Anyone for an MP game?

[fasquardon]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to imply we shouldn't help players who've gotten messed over by the AI, I was just wondering if we should avoid doing it by editing.

Still, your examples make it sound like that isn't a great idea.

fasquardon

 

[Ganso]

Fasquardon: thanks, I'd be delighted to play the Duchy of Albany then.
I too was having a blast playing as a hungarian duke... problem is, i've been playing on single player as the same duke and... what can I say, i'm the king and Hungary is very VERY large right now, spanning as far west as Provence...
So, I wanted something a little more "poor" and more far away from the main action and since the Highlands are always nice in Autumn...

In regards to the laws, I'm all in favour of applying some kind of penalty for title grabbing; as it is the only setback is badboy points that make your life ruling your backstabbing vassals harder but as time passes so does your reputation become better... and soon we would have 4-5 contenders to most european thrones.

Cheers

 

[Okawoa]

Fasquardon: thanks, I'd be delighted to play the Duchy of Albany then.
I too was having a blast playing as a hungarian duke... problem is, i've been playing on single player as the same duke and... what can I say, i'm the king and Hungary is very VERY large right now, spanning as far west as Provence...
So, I wanted something a little more "poor" and more far away from the main action and since the Highlands are always nice in Autumn...

Cheers

My wishes have been confirmed! I can retake Sicily

 

[unmerged(56576)]

The cost on normal for grabbing a Kingtitle is like nothing. Claims don't get lost. If we don't apply this rule every player will have a claim on every Kingdom in 1200.

No, it is quite a lot. It costs about 2250 prestige to grab the title of King of Norway in SP at Normal. Even the less expensive king titles cost about 200 prestige. If all the players insist, then I'm in favor of placing only a restriction of grabbing one king title per one or two rulers.

Take the most you can if there is a crusade means bye Fatimids in 1120 at last. It usually takes the Pope some time to recognise Jerusalem has been taken. Of course you would go on in this time. Too easy for a player as Ganso or Okawoa to take it all in one go. That's just too much land for free. Either we have clear rules, that are harder than they were last time, or we decide to free every Kingdom taken in a crusade, you may give it to a cousin of yours, but nothing nearer.

Then I would be in favor of freeing the kingdoms, but there are a lot of ingame events that already do this. Crusades should be aiming at taking Crusade goals and whatever is considered important to reach them. Who is with me?

Not at all. For example, I attack Chernigov. But this is the heir towards Pereyaslavl, and Fas would get it once his Prince dies. I take their land around the Volga in a blitz and don't tell him about. Isn't that unfair not to tell him at all I have attacked them. This could apply on many things. If you decide to attack a Kingdom important to the balance of power, at least tell us why. Otherwise the other should of course attack you. He'll probably do so as well if you do, but then, if your reason is good enough, others might help you.

But then you would be attacking Pereyeslav, so fasquadron would be warned of this and would DoW you . If the players decide so, we might need to warn and present a "casus belli" in case we DoW important AI kingdoms or humans. But we don't need to keep warning people all the time when we DoW, IMHO.

Never heard of blitzing in enemy territory? I was on a crusade, come back home. My men are at his border, and I attack him without earlier notice. My men pour into his richest provinces and annex them before he can get his men together. He loses 1/3 of his manpower, and now I, although earlier by far weaker, am equal to him. He has to make peace. Now after years he decides to attack me, but we're still equal. As he has no other reason, I better mobilise and thus he can't get the lands back I stole in an unfair mannor.

Hmm... I've never seen this, but the guy should be aware there are dangerous armies on the border . Well, blitzing is forbidden then, and a player who goes on Crusade must only DoW infidels and reach the Crusade goals. Should we wait years and years until we annex enemy vassals? No. Either we forbid blitz, or we allow the previous rule.

Would you like to make a war taking years and years just because you can't afford to pay your army to go to Iceland. Because of one stupid province. This would only exhaust the other player and make him vulnerable. Thus I think there should be a rule to have a player accept defeat.

