You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Medieval 2 Multiplayer Discussion and Hotseat Forum
Moderated by SwampRat

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.38 replies
Total War Heaven » Forums » Medieval 2 Multiplayer Discussion and Hotseat Forum » Potential interforum hotseat
Bottom
Topic Subject:Potential interforum hotseat
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
SwampRat
M2TW Ladder Leader
posted 07 March 2013 16:05 EDT (US)         
There has been a suggestion that a joint hotseat could be run with the chaps from total war.org

Rather than try and do anything crazy like organise it, I thought I'd throw a list of questions and suggestions out and see what thoughts you have and whether you're interested.


Teams/players



The options I can think of are:
- Lots of factions in a free for all
- Lots of factions in teams them Vs us
- Lots of factions in free for all, but us as one religion them as another (semi-teams)
- Two or four factions, each played by a team (swap game hotseat?)
- Something else


I'd say that the first three options all risk having too many players to run smoothly for a full game - although with admin mode that's not a huge problem as people can be skipped, replaced, kicked etc.

Having a free-for-all would be less fun, in my view, than some sort of competitive game, but having two formal teams would hamper diplomacy and lessen intrigue. There'd be more flexibility with a religious approach since you could go against those in your own religion.

I think a swap game would be best though, a simple game with only a couple of teams but a full level of discussion and cooperation within each site - plus it could zip along nice and quickly.
Small games with two players lack something - you know who the main opponent is. But can two distinct swap game teams operate nicely off each site?


Rules



There's quite an impressive set up on the org with hotseats, a nice guide (including discussion of the autoresolve system) and a 'standard' set of rules.

I think they're excellent rules - if you're a paranoid numpty with no sense of fun. No offence anyone from the org after all we want to play a game with you not make you cry.

To be fair, some are quite clever but others just seem to suck the fun / skill out things.

The guide and rules are shown in full glory here:
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?138876-The-comprehensive-guide-to-hotseat-play

Main points I have issues with are:
- No destruction of buildings
- No opening gates with spies
- No calling or joining jihads and crusades


Interestingly I didn't see a matching of 'no building destruction' with 'no extermination' as I'd find that the two go fairly hand in hand with area denial.

The argument against them is, I think, mainly that you create central deadzones of no-mans land. It could be that I haven't seen the worst of it, but in HotseatA we did have a couple of areas that really suffered with destruction - but it wasn't hugely widespread and served a tactical purpose. The Balkans got spanked with the back and forth war, I raided Egypt (yay Sicily) with the intention of hurting the Turks rather than expecting to hold it. I think it's part of the game.
The players should be well aware that if they destroy buildings they're hurting their future potential.

The spies issue is in their rules because it's easy (but hard to detect) cheating by reloading etc to get spies inside gates and it's quite hard to defend robustly against spies. They also reduce the need for siege weapons. More than that, I think it also makes it a lot harder on the defender than the standard autoresolved siege battle. Those are reasonably fair points, but is it reasonable to have to pull spies out of a settlement before attacking? This isn't a crazily bad rule (unlike the other two) but it does seem a bit of a limitation.

No crusades? Pah.

The most interesting rule is one barring a defeated army from moving - to even the situation up. An fair idea but hard to keep track of perhaps.

There are also the usual questions like 'which mod?'

[This message has been edited by SwampRat (edited 05-01-2013 @ 02:42 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
Kilij Ae Varyl
Legionary
(id: AugustusCaesar)
posted 07 March 2013 18:30 EDT (US)     1 / 38       
I am in full support of the hotseat and glad it has been brought up again. It seems we are less stringent when it comes to the rules. They are reasonable though.

As for the campaign, I say we should do lots of factions, preferably with teams. With admin mode, I say there's no problem. This time around, I'm up for any mod.

"An emperor is subject to no one, but god and justice" -Barbarrosa
"The best fortress a prince can possess is the affection of his people" -Niccolo Machiavelli
EnemyofJupitor
HG Alumnus Superbus
posted 08 March 2013 03:15 EDT (US)     2 / 38       
Stuck on facebook

The defeated army from moving thing is a great leveller, actually- we had that problem in hotseat A. But I'm not so worried about cheating on it- it'll be a player who forgets or doesn't twig that their army hasn't moved, so lots of boasting about victories and stuff will be needed.

And I shall go Softly into the Night Taking my Dreams As will You
SwampRat
M2TW Ladder Leader
posted 08 March 2013 07:57 EDT (US)     3 / 38       
We can add that rule to the current hotseat here if everyone agrees.

