Anyone for an MP game?

[unmerged(48100)]

Here's a rule from the Great Game II I think we should use. It certainly makes sense (and it did in this game, for example in only five years the English AI had managed to get 8 BB without any gains).

AI BB rules:
- if player misses a session or part of it and during that time his realm is run by AI, he is eligible to have his BB reduced on following conditions:
> 1/2 of AI-made BB stripped if AI has made gains but at the same time lost land
> all of AI-made BB stripped if AI has only lost land

As long as the trait change is reasonable I have no problem with it, however, as I said, the trait should fit your character as well. Also it would maybe be too easy to tell about him being such a just guy in your AAR if he in reality was not. I think the best is (neutral) readers make up the reward from the AAR, but try to think it is of course biased. So don't believe all said in the AAR, but if possible read the other opinions and AARs about the character as well.

As for the other rewards, I'd say -0,5 BB, or 100 piety or 250 prestige or three months income of money per 1000 words, doubled if getting rewarded as good AAR. (So player that wrote an AAR with 3000 words that was awarded can get up to -3 BB the session. That's certainly ok and not that high. As for piety and prestige, if your ruler dies you'll lose them, thus it's not that high).

As to your question of peace with AI, yes I think the player should make a peace acceptable for the absent player. Of course this can be rather high, but if it's too much I think other players should intervene to save the balance of power. As long as they do this a war with AI is of course no problem. Of course a gangbang against AI is unreasonable and not acceptable.

 

[Okawoa]

yo PM me if you want to test Hamachi, i'm also interested.

 

[Manstein16]

Since we're discussing the rules for the game, I should probably throw in my 2 cents worth. My main concern is rapid overexpansion. After all, even a novice can take over the entire map in the timeframe of 200 years. If we want to have any hope of playing this game throughout all 900 years available, I think we need to pick a direction for this game to go. Namely, do we want to divide and conquer with the game becoming strictly multiplayer after all AI players have been annexed? Or do we want to play this out in a more realistic fashion, with house rules imposed upon players to represent more realistic expansion and growth? I'm fine with either, but I think we need to decide sooner rather than later, otherwise a few players will expand at phenomenal rates while others attempt to replicate a more realistic expansion.

 

[fasquardon]

Since we're discussing the rules for the game, I should probably throw in my 2 cents worth. My main concern is rapid overexpansion. After all, even a novice can take over the entire map in the timeframe of 200 years. If we want to have any hope of playing this game throughout all 900 years available, I think we need to pick a direction for this game to go. Namely, do we want to divide and conquer with the game becoming strictly multiplayer after all AI players have been annexed? Or do we want to play this out in a more realistic fashion, with house rules imposed upon players to represent more realistic expansion and growth? I'm fine with either, but I think we need to decide sooner rather than later, otherwise a few players will expand at phenomenal rates while others attempt to replicate a more realistic expansion.

Hmm... Well, what I'm really looking for is a game where I have some real competition, and maybe even some balance-of-power considerations. I'd be partial to some roleplay as well. I'm really not that fussed if we're playing super-powers, or regional powers.

In CK I've never played a game longer than a century, because by that time I invariably have a super power than no AI could defeat by that time...

I will say, that in my (admittedly limited) experience, too many limitations (particularly if they're fiddly ones) can be a pain to keep track of.

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

As for the other rewards, I'd say -0,5 BB, or 100 piety or 250 prestige or three months income of money per 1000 words, doubled if getting rewarded as good AAR. (So player that wrote an AAR with 3000 words that was awarded can get up to -3 BB the session. That's certainly ok and not that high. As for piety and prestige, if your ruler dies you'll lose them, thus it's not that high).

Hmm, well, I don't want to just reward people for churning out words if people are bored to tears by it, which was why I originally proposed what I did...

If you reckon that rule from GGII is good, I'll add it. 8 BB & no gains is pretty bad...