I doubt any human player would enter this situation, and he can very well enter a debt just to pay his armies to go to Iceland. Plus you can fight in debt and I have done this many times. If the player doesn't want a debt, he would very well make peace. We should apply this rule only if the player is fighting against heathens and doesn't haven enough piety to negotiate peace.

If you have no rewards for the AAR, there certainly won't be some. First, AARs are sometimes the only reason to continue a game, may it be singleplayer or multiplayer. Second, it always is interesting to read another perspective of a game you played yourself. Third, it's good to get new players if you write an AAR. This is the best way to get subs and other players join your group.

If you don't give rewards for the AAR, most people won't write one after the fourth session. I don't know why this should be so.

I will write them for the whole game, even without rewards. If most of the people here want rewards, then they will have it. But I don't like the idea of adding traits or claims or anything, and it would be best just to give some extra in-game money or an honorary title.

 

[unmerged(56576)]

So all players interested can propose a draft for rules. The drafts will all receive votes and the rules with most of the votes will become the definite rules of the game. There shall be no more than 3 proposals to avoid everyone voting for their own rules (my suggestion).

 

[unmerged(60276)]

Hey guys. I'm still here. Still want to play Tulouse. Ready for Saturday

If all the players insist, then I'm in favor of placing only a restriction of grabbing one king title per one or two rulers.

As life spans may vary, how about a time limit?

and a player who goes on Crusade must only DoW infidels and reach the Crusade goals.

Well, the thing is, like the spitefull players we mentioned, the AI can be quite spitefull themselves. As in, maybe the AI doesn't want peace after the target is taken. And in that case, having to keep an army in the field, while not being allowed to take more provinces to make the AI sign peace... that would just suck. So, let's make the rule something like: you can take the crusade target and what provinces you need to secure it (like provinces going under the same duchy title), but your obligated to sign peace with the infidel King when he offers it, unless he's asking for your money.

I will write them for the whole game, even without rewards. If most of the people here want rewards, then they will have it. But I don't like the idea of adding traits or claims or anything, and it would be best just to give some extra in-game money or an honorary title.

I also intend to write the AAR regardless of there being rewards or not. I know other people might not be so motivated, but still. The honorary title thing seems interesting. I think we should think about that. Something like, a great ruler of yours can get a nickname or something, but only if you wrote about his rule in the AAR, and recieved good marks for it (how to get marks to be determined).

 

[unmerged(56576)]

Here goes my draft for rules. Basically it's just fasquadron's project with a few changes, which are in bold:


Rules & Recommendations:

Part (1) - stability of the game and the players.

I) Re-hosts & starting:


a) We will wait for no more than 5 minutes after game start (by the host's watch) for players to arrive. If you aren't here by then, tough cookies. Likewise, we will not wait more than 5 minutes before re-starting the game after a crash.

b) Do not select your state before the host.

c) Do not leave the game set-up if someone is downloading.

d) Do not go afk without warning. Try to avoid unnecessary afks. When going afk, an estimated time for your absence would be appreciated. Remember to say when you are back.

e) Do not alt-tab away from CK.

f) If the game is being really unstable, don't take out your frustration on other players, we're gonna be as pissed as you.

g) If a player crashes, the game is rehosted at the start of the next year unless he is in war in which case an immediate rehost.

h) If you know you will be away for a game session, either find yourself a sub, or accept that you will be AI'd.


II) While the game is running:

a) When the game starts, say "in". Do absolutely nothing with the mouse until the host tells everybody "start". If you click on *anything* before everybody has joined, the game might crash. You *may* chat with others, including private-messages, but as everybody is reporting in, your message might go unnoticed in the plethora of messages.

b) Do not go afk without warning. Try to avoid unnecessary afks. When going afk, an estimated time for your absence would be appreciated. Remember to say when you are back.

c) Do not alt-tab away from CK.

d) DO NOT PAUSE. If you urgently need to get the game paused, ask the host to pause. If the host is temporally AFK or is not able to see your messages, then pause until the situation is cleared with the host. While paused, make sure someone is still manipulating the game.

e) Let a few seconds pass before accepting an annexation offer.

f) It helps if CK is the only program running, particularly when you are the host. Also, it helps to de-fragment your hard-disk regularly.


