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

[okiN]

Everyone starts the same wth single settlements and let them develop the kingdoms, nations and empires themselves. Placing pre-existing fully fledged kingdoms is boring, in my opinion the most interesting part of the game will be the initial landgrab when everyone starts out close to equal. The only real difference being the real life size, skill and power of the clans playing.

Again, did you read the rules for Diplomacy yet? It has a lot of these elements you mention, including an initial land grab phase, but I think the starting point of having small nations is better than a single village -- less of a sudden death thing. Would be very disappointing to get immediately knocked out of the game like that. The threat of failure is very real, though, especially if you have multiple enemies gunning for you.

That would be fantastic. you'd need to be able to form new villages though otherwise things would get very crowded very quickly. you could then upgrade the villages to towns later. not too sure how the timescale would work though or if you would have access to all kinds of soldiers from the start.

Maybe each faction would start with a single village that they can place anywhere on the map, and then as they gain wealth from warfare and harvesting resources around them it can upgrade to a town and they can found more villages? I'd be more than willing to scene some various stages [village, town, city, etc] for this, or even several different variations of them.

+More posts adding even more ideas etc.

This all sounds pretty high-falutin' and ambitious. Nothing wrong with that as such, but for me it's all just talk until I see someone propose a working ruleset that allows all of this to happen. Again, I think the focus should be on starting small with a viable campaign base and getting the game up and running. We can add more exciting aspects to the concept later, if we think it's necessary, but we need to avoid getting to a point where we have so many ideas we can't do any of them.

Hethwill, that's an interesting idea, but I'm a bit worried that the supply zones/points might complicate it a bit too much. I'm also personally not very keen on adding random elements like special event cards, dunno about everyone else, though.

Just a quick question, would a clan be able to join in after this has started? I am keen to get our clan involved in something like this, but would need to have a long chat with the men about it first.

I think adding new factions to the map after the campaign is already underway might be very hard, so I think there's a good chance you'd only be able to take part as mercenaries. There should be some time before this takes off, though, so you should have no trouble rallying your troops.

How long irl this campaign will be? At least for first campaign I would suggest something short. No point going on a none working campaign which tooks 3 years.

Yeah, agreed. Maybe a few months, maybe up to a year, I dunno. This is another reason why I'd prefer to avoid overly epic-scale ideas.

 

[Marmalade]

If you were to handle it like Diplomacy (which is simple enough to work) then you'd probably want to decide whether you want to try and do something with the numbers of troops involved, or whether the Diplomacy side is just to create matchups.

If you want to alter side compositions - i.e. create uneven conflicts, then I would either suggest having, for example, a 20% increase in the number of players per "Support" into a region, or perhaps more simply, the number of extra supports could count as an initial score.

If the batttles were fought as Battle game modes, then they could be fought to, for example, seven rounds, and the extra supports will give you rounds in the bank, so that someone attacking 3 vs 2 would start with an effective score of 1-0 in a first-to-seven contest.

Obviously, if you're just trying to create matchups, then is the Order of the Lion attack with Court of Rapists against the 22nd, then you'd throw together a clan match with an agreed equal numbers of players, but one side is simply made up of two clans.

 

[okiN]

Yeah, the idea I suggested was that each conflict between nations would have a base force ratio of 3:3, and each army would add a +1 to the relevant side. So 4:3 for one unsupported army attacking an empty zone, 6:4 --> 3:2 for an army supported by two more attacking an zone with an unsupported army in it. Maybe make the base ratio 4:4 or even 5:5 so that the advantages aren't too overpowering... in any case, something like that.

The idea of banked rounds is also definitely viable as well. I think I'd prefer pitching the battles in terms of player numbers, but it's an open question, certainly.

 

[MaHuD]

As for armies and how big they are, I think Risk has the better system. Each unit represents one person in the game. Every land you own must have at least 1 soldier/unit on it. (Neighboring lands can move in to support so you get that 3 person minimum anyway, and if not well ya are ****ed)
Minimum number of units/soldiers to attack with is 3 (otherwise its just dueling)
If you then add the support attack and retreat ability from diplomacy (and HOI series)


The ratio that a team wins/loses (in a battle)  is the ratio of losses on the campaign map. (rounded)
Example: 22nd attacks, with an army of 8, a reveran army consisting of 7 soldiers.
of the 10 rounds played, the 22nd wins 5 rounds, Cor wins 4 rounds, 1 round is a draw.
CoR thus looses 4 to 5.
formula: 1 - (10 - draws) * won rounds / 100
which makes; 1 - 9 * 4 / 100 = 0.64 = 64 percent casualties.
7 * 64 / 100 = 4.48 = 5 deaths on the campaign map for the CoR Army. (2 survive)
The survivors retreat to a nearby friendly hex. No retreat = death/surrender. (Maybe we can capture prisioners and exchange them)

22nd might have won the battle, but they lost men in the fight as well.
formula: 1 - (10 - draws) * won rounds / 100
makes 1 - 9 * 5 / 100 = 0.55 = 55 percent casualties
7 * 55 / 100 = 3.85 = 4 deaths on the campaign map for the 22nd Army. (4 survive)

22nd may then freely move at the least 1 soldier/unit to the now conquered hex/country/province or w/e.

 

[Marmalade]

I can imagine that player numbers might be more tricky to arrange.

To be honest though, the main point of this, surely, is to just create meaningful contests. This could just be handled as a perpetual football league (check out Blood Bowl, or FUMBBL as a workable example), with handicaps (again, ratios or just banked rounds) for the higher ranked teams.

I love the idea of a map based campaign, but you also want to ensure that it's simple enough to ensure that people to participate, and the whole thing to not seize up in a couple of months time.

 

[okiN]

I don't like the idea of strictly tying player numbers to game pieces like that. I'm also not very enthusiastic about using Risk as a base in general, since I think it's quite a bad game... I'd much prefer trying to rework the army management system to fit the diplomacy base, if we thought something like that was really needed.

A league would serve a very similar purpose, yes, I just don't find that idea as interesting as a map-based campaign. But you're definitely right that we can't lose sight of simplicity as a goal, like I've said repeatedly myself. That's why I'm advocating the Diplomacy system -- it allows for as much strategic complexity as people want in terms of plotting and intrigue, but the base for the actual game mechanics it offers is very simple. A lot of the other ideas being floated move away from that too much for my liking.

 

[Marmalade]

I would strongly advise against any complexity, and try and keep it as abstract as possible mate. It's more likely to sustain itself then.

That said, it's your game, and good luck

 

[MaHuD]

I said only for the amount of men used in a battle.
Because that diplomacy doesn't cover real battles. Just, ah 2 on 1? you win congratulations.
besides, its not complex.
I geuss formulas scare people off.

 

[Marmalade]

Heh, I've never exactly had a problem with formulae (Physics degree and all that, my dissertation was in Game Theory)

It's more the idea of arranging and maintaining matches with your actual, real people.

Again, if you can pull the thing together, and grab enough people for long enough then fair play to you, and good luck

 

[okiN]

I said only for the amount of men used in a battle.
Because that diplomacy doesn't cover real battles. Just, ah 2 on 1? you win congratulations.
besides, its not complex.
I geuss formulas scare people off.

It's not complex in itself, but each added layer of complexity makes things harder to manage overall, just like Marmalade said. That's my main worry with all these ideas people are throwing around. I think the main goal to keep in mind is ease of use and functionality.

Edit: well, it looks like we'll probably have enough people for a decent campaign, so when I have the time I think I'll just throw together a full ruleset for using Diplomacy as a campaign base, and see if we can't all make do with that. Hoping that all these different ideas somehow get reconciled, a ruleset suddenly materializes from somewhere and everyone just magically agrees on everything is probably not a constructive approach.

 

[Nireco]

Sounds great idea. Although I don't know how much time I have myself to participate. And I'm not even in any clan.

In my opinion Diplomacy would be good base for it's simplicity. Though I like the idea to see where some individuals are traveling, so I throw yet another idea:

There would be supply centers as in diplomacy and they would give the nation additional army as in Diplomacy. The clan would then assign some players to move with this army. The amount could be larger than the battle sizes are, this would decrease the chance for missing players. Some amount of army could be replaced with mercenaries, if army's own players are not available. Same nation should not use same mercenaries constantly as this would mess the player location idea. When getting new army the players could be taken from players not yet in any army or existing armies, when they of course would not be in that army anymore.

Army could move maybe about 3 steps in turn and participate battles in neighboring areas or areas 2 step away, not sure what values would be best. And path's only enemy area can always be only the last stop. All moves would be made by nation's leader. They could be just turn based moves or simultaneous as in Diplomacy.

When attack to area is made, all the armies capable of participating in battle are calculated and handicap given accordingly. If there is no armies defending the attacker just gets the area without fight.

Handicap could be handled that one army would be default case, giving X vs X battle. On both sides every additional army would give Y% more players to battle, maybe 20%.

Didn't yet think much about alliances. Can they walk on all allied land? Can the alliance be made instantly, or should it take few turns? Instant alliances sounds like they could be abused.

There. Well, they are of course just ideas.

If the batttles were fought as Battle game modes, then they could be fought to, for example, seven rounds, and the extra supports will give you rounds in the bank, so that someone attacking 3 vs 2 would start with an effective score of 1-0 in a first-to-seven contest.

This is good idea, but I think there is one problem. As with stronger clan against weaker clan the stronger one would just win all the rounds, so it would have only marginal effect.

And about map: I think it doesn't matter if it's hex based or province based. Province based probably is graphically more beautiful. Someone mentioned something about Calradia's map, I'm not sure if he meant this, but I tried. It's missing supply centers and battle map information.

隐藏

I have larger version also and version without provinces. If there is interest I can modify it somehow or give it to someone else. It also looks for me somewhat large map, but it's possible to draw larger provinces or use only part of it.

 

[ProjectAngel]

OK well you can sign the Order of the Lion up. Marmalade has been assigned the task of explaining this all to us, (when I read this thread my head starts to hurt), and I am sure he will be happy to help you get it set up.

Just a quick note on the "Champion Duel" before a battle. We would only accept these in the case where the result of the duel decided the outcome of the battle. Afterall, that is the whole idea behind putting your champion up.

Also, I suggest that the faction changing thingie is put in place. As a UK clan I can tell you now that we won't want to get stuck with Khergits or Sarranids permanently lol.

 

[Plazek]

Again, did you read the rules for Diplomacy yet? It has a lot of these elements you mention, including an initial land grab phase, but I think the starting point of having small nations is better than a single village -- less of a sudden death thing. Would be very disappointing to get immediately knocked out of the game like that. The threat of failure is very real, though, especially if you have multiple enemies gunning for you.

Quote from: Foamy on Today at 12:44:59 AM

@ Okin, well you would not be knocked out exactly you would just lose your fief and have to become a mercenary army working for some other clan or even yourself. If you had the muscle move out and take someones fief who is even weaker than you. Besides such risks an fears will encourage clans to work together to form nations and democratic kingdoms unless they prefer to be subject to the thumb of a greater power. Such real in game risk will do wonders for clan-clan diplomacy!

Freeform is the way! You should be able to make deals for all kinds of things and go from mercenary to city to nation to empire and back. There should be no limits in this respect. Just because you get knocked out in the early stages does not mean you can't get a job with another clan, as a mercenary and then betray them taking their town when your on a "defence" job, or even join them and become one and the same nation if your less of a backstabber and want co-operation.

Oh, and I did not read all the rules of diplomacy just had a quick glance. Either way I feel a description of the type of events that should be able to take place is much more interesting and enlightening than reading some rulebook do you not agree

Some random ideas:
----also I do not have time to read over right now but I think I glanced a mention. Max army size should = clan size, 1 player should = 1 soldier. I read in the diplomacy rules you have something called supply bases obviously though we cannot magic more clan members into being! So I was thinking that if your going to be having an equivalent of them it should be concerned with respawns, resupplying lost soldiers.

I am not wholly familiar with the rules of diplomacy (or even partially really) but this will be one of the biggest hurdles IMO to making the rules cross over to this. As on the face of it it is simply not compatible, I was thinking that a supplybase should for example allow you to regain X% of your forces per X turns. This should of course be subject to diminishing returns, you ought not be able to get so many supply bases you resupply 100% of your forces in 1 turn, except in the most extreme cases.

Also I am not sure why all these talk of ratios is required and complex army movement. Just make it like total war! It is super simple if people outnumber their enemies 2:1 where is the problem? This makes perfect sense does it not?!


edit: I added some extra stuff

 

[okiN]

Up to a point, yeah, and that's what the eponymous diplomacy aspect of the game brings to the table. However, I do feel there need to be some rules to define the whole thing, otherwise it all just becomes chaotic and the campaign map structure loses meaning, becoming nothing more than an ornament or RP prop. The idea here is to combine a continuous, strategic aspect with the skill-based tactical combat of Warband.

