Prospective US Campaign

Users who are viewing this thread

The Shadow

Recruit
So I guess I'm no longer part of this.  I heard the American Court was gonna be revived, you might want to ask in the CoR thread. 

 

socks

Master Knight
WB
2dv7t48.png

Provinces are done.

S = Steppe
C = Coast
P = Pass
I = Island
L = Land [imaginative, inorite?]
Larger S = Sea [probably should have used O, but png erased layers so it's too late now]
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
A few notes;
- if a clan builds a town on a coastal province, they can choose between a port [Port Assault] or a town [Nord Town].
- Towns cannot be built on island or pass provinces; castles can. Additionally, these provinces cannot be occupied, but they will capitulate like a normal castle/town if all adjacent territories are controlled by the enemy. For example, a castle in P1 controlled by Clan A would capitulate if C4 and S7 were controlled by Clan B and Clan B was at war with Clan A. However, since these territories cannot be conventionally occupied, it means an enemy army either has to besiege the castle directly, move around the province, or control the adjacent provinces to move through it.
- Armies cannot move into the mountain [M] provinces.
 

Outlawed

Sergeant Knight
WB
All these movement rules make the game a little bit too complex for me, at least for now.
Keep in mind that we still have to do some testing for playability.

Also I don't like the idea of being able to upgrade a village to a town, because without some sort of population reference or tag it just sounds silly. Maybe get some upgrades in the village that make it produce certain things, or research certain things. i.e. I like my stuff better roflmao.
 

Faranox

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SVC
That looks quite interesting, however:
"Depending on campaign scenario 2 or more armies will be able to participate (though the current version only supports 2 armies)."
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
D-;

That does pose a bit of a problem. I'll wait a bit and see if the next version adds more armies.
 

Mad_Dawg

Count
socks said:
:???:

Are you referring to Mad_Dawg's rules .. ?

Believe he was referring to this...
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.

After reading this I was wondering if I just came from a cello lesson. :smile:

When will the final draft for the rules need to be posted for the vote?
 

Outlawed

Sergeant Knight
WB
socks said:
http://www.warbandcampaigns.com/

Is anyone interested in using this? Because I am.

If you read the thread for my post of the rules, you will see that me and some people have plans to create something very similar to this using Java.
 

Mad_Dawg

Count
socks said:
Mad_Dawg said:
After reading this I was wondering if I just came from a cello lesson. :smile:
Fellow celloist? :grin:
Socks my good man I think we are all celloists on some spriritual level, but if I were to physically manifest these underlying pretenses....it would surely fall below the mark of celloist.  In other words...
nope
  I just remember you stated, "about you're rules" and then "Im not following them" and lastly "but I read them after coming from cello practice so my brain was kinda fried."  :smile:
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
Ah, okay :smile:

Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we shouldn't vote on which ruleset we want; so far I have seen little to no criticism or suggestions for improvements on eachothers' rules, just everyone - myself included- pushing for their rules to be used. I propose that instead we make a conglomerate of all three rulesets, using ideas that we like from each set.

Mad_Dawg's Ruleset
The main feature of this ruleset is his use of territorial and battle complexity - different sized territories, and numbers of players showing up to a scrim determining teams size [as in, if twice as many members showed up for Team 2 then for Team 1, Team 2 would be able to field half again as many members as Team 1 could]. However, the most recent poll was for just that issue, and the result was a 7:3 [no one voted for the other two options] poll in favor of armies determining only which territories could be defended, not their army sizes, and that the number of players on each team in the battles would be equal on both sides and determined by how many players could show up on both sides - that is, if 10 could show up on Team 1, and 15 on Team 2, Team 2 would nonetheless play with 10, so that the sides were fair and as close to an actual clan match as possible.

However, I do like that he tries to keep the territorial complexity to a minimum - there is no micromanagement for territories required other than having an army there or castle, town, and village territories.

Outlawed's Ruleset
While I really like this, I don't think it's the right rules for this; the overwhelming majority [for the record, I, personally, was in favor of complex rules] wanted to keep it as simple as possible while still retaining some strategy. Right off the bat, this ruleset has resources, such as gold, clay, or wood, which you get from provinces and use to trade for other resources, or input into their main uses; multiple types of buildings can be made, your resources can determine what type of weapons you can use in the actual battle, etc. For example:
Barracks, (Cost 1 Wood,1 Clay, 1 Ore, 1 Wheat, 1 Gold)
By building a barracks you will be able to do two things, first and foremost your Kingdom will have access to Footmen. You will also be able to access Infantry upgrades for all your different weapons. (See Troop Tiers)
and, as mentioned above, your 'research' or tech tree advancement, determines what weapons and armor you can use in the battle. You can read more here; it's quite extensive.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/PaladinsRoundTable/topic/3240176/1/

Again, I don't think this is really the ruleset for this game. While it is fantastically awesome, the point of the US campaign is to organize clan matches and also intertwine with that a small element of strategy.
 

Mad_Dawg

Count
Tis a "Calriadian Compromise" you propose...agreed.  I feel we all bring interesting elements to the table and a mesh is the most logical.  Now...how do we go about deciding each "section" of the rules?
 

socks

Master Knight
WB
Polls perhaps? We could each [since we seem to have become the main thinkers here] come up with an idea for different issues, or, if we are in accordance, write down our agreed - on solution.
 

Faranox

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SVC
I'd offer more input, but I'm far more interested in playing whatever Frankenstein game you guys make than actually helping make it I'm afraid.
 

Outlawed

Sergeant Knight
WB
Faranox said:
I'd offer more input, but I'm far more interested in playing whatever Frankenstein game you guys make than actually helping make it I'm afraid.

Rofl.
IT LIVEs

Ok guys, do you all have skype/MSN/vent?
Perhaps we can get on sometime and discuss what we like and don't like about each other's ideas and how we want the rules to be.
If there is still struggle, each person still presents the game rules that we agreed on, but with his/her own little touch.
After that, may the polls commence. Hopefully we will discuss and be able to filter out/add any new features we both have, but first, we all need written forms of our initial rules that are identical so we can work with them. I'll be editing my rules later for some situations that I ran into in one of my scenarios, you both try to do the same (run it in your head/on paper a couple of times to see how it runs).
 
Top Bottom