Prospective EU campaign - Signups started, see new thread. Seeking adjudicator.

Each kingdom plays one faction for the entire campaign. How do we do this?

  • Each kingdom chooses their own faction with no limitations.

    Votes: 13 39.4%
  • Each kingdom chooses their own faction, no repeats. First come, first served.

    Votes: 14 42.4%
  • No repeats, factions assigned randomly.

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33

Users who are viewing this thread

So, there has been a lot of talk about MP campaigns for Warband, and I personally am very interested in the idea. Basically, the concept is to have some kind of campaign map with multiple nations, formed in this instance of clans or coalitions thereof, competing for dominance over many matches and longer periods of time, working under some kind of ruleset that governs the whole thing. The Oceanic clans already have their own campaign underway, and I think it looks like a lot of fun.

I really think we EU clans should get something like this going as well -- just a relatively simple framework of rules using the vanilla game as a base, at least to start with. Non-clanners could also play, forming loosely tied mercenary bands that offer their services to certain clan nations (perhaps for a price, something to be worked out in the game mechanics) and take part in some of the battles. However, before we get into the particulars of it, we should probably see how much overall interest there is among EU clans and players for something like this. For those taking part in the Battle for Calradia, this isn't meant to be a replacement, but a different kind of campaign that we could probably start fairly soon, running it alongside tBfC and as we wait for that project to get ready to begin. The idea here is to start small.

Some brainstorming for ideas is fine, though. For example, when I was talking to Hethwill just now, he mentioned the idea of champion duels before battles. This is a fairly cool thematic idea, I think, but it should probably be optional to avoid overprivileging clans that have top-notch duellists. Here's my idea of how that could work: If a challenge is issued by one side and accepted by the other, each team elects a champion, and the two engage before the battle starts, with both teams watching. After the duel is over, the battle itself starts, but the losing party (most likely one of the clan's top players) will be unable to take part while he recovers from his loss. However, if the recipient clan declines the challenge, I don't think there should be any penalty aside from a certain loss of face.

On a more general level, if we do this, do you think we should base our ruleset on the one being used by the Oceanics, or write our own from scratch? Or maybe use the rules from a pre-existing game, like Diplomacy, as a starting point? This also contains the question of whether people prefer a hex-based map like theirs, or one using drawn-out regions/provinces, similar to many other strategy games. (Poll results indicate that whatever the ruleset, mos people would prefer a province map)

Another big question: do we want to have mostly single-clan nations, or larger coalitions? Combining multiple clans under one banner could help with filling teams and making matches happen, but I can understand why some people might not like that idea.

Yet another big question: do we want to assign a permanent faction choice to each campaign nation, or use switching rules like those in the Oceanic campaign?

Clans likely confirmed to take part:
irc://
IG
CoR
22nd
OL
RS
OLL?
Norsemen?
Einhärjar/Shieldings?

Interested non-clanners:
Nireco
johnftonnessen
 
The campaign mod/website system or whatever it is would be a very good choice for this. I think they said they would release soonish so may be worth waiting for that. Having something like that would also remove the issue of challenges and would simplify a lot of other things. whatever you chose to do i can't wait join in.
 
Yeah, that thing looks promising, but the way I see it we shouldn't rely on it too much. When it's out, and if we decide it's good, then we can use it. But as a starting point, I don't think we should necessarily include it. Overall, I think we should concentrate on getting the whole thing off the ground first, then we can improve and expand when we already have a working base and a running game.
 
I've always wanted to do something similar, but I just had an idea as to how a US campaign and an EU campaign could be tied together.

Basically, the large battle map would have two areas - one for the US, and one for the EU. These wouldn't necessarily be alliances, but if a US nation were to invade an EU nation, the ping disadvantage [battles in the EU would be fought on an EU server obviously, and in the US on a US server] would represent the invaders' unfamiliarity with the ground they're warring on.

Up to you guys, obviously, if you want to involve the US in this or just keep it EU only.

Also, I forget where, but there was a thread somewhere in which someone had devised a brilliant campaign program for Warband, in which clans could devise maps, campaigns, have vassals, etc.
 
Campaign crossovers are a possibility, but I think it would probably be a good idea to have separately running EU and US campaigns before we start thinking about combining them. As for the campaign mod/utility, that was already mentioned. Again, I'd advocate a "wait and see" stance on it so far.
 
Alright, I'll make a thread for a US one. But campaign crossovers, I think, is an awesome idea :smile:
 
Hex maps, because then we can start sooner.
battle for calradia already has different maps. And they had to be made first aswell.
Easier the hex way.
 
I voted other for the warband campaign system. We'd have to wait and see if it was any good but that would be my first choice currently.
 
Yeah, "wait and see" is fine, but I don't think we should tie all our planning to that idea. For all we know, the whole thing might turn out to be a no show, and then we'll have spent an indefinite amount of time just sitting on our thumbs. I really think we should concentrate on getting the key issues outlined ASAP, although that needs to be done together -- if this is just another case of "Do everything and then maybe some of us will join", I'll pass. I'm not going to dedicate a lot of time and effort to this just to find out that it's only a couple of clans and a handful of individuals seriously interested in taking part. :razz:
 
Sounds interesting! I'll dwell upon the idea and read through the campaign models a little later when I'm not drinking...  :?: :lol:
 
I'm actually tempted to suggest we use the game Diplomacy as a base, but alter the rules so that instead of having troop concentrations decide the battle outcome entirely, it decides instead the advantage conditions for a battle that is then fought by players. Other changes could then be made as we saw fit, but I think this style of play could be a good starting point.

In any case, we would need a neutral game master to handle all the arrangements. Volunteers? :razz:
 
Ha! Shooting a little high, there, perhaps.

Seriously, any ideas? We'd need a member in good standing who isn't in any of the clans that might be taking part. If no volunteers show up, we'll probably need to ask somebody.
 
Back
Top Bottom