So before we start, what is the final word on kingships/destroying buildings?
So before we start, what is the final word on kingships/destroying buildings?
It worked for me. The starting positions have been altered considerably for the Lannisters, Tully's, Starks, Tyrrels, and Renly.
No destroying buildings in a castle under siege.
You can declare kingship in the thread without paying for it, but you are still encouraged to declare in-game.
Commanding House Stark of Winterfell in This Is A Hotseat and in The requested hotseat
Commanding House Lannister of Casterly Rock in Yet again another hotseat
Commanding House Tully of Riverrun in New Enhanced Hotseat
Commanding House Tyrell of Highgarden in This Is Most Definitely A Hotseat
Commanding House Greyjoy of Pyke in War Of The Throne
Commanding House Arryn of the Eyrie in Westeros At War
Well what happens if Tyrell/Martell/Arryn/Lannister/Tully want to be kings? The game doesn't allow it but the player should be able to.
Also are we using the updated .53 file? Don't see it as too much of a change if we have 1 turn peace.
I think that was just Dansall's test. I started a new game and they weren't sieged.
That's the point. There should be no security as this is the game of thrones. You have to build trust overtime, be it through giving $$,castles, screenshots of troop movements etc. If you want to ally with someone you better damn well trust them.
Last edited by HannibalExMachina; December 01, 2011 at 04:31 PM.
Also I know in YAH most of the agreements came with some sort of penalty for breaking. (eg. I ally with you, we can't attack, if someone does lose 3 turns etc) I feel this takes away some of the fun out of the game. This should only be used in peace treaties and not alliances.
Not knowing who your friend/enemies are is an exciting part of the game and when you know that your ally will be punished if he betrays it takes away that. Wouldn't it be more fun/exciting if someone says they are your ally but then stabs you in the back?
It adds depth to the game. If a faction helps you out maybe you trust them a little more than another. If somebody has a history of betraying then most factions won't be so quick to think they are on their side.
well, although true, I like the security the alliance deals gives. Players can always disagree with these deals of course.
You're right.
I say exceptions only for peace treaties (can't sign peace then attack in like 3 turns once the guy turns their back), marriage alliances (what would be the point of these then), and forced/voluntary vassalage (a king really shouldn't be able to attack their bannerman who aren't revolting)
Hey can anyone pass a link that works for the menu.rar to play a hotseat the file I was trying to download was deleted
afaik the new enhanced already has it.
Well that a good thing
save works for me, i can start any time.
Yeah folks the castles starting beseiged is just me messing around, it doesn't reflect the real start positions. Glad we can all import it. Sounds like it's all go!
Regarding alliances; I think that it's up to Meshakad really. This is his hotseat; in the YAH one I'm happy to enforce turn losses if alliances that contain those terms are broken, but we can always play it differently here.
I'd like to raise this point again; screenshots. I think screenshots should only ever be provided to your allies; people whom would have their own soldiers in your armies who can corroborate your claims. Other than that; no screenshots. That means if I want to persuade someone they really should deal with me because I'm about to crush their neighbour, it's much less certain.
The save isnt right but i think i found a solution
The cause is because either the normal campaing nor this goes i will to reinstall enchanced
not sure i understand, but you need the updated enhanced in every case.
are saves in the other 0.53 hotseat gonna be compatible with the new enhanced submod?
A Time For Wolves...
the testfile can be loaded with the old version, not sure if theres other problems though,