which, unless I forgot how the game started, isn't many settlements at the start of the game. You can cover a lot of ground without hitting a large+ city or a fortress and at that point needing to create further equipment. If you don't have that much siege equipment yet, the idea is to develop infrastructure so you can have a proper line of siege assets.

    I could chop some of the numbers down, and put all cities at the requirements level of just the regular city. + a mechanic where enemy siege equipment 1:1 stops the player's siege equipment (1 catapult eliminates 1 player catapult, etc...).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadli View Post
    > If there are more than 4 full units or 250 men in a besieged settlement, you must have a 1:1 ratio of ground units to enemy ground units (you do not need to match enemy artillery or cavalry). If this condition is met, you must create a ladder for half of your ground forces rounding up. Using 7 infantry units requires 4 ladders, 8 infantry units takes 4 ladders, 10 infantry units takes 5 ladders, and so on - not applying to cavalry and artillery.

    Got a slightly lost here. By 1:1 ratio you mean only the amount of units I assume? As finding out what the odds between the ground units would be problematic.
    1:1 purely refers to how many foot troops are required to start a siege. If the enemy has 3 spear militia and two archer units, they must be matched with 5 foot units of your own to breach the walls. No requirements on the type of unit and matching any artillery/cavalry. Purely to avoid weird sieges where people somehow decide to use a bunch of horses or something and only a couple infantry units, but have the overwhelming odds that they could swarm the enemy. You can start the siege with whatever you want, but to swarm the defenses and defeat the enemy without waiting it out, you must match the amount of enemy foot solders with your equivalent amount of foot solders.

    Also, there's no requirements on starving out an enemy force - if an army doesn't quite meet requirements, it can simply besiege until it's defeated or until the settlement gives in.

    I tried to keep the math simple for what composed "half" of the infantry getting ladders, but it's possible that idea could just be scrapped. Maybe in favor of all infantry getting ladders, or some well-thought set numbers depending on army size.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadli View Post
    > However, you must have at least 7 foot units when besieging and requiring ladders, or 3/4ths of your main attacking force (rounding up when in doubt, 5 units = 4 must be foot troops) must be foot troops. Any less than 5 units in an army can only be used in the first condition above, where the garrison force is also quite small, and the same requirements do not apply.

    I understand the 7 foor units, but I dont get the rest
    Intended to regulate armies from being able to strike without an appropriate amount of ground troops to storm the entry.
    To start with, less than 5 units can't be used if there's a "big" garrison, the conditions of which were defined in the first rule of that subsection.
    "Rounding up" was actually an error on my part, I was intending to round down, which is a pretty important distinction for being able to understand the section and define what troops can do a proper siege.
    "3/4ths" of the attacking force, rounding up, would come to the following composition:
    4 out of 5 units - foot units
    5 out of 6 units - foot units, assuming 66% is close enough to meet the requirement
    6/8 - exactly 3/4ths foot units
    7/9 - foot units
    7/10 - foot units, as only 7 are needed before the 3/4ths rule doesn't come into play anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadli View Post
    > If a besieged town isn't big enough for ladders to be relevant, skip these rules, and only use the equipment rules above.

    How would it be evaluated which cities are?
    If you are incapable of building ladders, there is no obligation to build them. Low level towns in some cases just don't let you build ladders. If you can't build enough ladders based on the game mechanics, you don't have to follow the rules involving extra siege equipment. The walls would be so tiny that it doesn't take much to knock them down.


  6. #6
    Centenarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Realms Unknown
    Posts
    683
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    I would be up for it. Thinking on making videos of this campaign hotseat. I just have to study the rules because they seem to be really good.

    I could be England or Ireland.

  7. #7

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Glad to hear, and feel free to make videos.

    If there's any question about the rules, feel free to ask, and also note the conversation above your post, as it contains stuff that will likely result in slightly edited/simplified rules.

  8. #8

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Ireland

  9. #9

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    i would like to join as scotland please

  10. #10

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    I'm in.

    The wise coffin will play, it seems England.
    Visceraljouster will play Ireland.
    CommodusIV wants Wales, or Norway or the Barons' Alliance, so I'll take Scotland.

    However I need to study the rules as I haven't understood all yet after a first quick read.

    Cheers.

  11. #11

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Quote Originally Posted by ScotlandIsBest View Post
    i would like to join as scotland please
    Oh it seems we posted at the same time but your message appeared before mine so you get priority.

    You take Scotland and I'll take, in this case, Norway.

  12. #12

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Alright, status update for positions. It seems we are filled. I need some more posts to my name before the forum will let me do anything to the OP.