Part (2) - game play considerations


I) Avoiding gamey-ness:

a) We encourage role-playing. Try to get into the headspace of your ruler, rather than doing things just because they will increase your power.

b) People are only allowed to grab one king title per approved timespan, so basically if you grabbed a title, you will have to wait until some time has passed before grabbing another one.

c) There are no limitations on usurping however.

d)Catholics may not heathen bash outside Europe unless they are in a Crusade, and it must aimed at taking Crusade goals and whatever is needed to secure them and make peace offers. Keep in mind that you should offer peace immediately after taking Crusade goals until the enemy accepts.

Orthadox may not heathen bash outside the old Roman Empire (i.e. no further east than Mesopotamia) and Eastern Europe.



e) People shall never assassinate courtiers inside their own court without stating a good reason to do so first. It is forbidden to assassinate characters inside your court just for reducing badboy.

II) War and Peace:

a) When declaring war against another player, or an AI controlling the state of a player who has warned the group that they will be absent, the player must publicly declare their war-aims. These may change during the course of the war, but again, they must be publicly declared. If a player is absent for longer than they said they would be, their state is considered an AI one, and other players may declare war without stating their aims.

b) When declaring war against a powerful AI or human, the player must give a role-played reason and warn every other player.

c) It is, as a general rule forbidden to annex another player's vassal if you are not at war with his liege, unless he has given you permission - either explicit, by agreeing to it out loud, or implicit, by not DOWing you when you DOW the vassal. Blitzing during Crusades or Wars is forbidden, and mobilizing before DoW’ing a human is forbidden. A player must DoW a human first before mobilizing

d) If a war starts, and a player ally is AI'd, it is O.K. to call on them.

e) A player will be helped if he is in a war against heathens and can’t make peace with them because of lack of piety in case the heathen is isolated, or after all the players decide it may be necessary to make peace.


Part (3) - AARs and Rewards.

a) AAR’s are an essential part of the game and we strongly recommend people to write them.

 

[unmerged(56576)]

Well, the thing is, like the spitefull players we mentioned, the AI can be quite spitefull themselves. As in, maybe the AI doesn't want peace after the target is taken. And in that case, having to keep an army in the field, while not being allowed to take more provinces to make the AI sign peace... that would just suck. So, let's make the rule something like: you can take the crusade target and what provinces you need to secure it (like provinces going under the same duchy title), but your obligated to sign peace with the infidel King when he offers it, unless he's asking for your money.

Welcome back, Shuma . And I agree that people should make peace with AI's immediately after taking Crusade goals. I've changed my draft to include that people have to offer peace and accept peace immediately after taking Crusade goals. And I also agree with your proposed rules for grabbing kingdom titles. So, you will be Toulouse next session, ok?

 

[Ganso]

My quill and paper shall not fail to appear in the AAR section.
(Yeap, i'll be doing an AAR too, regardless of any bonus).

 

[Manstein16]

I will write them for the whole game, even without rewards. If most of the people here want rewards, then they will have it. But I don't like the idea of adding traits or claims or anything, and it would be best just to give some extra in-game money or an honorary title.

I'm kind of with rsobota on this one. Those of us without much time on our hands will find ourselves at a disadvantage if the players who can dedicate the time required to write a 1000 word AAR receive major bonuses of those who don't. I fully intend to write an AAR after each game, but I tend to let pictures do most of the speaking for me. One option is that if we don't implement awards and the quality of the AARs is quite poor (or even nonexistent), we could then implement an awards system. Just a thought.

