[Britannia Expansion - Custom Submod] The Isles of Chaos (Roleplay Hotseat)

Yes, they always are. If you reload enough you can sink 5 ships with 1 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood what you mean.

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

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

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

---

I haven't used Rule Britannia, so if that mod installs in a separate directory from the main campaign, you don't need to do anything with it and you can safely ignore me on that point. If your setup of this hotseat's mod prompts for any overwrites, then I would back up whatever is being overwritten. Rule Britannia being in a different directory means you don't need to back it up. If you did copy it out/move it, you could simply put the files back in their original place, and nothing would change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

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 ?

---

Factions surrendering/becoming a vassal can be kept track of in the OP of this thread. That said, both of the main actions can be sealed by ingame agreements. Becoming a vassal is followed by being a vassal ingame and using the diplomats to secure the agreement, and having someone surrender can be secured ingame with either an alliance (with the terms dictated and posted in the thread) or an ingame vassal agreement if you prefer. The mechanics of that are somewhat up to the players. What is mentioned in the original post of the thread serves to create limitations for how much you can demand from a player you have otherwise defeated. Any other agreements can be proposed and agreed upon ingame. However, agreements of the types I mentioned are the types that result in the securing of a win condition.

We could have a document/small wiki up to keep track of officially posted agreements for everyone's reference, that can be updated based on what is posted in the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

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 ?

---

You can specify that your vassal can only have two units in a settlement, and up to 5 units in surrounding areas. Armies would be presumably deployed against the ruling faction's enemies.

While a ruling faction can demand that a vassal attack his enemies, the specifics of that are up to interpretation. A vassal can coordinate with the ruling faction, or launch a freeform invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

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 ?

---

Yes. Other things can be agreed upon, but you cannot destroy a faction for refusing harsher terms. The harshest ingame terms you can place on another player's gameplay are the ones in that list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

Did you mean IN PLACE OF a Treaty of Surrender ?

---

Think of a Treaty of Surrender as the "least you can do". You have to at least make the enemy concede to your power. You can also completely make them a vassal or legally destroy them, and it will count in the same place for your win condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

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 ?

---

Yes. A vassal can't make friends with its ruler's enemies, but it can attack other factions - so long as they're not aligned or at least friendly with the ruling faction, naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

While in a treaty of surrender the vassal can ONLY attack his master's enemies and nothing else ?

---

Aye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

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 ?

---

Surrender is more of a freeform treaty up to player determination on a case by case basis, one that may need some negotiation between factions. Typically, the terms are somewhat favorable to the faction being surrendered to, as that faction is in a position of being too powerful to oppose. Typically, surrender is demanded, though it's possible to be offered (with the stipulation that it can only be offered when your faction appears to have no options of resistance, and not in a case where you can still resist).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

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 ?

---

Surrender is an acknowledgement that the other faction is better, and still allows the surrendered faction many options. You could demand surrender and then, if you trust the other king, work on achieving other objectives. You take a vassal when you want to all but eliminate an enemy from the game, and make them so weak that all they can do is consent to your demands to aid them, and the restrictions that come from being a vassal. One can be more loosely defined than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

What is a first scale condition then ?

---

Legally destroying another faction, ie, you make terms for them to be your complete vassal, but they refuse, and so you are able at that point to simply destroy them. Or they break a treaty of surrender, which also allows you to crush them without mercy from the game map, and thus complete a "first scale condition".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

Subjugated or destroyed, correct ?

---

First create terms for them to be your vassal, and if they refuse, the window is clear to destroy them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

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

---

Yes, and Ramble's post gives good logic why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommodusIV

Think of a Treaty of Surrender as the "least you can do". You have to at least make the enemy concede to your power. You can also completely make them a vassal or legally destroy them, and it will count in the same place for your win condition.



Yes. A vassal can't make friends with its ruler's enemies, but it can attack other factions - so long as they're not aligned or at least friendly with the ruling faction, naturally.



Aye.


Surrender is more of a freeform treaty up to player determination on a case by case basis, one that may need some negotiation between factions. Typically, the terms are somewhat favorable to the faction being surrendered to, as that faction is in a position of being too powerful to oppose. Typically, surrender is demanded, though it's possible to be offered (with the stipulation that it can only be offered when your faction appears to have no options of resistance, and not in a case where you can still resist).