Does anyone want to volunteer for doing the editing all these rules would need? I confess, I'd probably find it a bit tedious.

fasquardon

 

[unmerged(48100)]

I have no problems to do them if you tell me what changes have to be done.

I totally understand what you mean. Maybe we say as long as one is not bored to tears by it you get a reward for it. If nobody shows interest in it you won't. So try to write an interesting story after all.

 

[unmerged(56576)]

My internet connection was destroyed by an unfortunate incident, and I was unable to post for a time here. But I can see you have nice ideas for rules, and some here even are testing Hamachi. A good thing this game can progress without one or two players...


Welcome, Brasidas, you will be sub for CSK, then. CSK, I'm sorry, but maybe you can play next time . Shuma, what country will you choose to play?

 

[Brasidas]

Alright, sounds good. I've got five hours free after game start, and I've been stable on every other Paradox MP game I've played. I've played some SP CK, and I have a bit of a feel for it.

Two requests:

I'll have a 1.05 installation with the specified mods from the first post, but I would like to do a test connection by fifteen minutes prior to gamestart. Is anyone willing to commit to do doing a test host with me on saturday?

I'll play around with CSK's duchy before the game, but I don't have any experience with the Caucausus region. If CSK would send me an agenda for what some of his goals are, either here or in a PM, it would be appreciated.

 

[Manstein16]

I'll have a 1.05 installation with the specified mods from the first post, but I would like to do a test connection by fifteen minutes prior to gamestart. Is anyone willing to commit to do doing a test host with me on saturday?

I should be able to do that. I'll let you know beforehand if I can't, but I don't foresee that being a problem.

Just finished defragging both my XP drive and the game drive. Hopefully that'll improve my stability somewhat.

I was under the impression that we couldn't use Hamachi with the current save. Has that changed and, if so, should we all start testing it?

 

[fasquardon]

I should be able to do that. I'll let you know beforehand if I can't, but I don't foresee that being a problem.

Just finished defragging both my XP drive and the game drive. Hopefully that'll improve my stability somewhat.

I was under the impression that we couldn't use Hamachi with the current save. Has that changed and, if so, should we all start testing it?

The more tests the better. And I have no idea if we can use the same save, but I'd think it odd if we couldn't. I guess we'll find out when we test.

I'm hoping I'll be able to test it on 1830 BST today. PM me if you're interested in joining in on that.

fasquardon

 

[unmerged(56576)]

f) Remember to be courteous at all times when speaking out of character. In-character insults are, of course, part of the game.

I don't understand this kind of rule. Could you clarify why would I insult anyone?

b) Avoid grabbing Duke & King level titles, if you do, then present the other players with a reason for the action that might make sense for the period, eg: "My ruler is descended from X (a previous king of the claimed title), but the usurper Y (present king of the claimed title) maintains an unjust salic law that denies me my rightful throne!" Because we hope to be playing this game for a long time yet, players with weaker states will be granted more leeway, for example, a player who controlled only the Duchy of Normandy could claim the throne of England based on a claim like: "The last king promised me this throne on his death bed!" If he timed it so that he made his claim only shortly after a change of English monarch (you can't go wrong by imitating William the conqueror). Where as a player who controlled all of France would not be impressing anyone with a claim like this.

Nope, I totally disagree. Let's not apply too much rules, and as duke and king titles require a good amount of prestige, nobody will do this frequently or normally. I guess the "prestige" penalties for grabbing or usurping this kind of titles are already enough, otherwise no limit on this should be applied. And certainly no roleplaying excuses such as those above would matter anyway.

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. As the situation in the game changes, players may ask for a vote of players to decide if their area of heathen-bashing might be extended, in such a case, they should present an argument that might make sense for the period. Ties are broken by the GM, or if the GM is not present, the host. This is to restrict the formation of impossible-looking empires, and to extend the lives of the heathens a bit.

