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

[paladinbob123]

Waylander had little trouble posing as a english diplomat of the crown, reaching out to his the Scottish diplomat near Lincoln who jumped at the news of possible negotiation with england, but in their meeting in the street, nobody saw the deft blade, that strove lightning quick into the diplomats ribs. The Scottish diplomat had only time to flee, unnoticed by the city folk , in the day to day bustle, back to his respite at the inn, where he succumbed to his wounds. laving Scotland without a negotiator close to the english throne.



To some degree this event was a last minute action bought about from the northern rebels who again made contact with the master assassin , for they wished to finally force the issue with duke Godwin who was away to the north helping the scottish resist the irish/welsh invasion , and so the northern shire rebels moved to severe any communication between the scottish and the english throne, as they went about their action.



------------------



Lord Godwine lewis was finally happy with the buildup of supplies , moved his army forward at a quick speed , departing from Nottingham[leaving it for the english throne]arriving at Pontefract castle , hoping his spies would open the gate, in the face of the 16 scottish knights that patrolled it, but he was to be disappointed, as those knights were certainly disciplined and allowed no access to the gatehouse. So when he arrived , besieged it, whilst bringing up siege artillery in the rear. Now he thought, that the Duke would have to make a decision of what to do...for they were certain to take the castle early in the next season.

-----------------



Duke Godwin received the reports from the scottish king, and from his own advisers that the northern shires rebels had finally maken their move at Pontefract castle, just a hop, skip and a jump from York , which in his mind, must not fall..so he began to write a reply to his Scottish king overlord and about what to do with the issue. To solidify his rear, he sent a general and a spare mercenary knight company to reinforce York where he hoped the additionally cavalry would quell the fears of the garrison in York and his southern estates.

He gave the garrison commanders the options to move out attack the northern shires forces on the next season if they thought they would have the upper hand...

{Thus for next turn i will make a scenario battle to what will be known as the "Battle at Pontfract castle" where the Scottish shires forces from York will attack the northern shire rebels...and the viewers can determine the battle [at least the first one to record a result}

Turn to England

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9uh5mxs9i...nd_84.sav?dl=0

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

{Thus for next turn i will make a scenario battle to what will be known as the "Battle at Pontfract castle" where the Scottish shires forces from York will attack the northern shire rebels...and the viewers can determine the battle [at least the first one to record a result}

What is this, exactly? Are you presenting the scenario and troops involved, and other members will make a play by play of the engagement?

[paladinbob123]

What is this, exactly? Are you presenting the scenario and troops involved, and other members will make a play by play of the engagement?

i will make a scenario with the forces involved..in a battle scenario for viewers to play to resolve the sitation with the first result in..[by the viewers] taken as the result of the action[as most of the forces are from both sides of my faction - scottish shires...and the northern shire rebels] ..if of course if i dont get a result from the viewers...then i will put it out to the players if they want to play[if they have time] and finally if not taken up..me and the admin will come up with a rough idea of the supposed battle results...and the resulting forces removed from both sides of the barons alliances forces...

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Would it be simplifying the explanation if I said this basically boils down to 'members who want to play this out (based on the scenario you present) and post results can do so, first come first serve'? I'm not sure what/why the distinction is between viewers and players unless you mean to have third party players handle it before then moving to hotseat members and then to the admin. I could find a few folks not currently in the hotseat who would have a casual air of roleplay and roughly even capabilities if that's what you're looking for, possibly with video footage from one or both parties to be dramatized at some point.

[Der Böse Wolf]

Nice idea, but how can you be sure that the viewers who play the battle do it in fairness without favouring one side?