    England - The Wise Coffin
    Scotland - ScotlandIsBest (:o shocker)
    Ireland - visceraljouster
    Wales - CommodusIV
    Norway - Der Böse Wolf
    The Baron's Alliance - {reserved}

    Following post will contain more hotseat-relevant information. For now, we can consider recruitment closed.
    Last edited by CommodusIV; October 14, 2017 at 02:31 PM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    ^ Blimey, I am going to love it when I can edit. Anyways.

    > Please post any and all questions regarding rules. I can simplify or clarify them as necessary. There's better ways to write the mechanics, I'm sure, but I need more input on what exactly is unclear.
    > Our admin has suggested a mod/save setup to use at the start. Instead of straight vanilla, we will utilize the files found in the hotseat "The Five Kings of Britannia", which means a mod to create a more balanced starting environment. I'll work to secure a good download for it and include it in the opening post. It shouldn't be a complicated process to put the files together - it seems to be simply a matter of drag and drop to overwrite various existing files. I'd suggest creating a backup of the Britannia folder for this roleplay if you want to keep the vanilla structure together.
    > Assassins will not be able to assassinate royal family members, princes or kings.
    > The siege equipment rules may be tweaked for readability - again, please ask about specific points of confusion. The idea is to form a hotseat best for all of us, and part of that is having the rules clear to all and acceptable to everyone.

  14. #14
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    5,806

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    To install (into british_isles folder), use this link ( + hotfix - extract into british_isles/data/world/maps/campaign/imperial_camapign). It is a slightly edited version (with some changes to the map etc), but it should be compatible with the original verison, thus you dont need to download it if you already have britanny folder. Credits goes to saleska2 . I will check the files and maybe make some changes.

    I assume we can start roughly in 48 hours? In the meantime we can finish the rules etc

    The Barons will be played by LegendaryGiraffe
    Last edited by Jadli; October 14, 2017 at 02:46 PM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    I have the mod 'Ruke Britannia' installed and it is modfoldered.

    However If I in,stall the new files required for this HS, I'm afraid it will affect the mod, am I correct ?

  16. #16
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    5,806

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    well, you can use separate folders for each I suppose

  17. #17

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    You can simply copy the entire mod folder away into a safe place, set up a vanilla set of Britannia files, and then install into the fresh Britannia files.

  18. #18
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    5,806

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Well, actually you all download it, so you can see starting positions. If you dont like something, say so and we can change the scenario a bit. Right now it seems its pretty ready.

    EDIT

    I initially put wrong links there, so download again ( seems saleska has too many of them...)
    Last edited by Jadli; October 14, 2017 at 02:49 PM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    Quote Originally Posted by CommodusIV View Post
    You can simply copy the entire mod folder away into a safe place, set up a vanilla set of Britannia files, and then install into the fresh Britannia files.
    I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood what you mean.

    I have the vanilla Britannia in (C > M2TW > mods > british_isles

    The mod Rule Britannia is in (C > M2TW > mods.

    What do you suggest I do now ? Copy Rule Britannia to say, (D and then what ?
    And what happens to my campaign already stated on Rule Britannia if I move the files ?

    I also have questions regarding diplomacy if you please:

    Diplomacy
    An agreement can be considered official or unofficial. Official agreements are posted at the time of their presentation by the player who creates them, and can compose of either text in a player's post at the end of their turn, or of a screenshot(s) of the treaty as written ingame. It may also be followed by ingame diplomacy.
    Unofficial treaties can be made with no statement at all to the world at large; however, there is no true obligation to follow them.
    Official treaties may be made in one of the following formats, or created freeform and recorded in their entirety. While ingame penalties do not exist for not following them, you will lose your reliability if you break them (for the course of the game). Treaty types relative to the game are as follows:
    > Treaty of becoming a Vassal. Proposed by a conqueror, or even proposed before the conquest, that obligates the accepting faction to be in a military alliance with their master. The military assets of that faction are expected to attack their lord's enemies. While the following in-game related terms can be negotiated, a conqueror can demand up to: no more than 2 units in each settlement/5 in one turn's distance to a region in the case of recruitment, the surrender of all but two regions to the superior faction, the removal of all merchants from competing (vassal or overlord's) resources, military assistance against other factions, all under pain of a public declaration of the faction's destruction upon failure to meet the terms (should the council of nobles, aka the admin, consent to the action). Military actions, assassination attempts, and merchant acquisitions can be taken as an act of war and a breach of the treaty, and the ruling faction has no obligation to show the vassal any mercy for the duration of the game. This can be used in place for a Treaty of Surrender as a win condition, though it is not required. This is accompanied with the ingame faction becoming a Vassal.
    > Treaty of Surrender. The faction to accept this treaty becomes a vassal ingame, and is supposed to no longer participate in wars. This counts towards a faction's Win Condition. If the treaty is broken, you may be considered less reliable, and there is no obligation to spare you for this broken treaty. However, breaking the treaty will allow you to participate in war against your overlord and align with your former overlord's enemies, and no longer counts towards their Win Condition. Useful if you want another player to keep on going, but don't want them to be an all-out slave faction. Under this treaty, the surrendering faction may only attack its overlord's enemies, and hold no alliances with enemies of the

    Further treaties can be arranged between players. Players can agree to harsher variants of the above, but are not obliged to do so. Refusal of the first treaty is not grounds for destruction if the treaty contained items restricting gameplay beyond what has been allowed.

