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

Sure, I don't see why not. Though I also don't see why that would be necessary. :razz:

Edit: so what do people think of using the Diplomacy rules as a base for the campaign? I think they could make for an interesting game. Alterations and additions could be made as we see fit, but I think the general rules for army movement etc could be a good starting point. A new map could be designed depending on what the team situation looks like, though using the default Europe map from the game would certainly provide a balanced setup for us.

Edit2: ninja'd by Beaver!
 
okiN said:
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.
I was actually going to suggest just that. Seems I wasn't the only one with the idea :razz:

The oceanic campaign seems thought-through and generally good as well, I'm for any of them.


As for socks suggestion of a joint campaign, I think we should start with one for US and one for EU for simplicity sake. We can pretend that they take place on different "continents". Once we get it all working smoothly we can consider if the two are going to "discover" each other.
 
We could also apply some of the ideas from the Oceanic Campaign (eg assigning certain maps to certain areas and the rules concerning battle maps) to the Diplomacy base, along with our own revisions and additions. There are basically unlimited options here, we just need to settle on something.

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?

Also, interested parties, could you please shop this idea to your respective clans so that we can get some proper confirmations? We need signups to see this thing is actually happening! No point in designing rules for a campaign without players.
 
okiN said:
We could also apply some of the ideas from the Oceanic Campaign (eg assigning certain maps to certain areas and the rules concerning battle maps) to the Diplomacy base, along with our own revisions and additions. There are basically unlimited options here, we just need to settle on something.
Yes, we can basically make whatever we want :razz:
I like how they assigned maps to the areas, and I think that we should do so as well. Due to the amount of areas we could reuse maps or simple add some new ones. I'm sure there's someone who'd be willing to contribute, but that can be decided later. If we use diplomacy as a base, I think making the supply centres castles is a good idea.
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?
As I see it there's advantages with both. If a permanent faction is assigned, you always know what you're fighting. If your clan hates fighting against Khergits you'd simply try to avoid facing an eventual Khergit faction.
If you can choose, however, it might make things more interesting. Some might think it gets boring if you fight as the same faction all the time, what do I know? The major advantage with this method is of course alliances. Otherwise, if you're playing as a Swadian faction and are allied with a Rhodok one, fighting along side each other would force one side to use the other's faction. Unless someone mods multi-way battles of course...
One thing that could be interesting is if you'd have to assign a faction to each of your armies. But I guess that would give tons of problems with supports and everything. Just a thought.
 
I think simplicity would be best and should always be kept in mind.

Keeping it EU would be nice. (Lag?)

Would there be restrictions on compositions of armies?

The Norsemen would consider joining.
 
Beaver said:
If we use diplomacy as a base, I think making the supply centres castles is a good idea.

That's maybe a bit excessive, unless we limit the number of supply centres more heavily. Perhaps have supply centres as villages, but have the Great Power supply centres as castles? Or maybe even only the capitals of the Great Powers? Depends on what the map looks like.

Beaver said:
As I see it there's advantages with both. If a permanent faction is assigned, you always know what you're fighting. If your clan hates fighting against Khergits you'd simply try to avoid facing an eventual Khergit faction.
If you can choose, however, it might make things more interesting. Some might think it gets boring if you fight as the same faction all the time, what do I know? The major advantage with this method is of course alliances. Otherwise, if you're playing as a Swadian faction and are allied with a Rhodok one, fighting along side each other would force one side to use the other's faction. Unless someone mods multi-way battles of course...
One thing that could be interesting is if you'd have to assign a faction to each of your armies. But I guess that would give tons of problems with supports and everything. Just a thought.

These are all good points. This is definitely something we need to discuss, and maybe vote on at some point.

farber said:
Would there be restrictions on compositions of armies?

That's another thing we need to agree on. I kind of think limiting army composition would be good, especially if we'll be playing on random maps a lot; otherwise the whole thing will just turn into a cavfest. Keeping track of numbers might be hard with players switching roles, though, so if we had class caps, we'd probably also need to restrict each player to one class per match. Still, I'd probably be in favor of this.

Edit: I'm going to start putting some names down. We've had interest from multiple CoR and IRC members, and Gavin said his lot would probably be up for it, so I'll go ahead and mark those down. Anyone else?
 
Since I'm basing the US one off this, I might as well input some ideas here;

Each member of a clan participating would represent an 'army' of that clan. So if one member was on the other side of the campaign map from a battle, they wouldn't be able to participate, whereas if they were in that region or in a neighboring region, they would be able to. This would force clan leaders and members to put some thought into their actions - for example, they might want to have all their armies along the border with the enemy or close enough to deploy, as would be the case irl.