Kilij, you bow down to the whole 'no crusades' 'no destroying buildings' thing? If that ends up as the consensus view then we won't have to question it with the org people, seems to limit the totality of total war though if you ask me.
Kilij Ae Varyl
Legionary
(id: AugustusCaesar)
posted 08 March 2013 15:33 EDT (US)     4 / 38       
I honestly don't understand the no moving a defeated army rule, not saying I disagree with it necissarily, but I don't quite understand it.

For the most part, I find the rules reasonable, although the no using spies to open gates is the one I would want to debate the most. The no Crusade/Jihad rule is dependent on the mod, so I would want to determine the mod were playing before questioning that rule.

The no destroying buildings rule, however unrealistic it may be, is totally reasonable. Though I don't think the building damage from assaulting/sacking/exterminating is enough because of the 0 turn repairs, the destruction of buildings is way too much. Not really because the building is destroyed, but because all levels of the building are destroyed. For example destroying a grain exchange puts the town back 2 turns, not a huge deal, destroying a market puts it back 5 turns, which is quite a pain, destroying a fair ground puts the town back 9 turns, and 14 turns for a great market, lastly 20 turns for a Merchant's quarter. This is quite insane being able to destory 20 turns worth of building within a turn, remember there are other buildings too, a medium to well developed town can be put back over a hundred turns! Effectively ruining a region for the remainder of the hotseat. Also keep in mind, many mods have longer build times and new buildings.

"An emperor is subject to no one, but god and justice" -Barbarrosa
"The best fortress a prince can possess is the affection of his people" -Niccolo Machiavelli
Myth_ORG
Legionary
posted 15 March 2013 04:10 EDT (US)     5 / 38       
Hey guys, sorry I took my time in responding. The banning of armies from moving is standard procedure and is done to lessen the imbalance in the turn order for factions.

Let me give you an example: England vs. France in regular M2TW. If England beats back a French army on turn 1, then when turn 1 for France comes up the French player will see his army as defeated (with depleted units inside) and it will have retreaded far away, probably inside a castle or fort, and it will be stuck without any movement points. That's because the engine of the game uses up your alloted move points for that turn to move your army.

However, if the French player then defeats an English army on turn 1 and clicks end turn, then turn 2 comes up for England. The English army, whilst defeated (with depleted units) and moved far away from the are of its defeat, it will still have all it's regular movement points intact, since they refresh upon the initiation of a new turn. So, the rule bans that army from moving on the turn after its defeat, to equalize the total available movement points to all factions. Otherwise, those who are last in the turn order will be ever at a severe disadvantage.

This rule is surprisingly easy to enforce as when two players are in a conflict each one keeps track of their enemy's armies and they remind the other guy if they forget about this rule.

Likewise, since this rule goes hand in hand with "No attacking of defeated armies on the following turn unless they had retreated into a settlement or fort." the defeted player will remind the attacker if he forgets and smashes that army again on the following turn.

Crusades and Jihads are very fun mechanics for me and i love them in single player, but even with a controlled environment like the first Clash of Gods! game where they could be used only versus that team's respective target cities, they still caused a major problem.

I can tell you right now that if we have a free for all game with crusades and jihads enabled, we won't go past 5 turns without major greifing by a player who got steamrolled by very fast, very big stacks.

Like I said in my e-mails, the spies are also a source of grief, though some of our patrons are also players on the TWC and they are trying to push for spies to be allowed. I personally dislike spies - loading is and always will be an issue in hotseats, and while I don't want to sound like a paranoid numpty (lol), our hotseats tend to get competitive. It really does suck to lose due to your opponent loading and wiping you out with spies. Or instagibbing your entire family tree with unrestricted assassins. I also think that forcing catapults to only open wood and trebuchets for stone walls makes the game more evenly paced out and adds a whole new strategic challenge of "where should I build my tier 3 siegeworks" and "should I invest 6400 gold to get trebs" etc.

The destruction of buildings is a serious issue - remove that and all the veterans will pick corner factions and gang up on the most likely targets, whilst developing their safe regions. It makes certain factions unplayable in hotseats. Ask Nightbringer about his experience with Dogs of War for example.

I see you guys like retrofit a lot, what about other mods such as Stainless Steel and The last Kingdom?

I personally have an idea which could use a few more players, it's a hotseat format that hasn't been tried before. Check out the game here.
EnemyofJupitor
HG Alumnus Superbus
posted 15 March 2013 05:04 EDT (US)     6 / 38       
Hey guys, sorry I took my time in responding. The banning of armies from moving is standard procedure and is done to lessen the imbalance in the turn order for factions.
Yes, I can personally vouch for being on the wrong end of that!
For people who don't know, this is Mythic of the org, as it implies in his username Nice to see you

And I shall go Softly into the Night Taking my Dreams As will You
Kilij Ae Varyl
Legionary
(id: AugustusCaesar)
posted 15 March 2013 06:18 EDT (US)     7 / 38       
Hiya Myth!