[paladinbob123]

Would it be simplifying the explanation if I said this basically boils down to 'members who want to play this out (based on the scenario you present) and post results can do so, first come first serve'? I'm not sure what/why the distinction is between viewers and players unless you mean to have third party players handle it before then moving to hotseat members and then to the admin. I could find a few folks not currently in the hotseat who would have a casual air of roleplay and roughly even capabilities if that's what you're looking for, possibly with video footage from one or both parties to be dramatized at some point.

yeah that would be fine....to be honest its just a way of a few viewers having a little more fun and involvement in this RP hotseat sitation so they can get more involvement..so the more input the better , i would say

[paladinbob123]

Nice idea, but how can you be sure that the viewers who play the battle do it in fairness without favouring one side?

in any battle sitation there is uncertaintity...besides each forces have different formations,types of units and situations and aims....the scottish shires have the advance of a castle but there relieving forces is mainly spear miltia with a few cavalry...where the northern shires have a more variety in troop types but less of them ...and it also depends on the what player gets what forces...some players excell with cav others dont...so its always a mixed bag, when you are handled a army where you have to get the best out of it..

although to give some balancing i suppose i will add a few rules ,something like :-

a] if the scottish shires kill all the generals bodyguard..the northern shires army rebels rout... etc

but ultimately some battles [and this will be one of them]..ultimately depends on who plays well on the day and for what side...and that like most battles , is indeed in the lap of the gods and is unpredictable for all [winks]

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

yeah that would be fine....to be honest its just a way of a few viewers having a little more fun and involvement in this RP hotseat sitation so they can get more involvement..so the more input the better , i would say

I've no issue with that at all - indeed, it has precedence and would be in the spirit of the hotseat for players to resolve the conflict in such a way between themselves. To do this internally for a well developed inside conflict is no trouble in my mind, and I believe such internal affairs (until they involve another player) can and should be resolved as you see fit as long as you're clear about what you're doing when it takes time. I would say that for this to work, it is optimal to have the idea more defined before pitching it at the tail end of your turn, as we will have to discuss fair assembly and resolution. Such things are at their fairest when structured and proposed as such while taking suggestions to adapt something that is defined, rather than an open 'hey, wanna have a duel'. There's not a great number of live battle players outside this hotseat that have shown any signs of looking in, and the only member who's made himself known with interest is Aexodus.

So, I suppose I'm suggesting more clarity and substance to what you propose (come up with the idea and pitch it - random, seemingly changeable rules is not necessarily encouraging - as a full thing that is still open to change).

Much of the battle can/should be defined by the spirit of the players involved (for example, traits in battle can be massive style influences for those that have attention to detail) and the skill of those involved. Command stars can easily excuse a disparity, even if I call that simple compared to a more point-by-point judgement of traits. If the generals are equal, more balance would surely be desired for maximum immersion.

IIRC, the captain can be defined as a solid character and someone to protect at all costs - killing his entire unit shouldn't necessarily be required to kill him, although some sportsmanship is necessary to avoid sniping and abusing a GB too heavily.

If anyone wishes to express interest in this resolution, that would be excellent; some standards or conditions may be desired to avoid a clearly botched matchup that doesn't fit the settings however, or at least to draw in someone who isn't necessarily good at battles but still seeks to participate so a tryhard isn't matched with someone who likes the roleplay element. It is of course up to you, as your affair to manage, and these are just suggestions.

There's a tool available in certain circles to translate campaign battles to multiplayer battles, but I'm not sure if it works for a hotseat as far along as this, for a siege, and within the same faction. It would be a custom scenario beyond the scope of the tool. I might still check with Jadli to see what is possible here.

[paladinbob123]

I've no issue with that at all - indeed, it has precedence and would be in the spirit of the hotseat for players to resolve the conflict in such a way between themselves. To do this internally for a well developed inside conflict is no trouble in my mind, and I believe such internal affairs (until they involve another player) can and should be resolved as you see fit as long as you're clear about what you're doing when it takes time. I would say that for this to work, it is optimal to have the idea more defined before pitching it at the tail end of your turn, as we will have to discuss fair assembly and resolution. Such things are at their fairest when structured and proposed as such while taking suggestions to adapt something that is defined, rather than an open 'hey, wanna have a duel'. There's not a great number of live battle players outside this hotseat that have shown any signs of looking in, and the only member who's made himself known with interest is Aexodus.