To compensate for the lack of players in battles, perhaps bots could be used? AI pathways in the custom-made maps [e.g., village, port assault, etc] has vastly improved from where it is before, and bot battles are highly enjoyable on random maps imo.
 
No bots please. They get stuck, teamkill you, steal kills and get in the way.
I like assigning spots for clanmembers, but it will be too much work. Better stick with "fictional armies" on the map.
 
Perhaps the size of said armies would determine how many members could participate in the battle, then?
 
socks said:
Since I'm basing the US one off this, I might as well input some ideas here;

Each member of a clan participating would represent an 'army' of that clan. So if one member was on the other side of the campaign map from a battle, they wouldn't be able to participate, whereas if they were in that region or in a neighboring region, they would be able to. This would force clan leaders and members to put some thought into their actions - for example, they might want to have all their armies along the border with the enemy or close enough to deploy, as would be the case irl.

To compensate for the lack of players in battles, perhaps bots could be used? AI pathways in the custom-made maps [e.g., village, port assault, etc] has vastly improved from where it is before, and bot battles are highly enjoyable on random maps imo.

Having players match armies 1:1 sounds like it would either severely limit the amount of people taking part, or lead to huge amounts of pieces on the board, and thus confusion. I think a bit more abstraction than that is necessary for the game pieces, unless we opt for a "manpower" system similar to the Oceanics. I also don't like the idea of depending on bots for battles, although I love the idea of having the option to do battles in "general mode" using bot control if both clans agree to it.

I'd propose the following system for army movement, off the Diplomacy base: when an army attacks an enemy nation's territory, a battle is fought with a certain ratio of players for each team. The amount of support in play determines said ratio. For example, you could say that each province has a base garrison of 3. Thus a single army moving into an empty enemy province would be a 4:3 battle. An army supported by two armies moving into a province with a single, unsupported army in it would be a 6:4 --> 3:2 battle, etc. If the defender thought the engagement was unwinnable or otherwise not worth playing, they could maybe agree to simply cede the province and retreat their army out of it. You can tinker with the numbers, but something along those lines would be my idea.
 
Yes, I think so.
And number of deaths need to be counted. It will take "reinforcements" (battlefield style tickets - resuplied by villages, castles and towns.... representing drafts -) to get an army back up to strenght. (Both the victor and the loser) that way you can't campaign endlessly.
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Yes basic garrison is good.
 
@okiN
socks said:
Perhaps the size of said armies would determine how many members could participate in the battle, then?
I think the 'one more person per army' thing oversimplifies it - with the above system, you might 'recruit' another member by going to a village, or something, so you could strengthen various armies and then your placement of these armies would affect battles seriously. You would also be able to garrison units from recruiting runs, but you'd only be able to recruit from each village once in every set time, so you couldn't be constantly boosting your army/garrison sizes.

If an army lost a battle, then it'd either be defeated or significantly lose size.
 
Has either of you read the rules for Diplomacy yet? Some of the ideas you mention are adequately covered by those, I think, while other problems are avoided nicely. They need some reworking, but I think it would be a lot less problematic than figuring out an entirely new system.
 
The Oceanic Campaign ones? I just did, and yes, I think we should retain those.

Also, since it seems that the province system will be in place, should the SP maps from Warband/original M&B used, or an entirely new one? I'm willing to draw custom maps for both campaigns if such is desired.
 
okiN said:
Beaver said:
If we use diplomacy as a base, I think making the supply centres castles is a good idea.

That's maybe a bit excessive, unless we limit the number of supply centres more heavily. Perhaps have supply centres as villages, but have the Great Power supply centres as castles? Or maybe even only the capitals of the Great Powers? Depends on what the map looks like.

Oh yeah, didn't really think about that half of the provinces are supply centres. Hmm, how about we'd make normal supply centres (villages), major centres that would support say 2 units (castles) and normal provinces (random/open maps)?

okiN said:
Edit: I'm going to start putting some names down. We've had interest from multiple CoR and IRC members, and Gavin said his lot would probably be up for it, so I'll go ahead and mark those down. Anyone else?

I'm here too (22nd) :razz: Have to contact my superiors though.

socks said:
Since I'm basing the US one off this, I might as well input some ideas here;

Each member of a clan participating would represent an 'army' of that clan. So if one member was on the other side of the campaign map from a battle, they wouldn't be able to participate, whereas if they were in that region or in a neighboring region, they would be able to. This would force clan leaders and members to put some thought into their actions - for example, they might want to have all their armies along the border with the enemy or close enough to deploy, as would be the case irl.