Surrender is an acknowledgement that the other faction is better, and still allows the surrendered faction many options. You could demand surrender and then, if you trust the other king, work on achieving other objectives. You take a vassal when you want to all but eliminate an enemy from the game, and make them so weak that all they can do is consent to your demands to aid them, and the restrictions that come from being a vassal. One can be more loosely defined than the other.

---

Something is contradictory here.
You say a Treaty of surrender is the least you can offer, however it limits the loser to ONLY attacking the master's ennemies and nothing else, while the treaty of vassal, which is the ultimate defeat before annihilation, gives the vassal freedom to attack neutral factions plus aiding his liege.

Did I miss something here ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

Something is contradictory here.
You say a Treaty of surrender is the least you can offer, however it limits the loser to ONLY attacking the master's ennemies and nothing else, while the treaty of vassal, which is the ultimate defeat before annihilation, gives the vassal freedom to attack neutral factions plus aiding his liege.

Did I miss something here ?

---

I didn't go too far into the roles of neutral factions in the original rules. Truth be told, I somewhat wanted to leave that to interpretation in treaties.

If I'm going by the scale system, being a vassal entails the conditions of a treaty of surrender + the conditions of being a vassal. I could make the rules specific and either explicitly allow or disallow attack of neutral factions without the permission of the ruling/surrendered to faction.

Which would you prefer? There's a possibility for exploit if attacking a neutral faction did something to botch diplomacy, on the other hand, it strikes me as a rather minor point. As such, I don't have a very strong opinion on that detail one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommodusIV

I didn't go too far into the roles of neutral factions in the original rules. Truth be told, I somewhat wanted to leave that to interpretation in treaties.

If I'm going by the scale system, being a vassal entails the conditions of a treaty of surrender + the conditions of being a vassal. I could make the rules specific and either explicitly allow or disallow attack of neutral factions without the permission of the ruling/surrendered to faction.

Which would you prefer? There's a possibility for exploit if attacking a neutral faction did something to botch diplomacy, on the other hand, it strikes me as a rather minor point. As such, I don't have a very strong opinion on that detail one way or another.

---

Thanks for replying to my numerous questions, its just that I want to maje sure to understand the rules before starting.
So until other player put in their input, I have another question which is due to my novelty factor in HS:

What prevents any player from scouting the whole map before each of his turn ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

Thanks for replying to my numerous questions, its just that I want to maje sure to understand the rules before starting.
So until other player put in their input, I have another question which is due to my novelty factor in HS:

What prevents any player from scouting the whole map before each of his turn ?

---

Scouting the map in what way? Cheats should be disabled, and I'm aware of no exploits that would allow someone to circumvent that/use an agent to have infinite movement points.

And as for questions, that is perfectly fine, and even necessary - ironing everything out now is quite useful later in the event of any issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommodusIV

Scouting the map in what way? Cheats should be disabled, and I'm aware of no exploits that would allow someone to circumvent that/use an agent to have infinite movement points.

And as for questions, that is perfectly fine, and even necessary - ironing everything out now is quite useful later in the event of any issue.

---

Yea you're right, forgot that the console is disabled.

Regarding the modified map, I think it's good, at least for Norway. Don't know what the other players think of their respective starting positions.

It seems balanced enough to me. I'd keep a weary eye on the Irish if I was anyone else, for the moment the English are driven out, that faction will be a mysterious land where great armies rise to sweep across the nearest accessible target...

...I'm Wales and accessible, so I should certainly keep a weary eye. >.>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommodusIV

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.

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.

---

A couple more questions:

Can you please explain what do you mean by
10> settlement in a war zone ? Does it mean if it's under siege or if there an attacking army in the province ?
11> what do you mean "does not border a neutral or enemy faction"? So in which case can a building be destroyed ? Only if within ones realm bordered by own provinces or surrounded by allies ?

As for Norway victory conditions: Is Ireland considered an "island" of the British Isles? >> Must have all islands in the British Isles

And by mainland, do you mean Scotland/England or also Ireland ?