    In win conditions, three scales are used. Requiring a treaty of surrender is a third scale action, a treaty making a faction a vassal is a second scale action, and destruction is a third scale action. Typically, factions require one second scale action and two third scale actions. First and second scale factions can be used in place of second/third scale actions, and first can take place of third, if the enemy faction leaves you with no choice. Specific conditions are noted below - all you need to know here is that making someone a vassal instead of making them surrender is OK, and destruction of a faction legally is also OK in place of an otherwise standard winning condition.

    An agreement can be considered official or unofficial. Official agreements are posted at the time of their presentation by the player who creates them, and can compose of either text in a player's post at the end of their turn, or of a screenshot(s) of the treaty as written ingame. It may also be followed by ingame diplomacy.
    I think all public treaties should be followed ingame, otherwise it'll be difficult to follow what's happening if it's just posted in the forum. Also if it's not done officialy ingame, then the diplomats will be useless. Correct ?

    a conqueror can demand up to: no more than 2 units in each settlement/5 in one turn's distance to a region in the case of recruitment
    Can you explain this? A vassal may only have 2 units in each settlement ?
    I didn't get the second part.
    What about field armies ?

    Also, will the conqueror order his vassal where to attack, or is the vassal free to attack his master's ennemies wherever he wants to ?

    While the following in-game related terms can be negotiated, a conqueror can demand up to: no more than 2 units in each settlement/5 in one turn's distance to a region in the case of recruitment, the surrender of all but two regions to the superior faction, the removal of all merchants from competing (vassal or overlord's) resources, military assistance against other factions
    So the governor may not demand more from his vassal than:
    - no more than 2 units in each settlement/5 in one turn's distance to a region in the case of recruitment
    -
    the surrender of all but two regions to the superior faction
    -
    the removal of all merchants from competing (vassal or overlord's) resources
    -
    military assistance against other factions

    + other ingame related stuff like tribute. Correct ?

    This can be used in place for a Treaty of Surrender as a win condition, though it is not required


    Did you mean IN PLACE OF a Treaty of Surrender ?

    > Treaty of Surrender. The faction to accept this treaty becomes a vassal ingame, and is supposed to no longer participate in wars. This counts towards a faction's Win Condition. If the treaty is broken, you may be considered less reliable, and there is no obligation to spare you for this broken treaty. However, breaking the treaty will allow you to participate in war against your overlord and align with your former overlord's enemies, and no longer counts towards their Win Condition. Useful if you want another player to keep on going, but don't want them to be an all-out slave faction. Under this treaty, the surrendering faction may only attack its overlord's enemies, and hold no alliances with enemies of the


    So in a treaty to become a vassal, the vassal will have to do what the master imposes on him as described in your text, but the vassal can still hold alliances on his own
    (not with enemies of his master I suppose ?) and attack neutral factions ?
    While in a treaty of surrender the vassal can ONLY attack his master's enemies and nothing else ?
    What are the obligations imposed by the master in the case of a treaty of surrender in regards to merchants, territories...
    Also who proposes the treaty of surrender, the master or the conqueror or the soon to be conquered ?

    If the conqueror can propose a treaty of surrender, in which case scenario is it best to propose a treatr to become vassal vs a treaty for surrender ?

    In win conditions, three scales are used. Requiring a treaty of surrender is a third scale action, a treaty making a faction a vassal is a second scale action, and destruction is a third scale action. Typically, factions require one second scale action and two third scale actions. First and second scale factions can be used in place of second/third scale actions, and first can take place of third, if the enemy faction leaves you with no choice. Specific conditions are noted below - all you need to know here is that making someone a vassal instead of making them surrender is OK, and destruction of a faction legally is also OK in place of an otherwise standard winning condition


    What is a first scale condition then ?

    Norway
    > Must have either England or Scotland completely subjugated as a vassal, and either Wales or Ireland subject to a Treaty of Surrender.


    Subjugated or destroyed, correct ?

  20. #20

    Default Re: [HS] [RP] Britannia: The Isles of Chaos [Vanilla, Britannia Campaign]

    One more question: are the heroic victories rule also applicable to naval battles ?

Page 1 of 43 123456789101126 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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