To compensate for the lack of players in battles, perhaps bots could be used? AI pathways in the custom-made maps [e.g., village, port assault, etc] has vastly improved from where it is before, and bot battles are highly enjoyable on random maps imo.

That is also an idea. The first thing I come to think of is the inevitable problem with saying exactly what players are where - you can't bring in replacements if someone isn't present at the given time for whatever the reason. And that scenario is highly likely due to RL.

EDIT: Warning - while you were typing 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post. Yeah...
okiN said:
I'd propose the following system for army movement, off the Diplomacy base: when an army attacks an enemy nation's territory, a battle is fought with a certain ratio of players for each team. The amount of support in play determines said ratio. For example, you could say that each province has a base garrison of 3. Thus a single army moving into an empty enemy province would be a 4:3 battle. An army supported by two armies moving into a province with a single, unsupported army in it would be a 6:4 --> 3:2 battle, etc. If the defender thought the engagement was unwinnable or otherwise not worth playing, they could maybe agree to simply cede the province and retreat their army out of it. You can tinker with the numbers, but something along those lines would be my idea.

Ah, interesting idea. I'm going to throw out some other random number here. If we go with my idea above (minor, major and empty provinces) we could give them different base defense. Say 1 for minor, 2 for major and 0 for empty (so you could take empty without a battle - unless an army is stationed there). Armies could have a base value of say 3, with supporting armies increasing that by 2 or something.
So an army attacking a minor supply centre would result in a 3:1 battle. If a defending army was stationed there it'd be 3:4. Say the enemy had a supporting army the result would be a 5:4 battle. How does that sound?

EDIT 2: Warning - while you were typing 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
No, I'm not going to review my post again.

EDIT 3: Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
:lol:
 
socks said:
The Oceanic Campaign ones? I just did, and yes, I think we should retain those.

No, no, I'm suggesting something different as the base.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Diplomacy/Rules

socks said:
Also, since it seems that the province system will be in place, should the SP maps from Warband/original M&B used, or an entirely new one? I'm willing to draw custom maps for both campaigns if such is desired.

We should probably see what's decided in terms of rules first.

Beaver said:
Ah, interesting idea. I'm going to throw out some other random number here. If we go with my idea above (minor, major and empty provinces) we could give them different base defense. Say 1 for minor, 2 for major and 0 for empty (so you could take empty without a battle - unless an army is stationed there). Armies could have a base value of say 3, with supporting armies increasing that by 2 or something.
So an army attacking a minor supply centre would result in a 3:1 battle. If a defending army was stationed there it'd be 3:4. Say the enemy had a supporting army the result would be a 5:4 battle. How does that sound?

Could work, but I'm worried that unless you make the base number bigger, you'll end up with ratios being too stacked in general. Also, attacking major provinces would become almost impossible unless the defender had far less armies at his disposal.

Bite Me said:
isnt this exactly the same as tbfc?

Well, I can't say I know everything about tBfC, but from what I've seen it sounds like a fairly different kind of project. Both are online campaigns, but that's about it.
 
Beaver said:
EDIT: Warning - while you were typing 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post. Yeah...
EDIT 2: Warning - while you were typing 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
EDIT 3: Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
:lol:

Anyway, I've revised my idea as I realized how radical the original one is;
socks said:
Perhaps the size of said armies would determine how many members could participate in the battle, then?
socks said:
I think the 'one more person per army' thing oversimplifies it - with the above system, you might 'recruit' another member by going to a village, or something, so you could strengthen various armies and then your placement of these armies would affect battles seriously. You would also be able to garrison units from recruiting runs, but you'd only be able to recruit from each village once in every set time, so you couldn't be constantly boosting your army/garrison sizes.

If an army lost a battle, then it'd either be defeated or significantly lose size.
Also, about the centers thing, here are maps from native and what they can represent:

Random Plains Medium: open plains province
Random Steppe Medium: open steppe provice
Random Plains Large: hilly/mountainous province
Random Steppe Large: steppe hilly/mountainous province

[large randoms tend to be more mountainous than mediums]

Ruins: village
Field by the River: village

Nord Town: town
Village [ignore the name :razz:]: town
Scene 5: town [is this one accessible by admin panel? I forget; if not, it'd have to be modded in]

Port Assault: seaside town

--
On the other hand, if the Warband SP map is used, then it should be simple enough to mod the SP scenes into the menu. While the sheer amount of locations in M&B SP make it seem that it'd take a long, long time to take control over a map, bear in mind that villages in SP cannot be conquered, but rather their town/castle has to be. So if the WB SP map were used, then the villages would be part of the provinces of their castle/town.

Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.


okiN; okay, reading it now.
 
Back
Top Bottom