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommodusIV

It seems balanced enough to me. I'd keep a weary eye on the Irish if I was anyone else, for the moment the English are driven out, that faction will be a mysterious land where great armies rise to sweep across the nearest accessible target...

...I'm Wales and accessible, so I should certainly keep a weary eye. >.>

---

Yea thought the same. Ireland has the easiest ride it seems if the English don't reinforce there, and the Welsh seem pretty vulnerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

A couple more questions:

Can you please explain what do you mean by
10> settlement in a war zone ? Does it mean if it's under siege or if there an attacking army in the province ?
11> what do you mean "does not border a neutral or enemy faction"? So in which case can a building be destroyed ? Only if within ones realm bordered by own provinces or surrounded by allies ?

As for Norway victory conditions: Is Ireland considered an "island" of the British Isles? >> Must have all islands in the British Isles

And by mainland, do you mean Scotland/England or also Ireland ?

Cheers.

---

I based rule 10 off a thread that proposed common rules to be found for matches on TWC. I'm not entirely sure what the logic behind it is, or how it is enforced beyond interpreting it as being similar to rule 11. I'll ask the admin about it. It probably has viable reasoning behind it, but I'm not sure what it is upon reviewing it myself, and when I figure it out I'll be sure to clarify it in the OP.

Rule 11 means you can only have allies or your own settlements bordering a territory before blowing up buildings in it, as a means to help discourage taking out buildings in a settlement when it is in potential risk of being captured. Scorched earth is a tactic in some contexts, but I don't recall any incidents in the British Isles where someone literally destroyed towns to stop other factions from getting them.

In the future, it's a rule I'd revisit, possibly to add something along the lines of only allowing one building to be taken down per turn or some such. Especially in other campaigns where scorched earth may be a more viable, if not extremely harsh, strategy.

Islands are anything that isn't Britain/the island of Ireland. Basically, the small, 1-2 settlement regions surrounded by water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommodusIV

I based rule 10 off a thread that proposed common rules to be found for matches on TWC. I'm not entirely sure what the logic behind it is, or how it is enforced beyond interpreting it as being similar to rule 11. I'll ask the admin about it. It probably has viable reasoning behind it, but I'm not sure what it is upon reviewing it myself, and when I figure it out I'll be sure to clarify it in the OP.

Rule 11 means you can only have allies or your own settlements bordering a territory before blowing up buildings in it, as a means to help discourage taking out buildings in a settlement when it is in potential risk of being captured. Scorched earth is a tactic in some contexts, but I don't recall any incidents in the British Isles where someone literally destroyed towns to stop other factions from getting them.

In the future, it's a rule I'd revisit, possibly to add something along the lines of only allowing one building to be taken down per turn or some such. Especially in other campaigns where scorched earth may be a more viable, if not extremely harsh, strategy.

Islands are anything that isn't Britain/the island of Ireland. Basically, the small, 1-2 settlement regions surrounded by water.

---

Quote:

---

Norway

> 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.

---

And by mainland, do you also mean Ireland or just England/Scotland ?

Mainland would include Ireland. I should probably edit in a clarification on that count at some point.

LegendaryGiraffe reporting for duty.

Good to see ya, and welcome aboard.

In regards to rule 10: A settlement in a warzone is a settlement bordered by territories hostile to your own (assuming you're doing the gifting) faction.

Random questions:

- Is it allowed to put armies in navies inside a port to protect them?
- Is it allowed to use more than one spy to attain the 60% mark in order to open the gates?
- Is blockading a port on our first turn considered as an attack on another player?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Böse Wolf

Random questions:

- Is it allowed to put armies in navies inside a port to protect them?
- Is it allowed to use more than one spy to attain the 60% mark in order to open the gates?
- Is blockading a port on our first turn considered as an attack on another player?

---

- I consider armies in navies inside ports for protection a form of exploit, but I don't believe it's explicitly noted in the rules. I'll add it.
- Yes, multiple spies fine.
- Yes, any act that would declare war is an attack on another player, and besieging a port is certainly an act of war.

1) No
2) You cant combine their percenatages. You can send more but it doesnt change much
3) Yes. As well as as entering their lands

EDIT Seems we responded in the same time :tongue: