Yet another Hotseat

**ljomx** · October 23, 2011, 02:43 PM

Sorry to hear you can't be game leader ariobarzanes1388.

@ Danscall Happy to see you join the game. I don't know how you play but I think we have to put some sort of restriction. There is absolutely no way Tully can survive if riverrun, raventree and saltpans get taken before tullys 2nd turn (Guaranteed 100% of the time no matter what happens/who's playing) I don't know if that's what you would do but it really is what anybody playing the lannisters should do. I think everyone here would agree that there is no way for tullys to even defend against that.

The only real alliance I think should stay at least for a couple of turns is stark-tully. No alliance means roose bolton is free to split armies and take twins and seaguard every-time.

We should take a couple of days to confirm everybody who is playing, discuss victory conditions (team/single) and other stuff. And yeah we can probably take this time to form alliances.

**Danscall** · October 23, 2011, 02:50 PM

@ Danscall Happy to see you join the game. I don't know how you play but I think we have to put some sort of restriction. There is absolutely no way Tully can survive if riverrun, raventree and saltpans get taken before tullys 2nd turn (Guaranteed 100% of the time no matter what happens/who's playing) I don't know if that's what you would do but it really is what anybody playing the lannisters should do. I think everyone here would agree that there is no way for tullys to even defend against that.

*shrugs*. If we go by the Fri 28th start, we've got 5 days to work out something that's agreeable for everyone, so it shouldn't be a problem. What sort of restrictions do you have in mind?

The only real alliance I think should stay at least for a couple of turns is stark-tully. No alliance means roose bolton is free to split armies and take twins and seaguard every-time.

Ok, this is actually a fair point, a Stark betrayal of the Tully's would screw them pretty bad.

**Enferfeu** · October 23, 2011, 03:08 PM

Yeah, I agree haha,
So here are the rules I think we should roll with

Lets say we have a universal 2 turns of peace
I think that for the first 20 turns the original alliances (Stark/Tully, Trell/Renly, Lannister/Joffery) must be in effect. Afterwards anything goes.
Secret alliances are a go, but they can not go against the bonded alliances (or so we say)
All alliances can end in betrayal but a post most go up declaring the betrayal on the forums, just so we know who is a right bastard.
Secret alliance betrayals can not be posted, as they were secret.
After each battle a post must go up on this thread telling who won and who died. (Troop # optional)
Team wins are allowed, victory conditions to be discussed later
assassinations are allowed
bribing is allowed
assassinations and bribing of real life players are ~~allowed~~ not permitted

What do you think?

**Heart of Madness** · October 23, 2011, 03:02 PM

I can lead this game.

**ljomx** · October 23, 2011, 03:06 PM

I was thinking just 1 turn, no siege of riverrun and maybe raventree. I think it should be fair.

**Heart of Madness** · October 23, 2011, 03:14 PM

Isn't the entire point of TW to create an alternate history?

**Danscall** · October 23, 2011, 03:22 PM

I agree with Heart of Madness, I see no reason to have everyone maintain the original alliances, so I vote no to that one.

I guess I would accept a preliminary peace of 2 turns.

I also vote no for the publishing of betrayals and battle results. I'd much rather foster a situation in which information has to be obtained at the cost of gold or outriders, and deception about alliances or victories is possible.

I agree that if 2 players agree to share victory their team wins.

I think basically anything goes for 'diplomacy'. Hostages, assassinations,bribery and so on. In game, obviously :-p

**Meshakhad** · October 23, 2011, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Danscall

I agree with Heart of Madness, I see no reason to have everyone maintain the original alliances, so I vote no to that one.

I guess I would accept a preliminary peace of 2 turns.

I also vote no for the publishing of betrayals and battle results. I'd much rather foster a situation in which information has to be obtained at the cost of gold or outriders, and deception about alliances or victories is possible.

I agree that if 2 players agree to share victory their team wins.

I think basically anything goes for 'diplomacy'. Hostages, assassinations,bribery and so on. In game, obviously :-p

I've got ten bucks for anyone who wishes to swear fealty to me!

**ljomx** · October 23, 2011, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Meshakhad

I've got ten bucks for anyone who wishes to swear fealty to me!

$15 and a trade of orkmont for evenfall hall and you got a deal.

I don't think anything is too restricting. The only faction I am concerned about is Tully. If the Lannisters weren't the 1st faction to go I wouldn't change anything.

I wanted to destroy all alliances but again Tullys might get screwed. I guess a 2 turn peace between starks/tullys needed.

Limit on stannis shadow assassinations?

Harder victory conditions for team victory?

**Danscall** · October 23, 2011, 04:14 PM

Harder victory conditions for teams yes. Maybe just have both their traditional enemies on the chop list or something. As to stannis and his shadows, I've never played that faction so I don't know how effective they are and whether they merit restrictions. I disagree with having people act like their faction leader would; let's have it as open as possible.