I should add, no heathen bashing outside Europe unless in a Crusade or when you have a good reason to do this, and explain it later or before to the players. Otherwise, if you meet the rules, you will be able to conquer all the heathens you can.

b) When declaring war against non-heathens, the player must give a role-played reason (though it doesn't have to be a good one).

Completely unecessary rule except if the DoW victim is a human.

c) It is, as a general rule forbidden to annex another player's vassal, 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. However, if you have been at war with someone for three years, and they refuse to make peace, you are permitted to annex vassals. There is no other force-peace rule, apart from occupying someone's demesne entirely.

It's better to eliminate the three years rule: you're free to annex vassals if you are at war with their liege at any time. The liege must protect them from danger at all costs, especially if he has mobilized.

e) If you and your allies have no further war-making capacity, make peace. Do not refuse peace-offers simply out of spite.

Unecessary rule, you're free to commit suicide if you wish .

At last, I think we shouldn't have any rewards for AAR's. People are just recommended to write good ones, and no in-game rewards will be given by any means. This is, IMHO, better, as we would just concentrate on the game and leave the AAR's as a secondary thing, and not the other way around.


I recommend all players to vote the definite rules project now and post any suggestions they feel necessary.

 

[fasquardon]

I don't understand this kind of rule. Could you clarify why would I insult anyone?

Are you assuming that a rule about good manners implies that you have bad manners? Most countries have rules against murdering people, does that mean your government is implying that you are a murderer?

In this case, while one would hope (and in my limited experience it's generally true) that most players are polite people, there are those who aren't, and they can really kill the atmosphere of a game. So that rule is there to tell the people who need it "this behaivior is not acceptible, please be good". As most people who are impolite are just inconsiderate, rather than spiteful, a reminder can help things.

I can see your points with the game-play rules you quote. I think the goal I'm aiming for is to have an atmosphere where we encourage roleplay, and keep the game exciting for many centuries yet. The only question is: do we need a lot of rules to do that?

I'm not sure I agree about AAR rewards though. A long involved AAR is going to take a lot more effort than playing one session a week, and I'd like to have some reward for the people who take the time to enrich our game in this way. And I think AARs add to the actual experience when playing, as they give you an idea of the character of the other states in the game, so it's not a case of one taking away from another.

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

Just a post o' random goodness:

BST = British summer time, as most of us in the norther hemisphere are all on summer time, this is the same as GMT effectively.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure that we should have rules for mitigating things like BB accrued by the AI... In real life, countries were badly administered all the time, and wannabe conquerors would mess up the hard work of generations of prior kings... So maybe in an odd way the AI would help us inject some reality into our game? Call it the "**** happens rule" - "no editing to mitigate dumb things the AI has done to you".

What do people think?

fasquardon

 

[Ganso]

Am I still in?

 

[unmerged(56576)]

Am I still in?

Of course, you're Nyitra, aren't you ?

In this case, while one would hope (and in my limited experience it's generally true) that most players are polite people, there are those who aren't, and they can really kill the atmosphere of a game. So that rule is there to tell the people who need it "this behaivior is not acceptible, please be good". As most people who are impolite are just inconsiderate, rather than spiteful, a reminder can help things.

Well, this is a basic thing in all games and it doesn't need to be written.

I can see your points with the game-play rules you quote. I think the goal I'm aiming for is to have an atmosphere where we encourage roleplay, and keep the game exciting for many centuries yet. The only question is: do we need a lot of rules to do that?

Too much stringency is bad. Let everyone play as they wish unless they are hurting the game atmosphere or unbalancing the game too much. I still think we need some rules, although.

I'm not sure I agree about AAR rewards though. A long involved AAR is going to take a lot more effort than playing one session a week, and I'd like to have some reward for the people who take the time to enrich our game in this way. And I think AARs add to the actual experience when playing, as they give you an idea of the character of the other states in the game, so it's not a case of one taking away from another.

For many people here, the reward of a good AAR is always a large set of fans posting in their AAR thread. There are enough rewards for AAR's made out of this game that can be a nice reason to write a good story. We don't need any of them here anymore .