So, I suppose I'm suggesting more clarity and substance to what you propose (come up with the idea and pitch it - random, seemingly changeable rules is not necessarily encouraging - as a full thing that is still open to change).

Much of the battle can/should be defined by the spirit of the players involved (for example, traits in battle can be massive style influences for those that have attention to detail) and the skill of those involved. Command stars can easily excuse a disparity, even if I call that simple compared to a more point-by-point judgement of traits. If the generals are equal, more balance would surely be desired for maximum immersion.

IIRC, the captain can be defined as a solid character and someone to protect at all costs - killing his entire unit shouldn't necessarily be required to kill him, although some sportsmanship is necessary to avoid sniping and abusing a GB too heavily.

If anyone wishes to express interest in this resolution, that would be excellent; some standards or conditions may be desired to avoid a clearly botched matchup that doesn't fit the settings however, or at least to draw in someone who isn't necessarily good at battles but still seeks to participate so a tryhard isn't matched with someone who likes the roleplay element. It is of course up to you, as your affair to manage, and these are just suggestions.

There's a tool available in certain circles to translate campaign battles to multiplayer battles, but I'm not sure if it works for a hotseat as far along as this, for a siege, and within the same faction. It would be a custom scenario beyond the scope of the tool. I might still check with Jadli to see what is possible here.

As you say..but equally giving too many rules to a battle does detrack most players from playing things..i for one , am always up for extra rules to make a battle more "livelike" but when some players are faced with a catalogue of rules,they will not engage with it..and then others have problems arguing about premade rules during the scenario does lead...to conflict...that said,you do advise talking to jadli..and perhaps he might decide to just auto-resolve things internally....making things easier for all [but of course without any fun for those outside the hotseat ...but as you say ....none might have taken it that option up anyways]

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

As you say..but equally giving too many rules to a battle does detrack most players from playing things..i for one , am always up for extra rules to make a battle more "livelike" but when some players are faced with a catalogue of rules,they will not engage with it..and then others have problems arguing about premade rules during the scenario does lead...to conflict...that said,you do advise talking to jadli..and perhaps he might decide to just auto-resolve things internally....making things easier for all [but of course without any fun for those outside the hotseat ...but as you say ....none might have taken it that option up anyways]

I'm not advocating for rule count so much as just having the structure of what you're trying a bit more clear and prominent; perhaps posting something in the tavern or another section might be of interest. We can wait a bit to see if people take it up as it is, but if not, it may be worth considering a few further steps before boiling it down to autoresolve.

[Turkafinwë]

England

The bells were ringing and London was abuzz with excitement. Out of the cathedral walked Alisone Stratford, daughter of the late Philip Stratford, arms locked with her husband, Alfred Mantle. Since the death of Philip in the war with the then still United Celtic Alliance, the Stratfords had lived with hardships. At the behest of Lord Protecor Lewes the family had moved to London where they were given estates to live on. Philip had served King Edmund impeccably and had been at the basis of many pivotal victories due to his selflessness and great courage. Afterwards when Lewes had gained the title of Lord Protector it was Stratford who had captured Chester from the invading Irish. Stratford had fought hard in the Anglo-Celt war in command of the northern force while Lewes defended in the south. It was Stratford who bravely fell defending in Chester against the Welsh, betraying the English in a hour of uncertainty, a black day in England's history. Never forgotten, never forgiven. For his service and sacrifice the Stratfords had been granted a pension, funded by the Crown.

Walking beside Alisone was her only sibling, Udeline and after her, Stratfords widow walked, a smile on her face for the first time since her husband's death. Udeline would be eligable for marriage soon and when she was married off she would be able to rest easy knowing her offspring would be cared for. Also present was Prince John, the son of the late King Geiles. Now a strong growing boy of eleven, he had overlooked the marriage ceremony while Lord Protector Lewes was in the north encamped in his warcamp.

The storm would break loose very soon.