 

[unmerged(60276)]

Welcome back, Shuma . And I agree that people should make peace with AI's immediately after taking Crusade goals. I've changed my draft to include that people have to offer peace and accept peace immediately after taking Crusade goals. And I also agree with your proposed rules for grabbing kingdom titles. So, you will be Toulouse next session, ok?

Heh, I now saw that in fact I didn't write want I intended to in that post. I do think you need to offer peace right away. But it might be the AI that presents a problem by declining. So I propose you can continue expansion into the AI territory, until the AI is finally willing to sign peace.

My suggestion for King titles is 25 years or something like that.

 

[unmerged(56576)]

Heh, I now saw that in fact I didn't write want I intended to in that post. I do think you need to offer peace right away. But it might be the AI that presents a problem by declining. So I propose you can continue expansion into the AI territory, until the AI is finally willing to sign peace.

My suggestion for King titles is 25 years or something like that.

I agree with you, however I'm quite concerned that there might be a lack of control about it. I shall add "to secure the Crusade goals", instead of just "to reach the Crusade goals" in my draft.

According to many here, then, we don't need any bonuses to keep writing this AAR. I suggest we don't give anyone then and erase the rules specifying them. I'm waiting for the confirmation of players currently offline and the rules to be voted, but my draft will not contain it.


Any thoughts about my draft for rules? Anybody has a different proposal? 'cause we need to vote before the next game.

 

[fasquardon]

Fasquardon: thanks, I'd be delighted to play the Duchy of Albany then.

Well, it's good that we've got someone bulking up the west a bit, though I hope we can get someone else to be our man in eastern Europe.

fasquardon

 

[Manstein16]

Rsobota, your draft has my vote.

 

[Ganso]

Aight, I agree with the draft too.

 

[Manstein16]

Rsobota, can you switch me to the Duke of Saxony on the first post? That's the duchy I ended up with (the AI drove the Duke of Sjaelland 300 gold in debt and I didn't feel like paying off that debt for the next 100 years (literally) so I switched during a rehost. Thanks!

 

[fasquardon]

b) People are only allowed to grab one king title per approved timespan, so basically if you grabbed a title, you will have to wait until some time has passed before grabbing another one.

Another idea is to limit the number of claims on foreign Dukes and Kings we're allowed. Say to one King title and 5 Duke titles.

d) No heathen-bashing without an excuse that might make sense for the period. eg. Russian Principalities may bash the heathens in historical Russia, but not in Egypt; Italy may bash heathens in Jerusalem if it is a crusade target, but not if there is no crusade. No heathen bashing outside Europe unless you are in a Crusade, and it must aimed at taking Crusade goals and whatever is needed to secure them and any peace offers. Keep in mind that you should offer peace immediately after taking Crusade goals until the enemy accepts.

There's a bit of redundancy in the above, how about changing it to this:

Catholics may not heathen bash outside Europe unless they are in a Crusade, and it must aimed at taking Crusade goals and whatever is needed to secure them and make peace offers. Keep in mind that you should offer peace immediately after taking Crusade goals until the enemy accepts.

Orthadox may not heathen bash outside the old Roman Empire (i.e. no further east than Mesopotamia) and Eastern Europe.

d) People shall never assassinate courtiers inside their own court without stating a good reason to do so first. It is forbidden to assassinate characters inside your court just for reducing badboy.

This should be (e), but it's a good suggestion.

b) When declaring war against a powerful AI or human, the player must give a role-played reason and warn every other player.

I reckon players should announce any declaration of war they make against a Christian foe. In fact, it's probably more important to declare wars against the weak.

c) It is, as a general rule forbidden to annex another player's vassal if you are not at war with his liege, unless he has given you permission - either explicit, by agreeing to it out loud, or implicit, by not DOWing you when you DOW the vassal. Blitzing during Crusades or Wars is forbidden, and mobilizing before DoW’ing a human is forbidden. A player must DoW a human first before mobilizing

Hmm... Thing is, blitzes have happened so often in real history, I'm a bit uncomfortable making a rule against it. Ditto surprise attacks where the agressor has mobilized well before the enemy, and scattered their opponents before they could prepare an organised defence...

Personally I'd prefer to deal with this kind of thing in a balance-of-power way within the game, so if some player used "unChristian" tactics against another player, we organise a coalition against them, and restore the counrty they hurt. Or not, as the case may be.

e) A player will be helped if he is in a war against heathens and can’t make peace with them because of lack of piety, in case the heathen is isolated or after all the players decide it may be necessary to make peace.

I don't understand what you mean by this one. Could you elucidate on it?

a) AAR’s are an essential part of the game and we strongly recommend people to write them.

My worry has been that without AAR rewards we'll end up with a tragedy of the commons... As Manstein says though, we don't need to decide with finallity on the AAR rules right now. In fact that goes for any of the rules. It's our game, and we can see how it goes.

Thinking about it, basing the reward content on word count is probably the worst thing to do... As Manstein said, some people can't write as much as others and some people like to put up more screenies, rather than using words. We've already discussed voting for AARs, well, perhaps we could base the rewards on on votes, rather than word count. Let's say people would get these options with each AAR:

I thought fasquardon's AAR was:

Great! 3x bonus.
Good! 2x bonus.
Worthy! 1x bonus.
Unowrthy! Have a tomato.

Also, some ideas for other rewards could be:

Convert a province to culture X (unless it is a non-European Muslim province)
Convert a province to religion X (unless it is a non-European Muslim province)
Convert a province to or from heresy
Generate a random courtier of a certain type (eg. martial, clerical etc.)

As before, any such changes would have to be justified by events in the AAR and/or the character of your ruler.

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

I will write them for the whole game, even without rewards. If most of the people here want rewards, then they will have it. But I don't like the idea of adding traits or claims or anything, and it would be best just to give some extra in-game money or an honorary title.

I like the honourary title idea as well. It would add alot of colour to the game for our characters to have nick-names we could see while we're playing.

fasquardon

 

[unmerged(48100)]

The point about AARs is, have you looked upon the other great MP AARs? In the last one only Wilcoxchar posted for some time, now fj44 does so too. In the March Through Time only King of Men posted and so on. I see many will post their AARs in the first days, but will they still do the next months? Every week? A reward would at least make sure we get an AAR.

 

[unmerged(60276)]

a) We will wait for no more than 5 minutes after game start (by the host's watch) for players to arrive. If you aren't here by then, tough cookies. Likewise, we will not wait more than 5 minutes before re-starting the game after a crash.

I'd like to move this up to 10 mins. In case someone's system crashes, it certainly takes longer than 5 mins, and it isn't such a big difference for those who wait. You can do your toilet pitstop and stuff during that time.

f) It helps if CK is the only program running, particularly when you are the host. Also, it helps to de-fragment your hard-disk regularly.

Yeah, I'll do that this afternoon, haven't in a while.

No heathen bashing outside Europe unless you are in a Crusade.

So Spain is fair game like Russia?

Blitzing during Crusades or Wars is forbidden, and mobilizing before DoW’ing a human is forbidden. A player must DoW a human first before mobilizing[/U] (needs to be further discussed)

Hmm, as a compromise, let's say you can mobilize, but you can not move your armies outside your territory. As in, if I'm playing Tulouse and I wan't to attack Apulia, I can't set up my army in Rome and Spoleto and then declare war, but I can ready them for shipping in France, declare war, and be on my way.

That way it is not blitzing, and the player who is attacked has time to respond, and the attacker does have some advantage from being aware that the war is going to start.

a) AAR’s are an essential part of the game and we strongly recommend people to write them.

I think we can postpone ths discussion for next week. I'm sure for the 2nd session we'll all still be motivated to write.

These points aside, I agree with rsobota's draft.