Thinking about it, I'm not sure that we should have rules for mitigating things like BB accrued by the AI... In real life, countries were badly administered all the time, and wannabe conquerors would mess up the hard work of generations of prior kings... So maybe in an odd way the AI would help us inject some reality into our game? Call it the "**** happens rule" - "no editing to mitigate dumb things the AI has done to you".

That will happen when a human has to leave the AI to play for them, and the progress of the game will never be changed. Basically, if you've done something wrong last session, then there will be no legal ways of fixing it.

 

[Ganso]

I'm on a rush now (will post more about the other topics later tonight), but i'd just like to ask to forfeit Nyitra and choose another duchy, if possible, either Albany or Moray of Galloway (in that order of interest).
Please?

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Nope, I totally disagree. Let's not apply too much rules, and as duke and king titles require a good amount of prestige, nobody will do this frequently or normally. I guess the "prestige" penalties for grabbing or usurping this kind of titles are already enough, otherwise no limit on this should be applied. And certainly no roleplaying excuses such as those above would matter anyway.

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.

I should add, no heathen bashing outside Europe unless in a Crusade or when you have a good reason to do this, and explain it later or before to the players. Otherwise, if you meet the rules, you will be able to conquer all the heathens you can.

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.

Completely unecessary rule except if the DoW victim is a human.

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.

It's better to eliminate the three years rule: you're free to annex vassals if you are at war with their liege at any time. The liege must protect them from danger at all costs, especially if he has mobilized.

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.

Unecessary rule, you're free to commit suicide if you wish .

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.

At last, I think we shouldn't have any rewards for AAR's. People are just recommended to write good ones, and no in-game rewards will be given by any means. This is, IMHO, better, as we would just concentrate on the game and leave the AAR's as a secondary thing, and not the other way around.

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.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure that we should have rules for mitigating things like BB accrued by the AI... In real life, countries were badly administered all the time, and wannabe conquerors would mess up the hard work of generations of prior kings... So maybe in an odd way the AI would help us inject some reality into our game? Call it the "**** happens rule" - "no editing to mitigate dumb things the AI has done to you".

Uhm, for example England. It is in a civil war, has eight BB and has to fight France at the same time. Even without the BB, a player would need the whole next session to clear this up and get stable enough he considers it possible to continue the game. With BB, even the most skilled player will need thirty years to get the power he once had, not to talk about the fact enemies like France, that always were stronger than England anyway, have advanced in these years so far the player, who had lost the English crown for some time and slowly worked higher, has no chance to ever match France.

That's the reason I think we need this rule. Otherwise you will have players leave out of frustration.

Another example that happened in the Great Game II was that England had attacked Germany IIRC. This means the small Kingdom in war with France and in a civil war had attacked the biggest Empire of the world. In this case Lurken did not use his chance, but think what would have happened if he did?

Or Kujy's Spanish Realm was at war with Granada, although they had three times his men while he was not in the game. Without help from me, as Italy, he would never have survived this.

Or say the AI had controlled Alania last session. It first would have claimed everything in Georgia, then lost my vassals and then get attacked by Cuman, which means it would have been annexed in winter 1073.

In all this cases we need other players to help the others to keep them in. After all we want a multiplayer, so our main concern should be to keep players in. We will not do this if we say, you weren't here, now face what the AI has done to you.

 

[fasquardon]

That will happen when a human has to leave the AI to play for them, and the progress of the game will never be changed. Basically, if you've done something wrong last session, then there will be no legal ways of fixing it.

Well, it might make the game a bit more dynamic too.

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

Well, Oka and myself tested Hamachi, and had no joy. I've known my computer to be a pain to get to recognise LANs though, so I'd appreciate if other people could test Hamachi too. That way we'd know if it was an individual issue, or a Pdox issue.

And I don't see why you can't play those duchies Ganso, though I'll be dissappointed not to have a player king of Hungary around...

fasquardon