Ireland: http://www.mediafire.com/file/wwvk4y...nd_84.sav/file

[Jadli]

Im kinda getting lost in whats the issue, could someone try to explain it to me in not so roleplayish way?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Im kinda getting lost in whats the issue, could someone try to explain it to me in not so roleplayish way?

Pbob would like two observers to play on either side of a battle he's arranged within his own faction.

[Jadli]

Which sounds cool. However, I got a feeling the rest of you guys is not entirely content with that?

[paladinbob123]

i thought it would be a great idea to reolve the problem of having two of my factions[within myfaction fighting]...but am withdrawing from the idea..i am just happy now with just a rough idea of a result [via a manually autoresolve report from jadlis calculations or rough idea] from the forces with a rough idea of who won from jadli would be fine, [as both factions are both mine so they cant be autoresolved in the game] and if all parties are happy with that..[i could then just delete those forces which are lost in battle and move defeated units that are left back to the nearest defenses whilst the victors equally lose some casualties? would that be satisfactory to all rather than the randomness of a player scenario resolved battle?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I actually have no problem with it, but I'm concerned of the prospective audience it may have without looking into 'third party' sources of player (which, again, I could attempt to find if desired, being privy to a mildly multiplayer capable base which should have the sporting m2 players to pull it off). A dramatic accounting that takes stock of the generals involved and troop strengths could do something too (a system I often use in singleplayer - multiple ways to resolve it really). Perhaps posting the scenario itself and what is at stake might be of interest.

Der Bose was the only other to comment on it, and all he really did was raise the question of bias for players who may be involved. Not an unreasonable question, but hardly a stopper. Other than that there hasn't been much input.

I'm a wee bogged down between wiki matters and a DM I need to send to check something for this, so there'll be a bit of time to explore the idea(s) further unless you just want to give the whole matter to Jadli to figure out.

Zender has in fact completed his turn, I take full responsibility for further delay and am partially holding out for him to get whatever he may wish to post out.

[paladinbob123]

I actually have no problem with it, but I'm concerned of the prospective audience it may have without looking into 'third party' sources of player (which, again, I could attempt to find if desired, being privy to a mildly multiplayer capable base which should have the sporting m2 players to pull it off). A dramatic accounting that takes stock of the generals involved and troop strengths could do something too (a system I often use in singleplayer - multiple ways to resolve it really). Perhaps posting the scenario itself and what is at stake might be of interest.

Der Bose was the only other to comment on it, and all he really did was raise the question of bias for players who may be involved. Not an unreasonable question, but hardly a stopper. Other than that there hasn't been much input.

I'm a wee bogged down between wiki matters and a DM I need to send to check something for this, so there'll be a bit of time to explore the idea(s) further unless you just want to give the whole matter to Jadli to figure out.

Zender has in fact completed his turn, I take full responsibility for further delay and am partially holding out for him to get whatever he may wish to post out.

i am happier with a jadli lead manual version of a autoresolution of the battle..i think that would be more fair and simpler and avoids all complications

[Der Böse Wolf]

I am fine with either as I am all for RP and spicing up the game!

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Well, the show must go on.

------

The Scottish King wanted his confrontation. He has it.

Dumfries is under assault. As the Irish lay claim to a province Scotland cannot adequately support, the Welsh form the rear line, challenging King Alexander to meet Tegonwy's primary stack in organized single combat or face his forces two against one, with the high chance of losing territory in the process. The climax of the war is at hand.

And the people at home find themselves more mixed on it than ever, with paranoia reaching a peak as English forces camp far too close to their borders and the King himself is absent, despite the presence of a militia that is not to be underestimated. It falls to Lord Ionafal to broker the situation to his own end and to the greater benefit of Wales, for the more partitional nature of the state shows as Llywelyn's not-so-charismatic successor is absent fighting a war some would consider abject folly.

Time will tell where history leads for the Welsh state.

Onto the Scots,
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...cotland_84.sav

[Der Böse Wolf]

Where is the irish turn?