Just a quick note on the "Champion Duel" before a battle. We would only accept these in the case where the result of the duel decided the outcome of the battle. Afterall, that is the whole idea behind putting your champion up.

I suppose that could also be an option, if both clans agree to it. Again, this sort of thing is probably fine to do in a more freeform fashion, so long as the campaign overall is rule-governed.

Also, I suggest that the faction changing thingie is put in place. As a UK clan I can tell you now that we won't want to get stuck with Khergits or Sarranids permanently lol.

Well, I'd assume that if each nation is tied to a faction, then the players of that nation would be able to choose their own faction. That's probably still something we should vote on.

There would be supply centers as in diplomacy and they would give the nation additional army as in Diplomacy. The clan would then assign some players to move with this army.

And those players would only be able to fight in matches related to that one army? I dunno, this seems like it'd give a huge advantage to clans that have a lot of skilled players.

As for the map, I don't think we should finalize that until we know exactly what type of system we'll be using and how many teams will be taking part. I wouldn't mind using the map of Calradia as a base, although to my mind, your copy seems a bit skewed; I always imagined North was where you currently have East.

 

[Marin Peace Bringer]

I have one thing to say about the rules.

In the Oceania campaign there was a rule that is clan A attacked clan B on hex X-Y, but clan B could not/would not fight a battle in-game, then clan A could not attack the same hex X-Y for twenty-four (24) hours.

This seems wrong to me, because a clan could just NOT fight a battle and then they would never loose land.

My suggestion is this.

When clan A attacks clan B, clan B has a week(?) to "rally defenders!" to fight a in-game battle.  If they do not have a in-game battle within a week(?) after clan A attacks, then clan A captures the place they attacked with our resistants.

Thoughts?

 

[okiN]

In the Oceania campaign there was a rule that is clan A attacked clan B on hex X-Y, but clan B could not/would not fight a battle in-game, then clan A could not attack the same hex X-Y for twenty-four (24) hours.

This seems wrong to me, because a clan could just NOT fight a battle and then they would never loose land.

Yeah, that's one of the things I'm not very keen on in the Oceanic rules. The system they have for attacking and defending seems like it could easily lead to a very slow-moving campaign, and a lot of stagnation. I think we might be better off using something different as a rule base (I've suggested the rules from the game Diplomacy), reworking them a bit to fit Warband, and only cherry-picking the things we like best from the Ozzer rules.

 

[Plazek]

If you cannot fight or are otherwise unavailable IMO you should be forced to fall back.
Also I think for simplicity region > hex

 

[okiN]

Yeah, though I'd be wary of making it too strict. I think generally people should be given a fairly free hand and a generous time frame to organize matches or otherwise resolve battles in the campaign. But yeah, if it doesn't seem to be happening, then the disadvantaged party should be forced to retreat. If the sides are even, it could perhaps either stalemate or the result could be random. Should maybe be up to the GM, though, and deliberate stalling might be punished with a default.

 

[Nireco]

There would be supply centers as in diplomacy and they would give the nation additional army as in Diplomacy. The clan would then assign some players to move with this army.

And those players would only be able to fight in matches related to that one army? I dunno, this seems like it'd give a huge advantage to clans that have a lot of skilled players.

Yes they would be tied to that army. This rule is of course very easy to just leave from those other ideas. My thoughts were that it would lessen the advantage, as other teams would see where their best players move. Also their percentage of good players would become lower when they get more land and more armies. If they are not tied to armies, the nation can use same good players in every battle. But this was just how I thought it would work, I have never played any clan match so I can't really know.

As for the map, I don't think we should finalize that until we know exactly what type of system we'll be using and how many teams will be taking part. I wouldn't mind using the map of Calradia as a base, although to my mind, your copy seems a bit skewed; I always imagined North was where you currently have East.

Well, of course. It should be decided when it's time to decide. It's still good to have one candidate there and a bit more ready. I had at start in mind to include the in-game compass there, but forgot. And with orientation I had idea to minimize name overlapping, but that didn't work, as there was too many names.

Edit: and now it disturbs me too, that the north is wrong way. Maybe I just redo the process

 

[RalliX]

I voted province, but now that I think about it, hex would be better, easier to get.
+ If we were to use a province map with Warband's, then Swadia would be under constant attack as it is in the center.
___________________________________
I will talk with my mates in HBS, we probably will be a mercenary knighthood due to our lack of numbers.