Prospective US Campaign

Users who are viewing this thread

socks

Master Knight
WB
Check back a few posts up Scipio, we're using a custom map made by Ursca.

EDIT: although I'm in the process of modifying it; I've replaced the big North-East area encircled by mountains with a steppe so that the random steppe and village maps can be used, and I'm adding rivers.
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
D-;

Well, I guess it could be touched up a bit and put in place as the plains city map. But that would mean a mod, and would change gameplay, since not everyone is used to besieging Yalen.
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
^Alright, I'll bear that in mind. Since there won't be hexes, the provinces will need names, anyway.

Also, new poll up. Details will be discussed once a clear majority emerges.

EDIT: sorry about this, had to reset the poll count. I accidentally voted for an option I didn't want, and only one other person had voted. So, whoever that person is, kindly vote again.
 

Faranox

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SVC
I voted for the second option for the sake of having some strategy without restricting the number of players in each battle.
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
I'm switching my vote to the second option. It's the only one that would work; the first is too complex, the third would essentially defeat the purpose of turns other than to gather troops, and the fourth would be too simple and take no strategical thought.

I don't have a set of rules yet, but I will soon; last night I had a bunch of ideas on how things might work. I'll write them down here in an unorganized clump, and then make them into a proper ruleset later.

@provinces and battles:
Provinces that are green on the map will be fought over on random plains medium or large at the discretion of the defending clan; if it is a neutral province with two clans fighting over it, then it will be fought over the medium version of its terrain. Brownish-tan provinces will be fought over on random steppe with the same qualities; and brown, being mountains, will not be fought over or occupied at all. Field battles will be fought over with the 'battle' mode.

At the start of the game, a clan may place 1 town and 2 castles on their provinces; however, there can only be 1 town or 1 castle per province. Towns on a plains province will be represented by Nord Town; towns on a plains province bordered by the sea will be represented by Port Assault; and towns on the steppe will be represented by Village. Castles on the plains will be represented by either Castle 1, 3, or 4 [determination of which castle map will be used will be figured out later, haven't thought of a solution yet.]. Castles on the steppe will be represented by Castle 2. Castle sieges will be fought with the 'siege' mode, and town sieges will be fought with the 'battle' mode. Every two turns a clan has, they can construct another castle in any province they have that doesn't already have a castle or town.

On provinces with castles or towns, the battle for this province can either be fought in the castle/town, or in the field (see above) at the discretion of the defending clan. If the defending army chooses not to meet the enemy in the field, then it will remain in the castle/town, and the large part of the province, as represented by its random terrain, will be occupied by the enemy army, meaning that after a set amount of turns the castle/town will be forced to surrender due to lack of food, but that to achieve this, the occupying army would have to remain in the territory. If it left, then the siege would be called off and the entirety of the province would remain under the defending clan's control. At any time when the land is occupied, the attackers can launch a siege [using the 'siege' gamemode for castles, and the 'battle' gamemode for towns] on the defenders; similarly, at any time when the province is occupied, the defenders can launch a sortie and fight in the field.

At the end of a game [round limit would be fifteen rounds for battle, and five for siege], whichever clan had least rounds won would lose the battle; whoever wins would win the province and any castles/towns it might have. The losing army would be removed from the map.

@armies:
Each clan would start with 5 armies, one in each starting province. They can either move these armies - each one can move across two provinces in a turn - or have them garrison a castle or town if there is one in the province; non-garrisoned castles or towns are just like provinces with no armies in them; they can be taken without a fight. There can be no more than one army in each province, unless the other army is garrisoned in a local castle or town. Every turn that a clan has, an army is generated in every province with a town in it; if there already is an army in the province that isn't a garrison, then the army will not generate.

So, some scrappy ideas on armies, provinces, and battles. Working on more.

Thoughts?

 

Outlawed

Sergeant Knight
WB
Socks and dear community,
I have started a perspective campaign on a smaller scale to see if my rules work. I have based this on a very intricate system of resources, armies, building, research and upgrades. For now, I am running my own rules in my clan with certain 'Squads' this will represent Kingdoms and Clans to come if you all like the ideas.

Here is a link for the rules. The game itself is really balanced as I've ran several quick scenarios.
Have a read:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/PaladinsRoundTable/topic/3240176/1/

In a nut shell this campaign has a system of resources you would get. Income, trade, buildings that give you certain advantages/upgrades/troops, an upgrade system for your troops, an upgrade system for armor, looting villages, sieges, battles, prisoner system, all packed in a turn based game, where battles are fought between players and at times NPC's.

Also, a major note is that this is a simplified version of what I have in mind, but I say we start simple and if people like the rules we can add more advanced features. (Things like Siege lasting for certain turns, spies, assasins..etc)
 
In regards to suggested rules and campaign parameters...

Goal: The ultimate goal of a faction is to conquer an all opposing faction’s territories by contesting over the ownership of said territories through glorious battle and strategy.  A faction is eliminated when it no longer controls any territories, which indicates they have no army in which to defend themselves.

Armies:  Armies are represented and sustained through the ownership of land.  The size of an army in battle will determine the number of rounds to be fought during the battle which determines the outcome.  An army with a size of 1 will equal 5 rounds fought in a battle.  Therefore, if an army sized 1 meets another army sized 1 for battle the victor is decided by the best of 5 rounds.  If a sized 1 army meets a sized 2 army then 10 rounds will be fought, or until a clear victory is established.  When the number of rounds is an evenly divisible number one additional round may be fought, if needed, to declare a winner.  This formula perpetuates to larger sized armies respectively.  The size of an army is not indicative to the amount of troops that may be fielded at one time.