**Dux** · October 23, 2011, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by ljomx

Limit on stannis shadow assassinations?

Harder victory conditions for team victory?

I agree with these two points. Stannis shadow assassins are just to powerful, I even think that assassins as a whole should be banned, you can't recruit them anyway in the normal way.
Team victory should be a lot harder, such as conquer entire Westeros with your team.

About the Tully position: Tully are going to have a hard time in the beginning yes, but with some political and diplomatic skills it can be pulled off. They just need a lot of allies.

Does any of you have any experience leading or playing a hotseat game? If so then he should lead the game.

Also, don't you guys think five days is to long? Some guys might forget they even signed up for this. I think we should start on wednesday.

**StannisBaratheon** · October 23, 2011, 03:15 PM

Too many rules for the game of thrones

**Pinkie Pie** · October 23, 2011, 04:07 PM

My victory Conditions.
1: defeat the Starks.
2: defeat the greyjoys.
3: Defeat Stannis baratheon.
4: Defeat Renly Baratheon.
5: Control King's Landing.
6: Maintain the Kings peace (End all wars for 10 turns).

I think that people should at least act like their characters would to make it more interesting.

**Pinkie Pie** · October 23, 2011, 04:20 PM

Obviously you do not have to stick rigidly to the characters but I do not think that the Lanisters would turn around and atack King's Landing for no reason (From what i have read family is pretty darn important to Tywin).

**ljomx** · October 23, 2011, 04:50 PM

@martin616 Yes having seperate victory conditions would be fun but I think we should have universal victory conditions. I was thinking x amount of territories and hold kings landing for like 5-10 turns. Team victory (max 2 factions) needs more territories/hold kl longer. Also if you take kl you must publicly declare any sort of team victory.

I think both Danscall and Heart of Madness have volunteered to be team leader so I would just let them decide who wants it. The first thing we should do is confirm the ppl who are listed to play are still in.

**ariobarzanes1388** · October 23, 2011, 05:11 PM

So Heart of Madness and Danscall, you two negotiate who will be the game master.
As for victory conditions, version 1 is likely to be released before chrismas so we can play till 1 comes out and see who is the winner based on territories. after one is out we can play the same hotseat with the same people on V1 if everything goes well. Oh and the tullys need not worry, I am a fan of keeping lore so I will not betray them what so ever

**Danscall** · October 23, 2011, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by ariobarzanes1388

version 1 is likely to be released before chrismas

SQUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

I mean, yeah. Hearts, I'm just sort of ambivalent about the role, happy to do it if nobody else particularly wants to. So if you like its all yours.

**Heart of Madness** · October 23, 2011, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by ariobarzanes1388

As for victory conditions, version 1 is likely to be released before chrismas

Where did you hear this? The mod is only about 70% done.

I doubt you'll see it before Christmas.

I say there be no respites at the start. If I was playing the Lannisters, I would lose all chance of winning the Riverlands at the very start and only be slowly killing myself. Whoever is playing as the Tullys, you better get your ass up to the Twins and Seagard.

**ariobarzanes1388** · October 23, 2011, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Heart of Madness

Where did you hear this? The mod is only about 70% done.

I doubt you'll see it before Christmas.

I say there be no respites at the start. If I was playing the Lannisters, I would lose all chance of winning the Riverlands at the very start and only be slowly killing myself. Whoever is playing as the Tullys, you better get your ass up to the Twins and Seagard.

I think I heard Toho say it once but I ain't sure.

I am completely against assassination because it is a way of cheating, Stannis can kill Joff and house Joffery either needs to adopt which is lame or it will be destroyed when Stannis assassinates Tommen. so it is pure insanity if we have assassins enabled.

**Toho** · October 23, 2011, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Toho

its been in construction for a while but the new team, us, took over less than a year ago i believe. personally i only joined around September but in short this is how it is going on for me and practically everybody else in the team and the modding community.

I have finished X but this and this bother me...lets work on it further...(3 day job now a 3 week job)...yey its finished!

now imagine this for everything we are doing + Real Life + Bugs or data loss + restarting/improving finished work means that we do not know how long it will take until release.

my best guess is June 2012 but don't quote me on it.

AND

Originally Posted by Kiliç Alì

I think June is still too optimistic. October or even december would be more realistic, but again, don't quote me neither. My feeling is that lot of stuff has been done, but there is still lot of work to do, and this assumed there will be no "revolutions" such as the idea of adding new factions\settlements\ or having a complete new map or a different tpy system. Or, a team meber decides one morning to give up with modding. Or several noobs asking for release date make him leave TWC with anger. This is not your case, luckily.

But be sure we all want this to be finished before 31\12\2012