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

[okiN]

Reading through I may have missed it, but whats the story on cash amounts or pre-set equipment?
some-one post me the page?

I think that's a fairly minor detail, really. Figuring out things like that shouldn't be a problem once an overall campaign structure has been agreed on.

Think about it, you have a list for each army (like each clan has a army list and it has how many "lives" it has) when a certain army is fighting, you look up the list then go in-game and keep track of how many people die.
Its not that hard, you just need a pencil and paper. Right down how many are alive, then subtract how many died, then you have how many are left after the battle....

Right. And to do that, you need a person who'll just sit there, observe the match, and crunch the numbers. And finding that person is just one more thing that needs to happen before a match can take place... and all of this for fairly dubious gain, since I don't necessarily think this would make the game a lot more fun. That's why I'm not a big fan of this idea, myself. Others may disagree, of course -- it's a question of personal preference.

 

[longbow93]

Other clans will already have to band together to beat 22nd anyway, as you seem to have the highest average skill level per player, not to mention team organisation. Now already, most clans will only be able to think of victory if they can consistently outnumber you on the campaign map, which will require diplomacy. Other than that, if they do not do so in the early game, battlefield victories will lead you to map domination pretty quickly, forcing them to band together.

lol

 

[Rian Ó Fearghail]

I think adding 'lives' just over complicates simple battles.
First of all someone has to take the time to sit there all match recording every death.. yawn.
Second of all matches may become huge stand offs to scared to attack each other when lives are low.

I think that's a fairly minor detail, really. Figuring out things like that shouldn't be a problem once an overall campaign structure has been agreed on.

Fair enough, it is a small detail I suppose. Once the main rules are layed out I guess we could implement some structure to it.

 

[Marin Peace Bringer]

I think adding 'lives' just over complicates simple battles.
First of all someone has to take the time to sit there all match recording every death.. yawn.
Second of all matches may become huge stand offs to scared to attack each other when lives are low.

I see your point, it was just an idea that would make the armies on the "over world" map have more meaning.

 

[okiN]

lol

Well, it's hardly a secret, so no need to pussyfoot around it. 22nd is a clan where a lot of the players who possess some skill and consider it a priority that their clanmates do as well have congregated -- it's a movement that builds on its own reputation. Different people care about different things, as we can also quite clearly see from the disagreements concerning campaign rules in this thread.

 

[Plazek]

Well I said I would be intersted to hear your reaons why my idea was no good.
You posted 3 reaons.

Two of which I had adressed BEFORE you posted them.
The other which is IMO a non issue and I said why, I had also actually adressed that before as well.

I guess I want a game that represents the real life power of clans in the game and allows them to work together to make their own empires and coalitions. Where each and every player has a position on the map and nothing is really pre planned. This power is something tangible not just some numbers and game rules saying they can or cant do what.

Whereas you prefer dropping clans into pre existing nations and countries as set out by the game rules (a la "diplomacy") that have in game units that the clan members just happen to play. With the real power of a clan not actually represented at all.


I guess in ways they are incompatible but I guess that I simply hoped that my ideas might catch your imagination and we could try to make something awesome rather than restricting ourselves to pre existing games and their ideas. I guess that hope failed huh.



-------

@ King of Noobia, no offence taken I appreciate the critique! And perhaps I did miss some points but it is damn hard to keep up with this fast moving thread! (1)so the game has started and at turn one you percieve 22nd clan has the advantage and because you pissed me off during the creation of the game you know I will strike

So on the first turn you make 2 alliances with your neighbours. You now have 3 clans worth of power at your disposal. How long did my superiority last? Oh less than a turn!

(2) Make it so turns and movement happen in the week and the battles themselves on a set day every week. Perhaps on Sunday evenings. If you want to compete in the gamne you must be available at that time. You would have to have a rule like this anyway otherwise every single battle has to be individually arranged. Now some clans may have a little trouble learning to co-ordinate but this is not a problem they will learn! That is why a long established military alliance is better than a fresh one, you know and understand your partners. However with battles happening at pre-arranged set time every week the actual turning up should not be a problem!

Anyway I have to go out and I have to study so cya later. Even if you do not take my ideas in full I hope that perhaps some aspect of them helps your game idea. I guess this will not be my game though. Good luck anyway.

 

[Marin Peace Bringer]

Plazek thanks for summing it up for me! now that i know what your idea was, i agree 100%!

 

[Rian Ó Fearghail]

I think adding 'lives' just over complicates simple battles.
First of all someone has to take the time to sit there all match recording every death.. yawn.
Second of all matches may become huge stand offs to scared to attack each other when lives are low.

I see your point, it was just an idea that would make the armies on the "over world" map have more meaning.

I also see why you would bring lives in. I just think its to much

 

[Nireco]

Yes, that's something I've been wondering about as well. There are lots of ideas, but so far only one really coherent proposed structure for the campaign has materialized, namely Marmalade's ladder idea. I'll be submitting my own ruleset for review soon enough, and I think anyone else who wants to should feel free. But people with big ideas for fundamental changes should be prepared to come up with fully functional systems of their own to make things work.

I will fix all the holes in my proposal. I hopefully get it done tomorrow. When I get it done do I post it here or PM you? I think they would good to put on first page in spoiler tags. And of course some reasoning for already noticed problems would be good to be included.

Some irrelevant things could be abstracted away from rules if possible. Or should they be written into the proposed rules? Or as side note to the rules?

• Battle advantage. You can get some number representing advantage (like number of armies in battle). No effect on rules whether it affects bank score in battle or number of players
• I had some other thing in mind but forgot it

Also, how about rule modifications. Should I just say that this stuff should work like this or can I write modification section and tell that these features can be taken off?

 

[okiN]

Just go ahead and post it. As for what to include, I can hardly decide that for you; they're your rules. Just make them fully functional, and keep in mind that they need to be simple and realistic enough to allow the campaign to actually take place. Anything relevant to how the campaign would work under your model should be covered. That's all I can really think to say, the rest is entirely up to you.

 

[longbow93]

Anyway I have to agree with Plazek. In such a game no one could be too powerful to beat, just form up alliances and beat the crap out of them.

 

[Zoltanus]

Don't you guys see the impractibility with pieces representing specific players? You should always have match when exaclty everyone can attend to it very, which makes it hard to organize matches. This could also lead into that some players fight really much and somebodies don't. Having specific pieces for players can be really good thing for campaign with few clans, but as I see there will be many clans attending on this one it will not work out with pieces as specific players.

 

[okiN]

Well, apparently missing players aren't supposed to be an issue under this system, since chances are the battles will be totally imbalanced anyway. You're supposed to piece together a team from whoever turns up from a bunch of different clans, marked on the lists for the relevant armies. That's one way of doing it, I suppose, but I really don't see the appeal.

 

[kingofnoobia]

Anyway I have to agree with Plazek. In such a game no one could be too powerful to beat, just form up alliances and beat the crap out of them.

I'm afraid that doesn't change my opinion on the matter in any way. A kingdom or clan can be excessively powerful, but only by having played well. Not by a numerical advantage at the start of the game. At the start of the game, the only difference between the kingdoms should be the players, not the number of players or the power of that kingdom. The fact that 22nd is a large and powerful clan should not be reflected in any way on the campaign map at the start of the game. It should only be expressed in the battles, and as such give an advantage on the long term. The kingdom with 22nd in it will probably become one of the most powerful kingdoms, if it isn't annihalated at the start of the game by an alliance of other kingdoms, and as such, what you say (smaller kingdoms forming an alliance verus a more powerful one), will take place.

The impractibility issue still stands too. You may say that eventually people will learn to organise, that only people that can actually show up are supposed to play, ... I don't agree with any of it. There can always be unexpected real life issues that can interfere. And casual clan members should be able to play too if they want to.

 

[okiN]

Exactly so. You've basically put into words all the main grievances I had but was too lazy to fully express. I also think organizing each battle individually will produce much less troubles overall than trying to get everyone to turn up at a set time on a weekly basis. Tying everyone's hands like that is a very bad idea. I suppose you could have, say, a default weekday and time for battles, so long as you made provisions for rescheduling as required. In the end, though, I doubt it'd make much of a difference as opposed to simply having the parties in each combat working out how to resolve it within the set timeframe.

 

[Tercero]

better to be a single faction for all the map, that can lead to awesome alliances

 

[ProjectAngel]

Why don't you just steal the Oceanic one that is already up and running?

Also I'm not a fan of 1 faction throughout, (unless we get to choose that faction).

 

[okiN]

I think each nation choosing their own faction would be a given, if persistent factions were the plan. And it looks like they probably are.

As for the Oceanic model, it's nice and simple, which of course is the key thing, but IMO it's also maybe just a tad boring. It doesn't really allow for a lot of stuff in terms of strategy, and the limitations on attacks seem like they can lead to a gridlock very easily. Basically, I'm hoping we'll find something that doesn't lose that simplicity and functionality, but allows for some slightly more involved strategy and intrigue.

 

[Hethwill]

We should use the Aussie Model right away. That way we can prove test its basis and develop our own ideas.

Lot's of good stuff being thrown in.

Plus, regarding the poll. A clan choose a faction for the entire game. That gentlemen must become a FACT and a RULE. Other than that degenerates into nothing more than "clan matches" with eyecandy map.

 

[Nireco]

Got the rule proposal almost written. I will check it tomorrow and post it.

Also got redone the Calradia map with north in right direction. Although it's still just one candidate for map. And it don't yet have provinces drawn to it.

隐藏

And I can be listed to interested non-clanners.

For game master I think there should be more than one as it would lessen the responsibility to be available all the time and some nasty delays could be avoided. I could try to be one of them, but I don't want to take all the responsibility. Also I have no experience working as game master for this kind of projects.

But now I must go to sleep. It's good that this thread slowed down, as otherwise it would have 12 more pages when I get back.