Battles:  Battles will occur when two or more armies meet upon a territory.  Both factions will have the option to withdraw their forces before a battle takes place to best implement their strategy.  Battles will be fought on a map that best suits the nature of the territory in which both armies are meeting.  The composition of the army will be at the discretion of the commanding officer for  the army that is entering into battle.  The base number of troops able to be fielded at one time during one round is limited the smaller of the two armies.  Therefore during an actual battle if 10 members of one faction and 11 members of the other show up to participate, the base number of troops able to be fielded is 10.  Each faction will receive an additional +1 reserve troop added to the base number for every 2 participants that show up.  Therefore if 10 members of one faction and 20 members of another participate, each round will be fought with 10 players vs 15 players.    The gold and equipment used in a battle will be determined by the server settings where the battle takes place.

Map:  The map will be divided into territories as seems to be a consensus among the interested.  Each territory will represent a varied size army relative to it’s size.  You will have small, medium, and large territories.  In addition a village, town, or castle will add to a finite number of territories.  These establishments will produce additional armies for owning that territory.  Each starting faction will receive an even number of territories initially.  Adjacent to their starting territories will be unoccupied but disputable territories, mostly undeveloped, that may be conquered or ignored as that factions strategy dictates.  A territory is owned by a faction when a faction has a minimum 1 size army stationed there.  If all armies are removed from a territory the rights and benefits of that territory are forfeited until control is reestablished.  Therefore a territory may only be disputed when there is an army there to dispute.  All unoccupied territories are up for grabs. 

Movement:  Movements will be off a weekly turn based system as suggested by Outlawed.  A faction may move any number of it’s armies from one territory to an adjacent territory in one turn.  Armies with a size of 1 may move up to two adjacent territories if so desired. 

Advantages of recommended rules and parameters...
Army Design Advantages:  By making the army size equal the number of rounds fought you create a “wave” style of combat.  This creates a fair arena in which a small army can in fact prevail over a larger army through skill instead of size.  It would be very similar to battles fought with drastically differing sizes in M&B Native.  Almost a battle sizer if you will.

Battle Design Advantages:  By creating a base number of players and an additional reserve number you balance a large clan from an active clan.  A smaller clan that can get more real people onto the server for the battle can have an advantage over a large than that has poor participation.  This helps focus on activity more than size.  To try and limit gold and equipment would verily easily lead to “zealous discussions” about whether someone should be wearing a Full Helm or wielding a Great Sword.  The standard gold system would better represent a real world situation.  Some say a winning team gets the best armor and this is unfair.  Even with the best armor they may still be killed and if the team wins and loots the bodies of their enemies they would be wealthier thereby having better equipment.  This is just logical.

Map Design Advantages:  In this model land and territories are your resources.  The microeconomic resources are implied by the ownership of the land.  Therefore less computation is required to understand and measure the success of a faction.  Strategic advantages of territories are creating my making larger and smaller sizes as well as the addition of settlements.  Also requiring a garrisoned army creates a strategy element so lands are not unnecessarily held.  To control a providence requires money and imposing authority which is represented by the minimum 1 army garrison.  To remove all authority is to not control a providence.  The additional providences that are not controlled will provide an avenue to new clans that wish to join after the initial launch.  As an invading force they may start their empire by taking control of a vacant territory.

I am more than open to critiques and suggestions.  Thank you for your consideration.
 
As Socks elequently point out to me yesterday in PRT server...my rules may be hard to understand.  I have create very crude but efficient map drawings to demonstrate the system.  Basically the inspiration is Risk+MTW2+M&B Battle Sizer 
The first image is the first turn computation of armies. You will have to forgive the crude posting format as my forum experiences are limited.

Then the potential actions to take during turn #2.

And finally potential actions to take during turn #3.

You can see how the conquest of territories adds to the total amount of armies controled by the faction. 

Now to show how show a potential battle scenerio.

To hep understand my proposed battle sizing here is an example with explanation.

Hopefully this will help clarify my previously posted rules.  I'm looking forward to this progressing no matter what the rules or systems used are.  This is a great idea worthy of our best efforts.
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
23rv97p.png

Alright, the idea is you'd have to choose a faction for your clan, and that faction would be what you would play with in battles and also determine what provinces you could start off. [provinces are still WIP, obviously]. Bear in mind that there could be more than one clan per faction, and that the faction areas on the map are not actual ingame factions - they just determine what provinces they clan can choose starting off. Khergits start off in a bit of a tight spot, but I put them there [encircled by mountains with three passes out of there, none of which they can initially control] because they'll have a number of advantages on the battle map that other factions don't have.
 

Outlawed

Sergeant Knight
WB
So are we going to do a vote regarding which rules we will be using?
How are the rules going to work?
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
No idea. I of course favor mine, but two other candidates have been made, although I'd say your rules should be counted out since you already have another campaign with them.
 

Faranox

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SVC
How about a representative from each group involved gets a vote each? Present all the rule variants and throw some democracy at it.
 

Outlawed

Sergeant Knight
WB
The only reason I started another campaign was to see how it would work on a large scale with actual players.
And I agree with democracy. How about this, on a given date we all post up full versions of our rules and poll them?
 

FearItself

Sergeant at Arms
Outlawed said:
The only reason I started another campaign was to see how it would work on a large scale with actual players.
And I agree with democracy. How about this, on a given date we all post up full versions of our rules and poll them?

This sounds reasonable to me.
 
Top Bottom