Thanks for explaning the no moving defeated army rule, I didn't at all understand it until now, It is a very good rule.

Myself, and likely the others, like retrofit because other than updating the stats with the Kingdoms expansion, it is the true original M2TW experience that is familiar. I haven't been able to get into Stainless Steel, It's too different from vanilla to make me feel comfortable, but too similar to make me treat it like a another game. Never played the Last Kingdom, it looks interesting though. I mod I recently really got into is Invasio Barbarorum II, Conquestus Brittaniae. I don't know how well it is for hotseat play, but I love the mod.

"An emperor is subject to no one, but god and justice" -Barbarrosa
"The best fortress a prince can possess is the affection of his people" -Niccolo Machiavelli
Myth_ORG
Legionary
posted 15 March 2013 08:11 EDT (US)     8 / 38       
At first I was really discouraged because the cities and castles look so much different than M2TW. But SS brings a level of depth, balance and overall improvement that is hard to ignore.

I can hardly force myself to play vanilla M2TW when the movement points are so abhorrently low. It takes ages to even leave your own lands and get to your neighbour. A war between Russia and England can only be a thought exercise or done at turn 120 when they finally meet their borders.

In contrast, the movement points in SS allow for large scale conflict and also surprising engagements, especially from all-cav stacks.

The unit rosters are improved and a lot more interesting, and autoresolve has been changed (though it is not really more balanced imo). I prefer Stainless Steel for lead battle games for sure.

Other mods that we can try is the infamous Grand Campaign Mod which seems to be Retrofit on steroids, and I personally love Third Age Total War, and the 3rd instalment is a marvel of modding.
EnemyofJupitor
HG Alumnus Superbus
posted 15 March 2013 09:34 EDT (US)     9 / 38       
I have trouble readjusting back to Vanilla after Stainless Steel as well.
I haven't played the Last Kingdom mod, however, what is it?

What kind of mods are people willing to try/have played in the past? Some of them can be rather large, though.

And I shall go Softly into the Night Taking my Dreams As will You
LooseCannon1
Legionary
posted 20 March 2013 10:17 EDT (US)     10 / 38       
Hello, everybody. I was led here by the post over at the .org about the joint hotseat. I'm LooseCannon1 over there and Loose Cannon at twcenter.

Most of the rules in M2TW hotseats were developed at twcenter mainly due to some peoples tendency to abuse things. We've had people create multiple screen names and play multiple factions in one game or simply use the admin console to give themselves extra money. Of course, they were banned after being caught. And reloading went from being banned to allowed after it was figured out that it was impossible to prevent or determine if it was being used.

And as the person who was the subject of the Crusades in "Clash of Gods" I can tell you that holding off 10 stacks from 4 players is NOT the most fun thing. (Myth did forget to mention that my team won that game. I need smilies here.)

I prefer limited restrictions on spies/assassins. The "no killing family members" rule is the only one I really like. The rest were created because people forgot to "work" on the entire game. So no rules/few rules/lot of rules doesn't really matter to me. Now to join a game here and see how you play while we wait for the joint game to start.
SwampRat
M2TW Ladder Leader
posted 20 March 2013 14:06 EDT (US)     11 / 38       
I've been intending, and not getting around, to look at the org a bit more. Has anyone there had thoughts about format of this interforum thing? I quite liked my idea about having a swap game type arrangement, no one else seems to though...

Loosecannon, you're welcome to the current KGCM hotseat, assuming admin mode works on the mod as usual, just pick a faction. You can either post your email address or just consent to me looking at it and sharing it with the other players. We're on turn 8, so the AI shouldn't have done anything too horrid with whichever faction you pick.
EnemyofJupitor
HG Alumnus Superbus
posted 21 March 2013 04:14 EDT (US)     12 / 38       
And as the person who was the subject of the Crusades in "Clash of Gods" I can tell you that holding off 10 stacks from 4 players is NOT the most fun thing. (Myth did forget to mention that my team won that game. I need smilies here.)
On the receiving end of two in Hotseat A, and no, it wasn't either But ones earlier in the hotseat failed as players didn't have as much resources as they did at the end of the game- they could only send one, maybe two stacks maximum. Perhaps a rule on amount of troops being sent on crusade allowed to be committed could be looked at? That could be potentially a best of both both worlds if you can still do crusades, but only allowed 2 under the banner or so at once...

It sounds like you've had a few... ultra competitive people over at your place As to how we play, probably inexperienced-ly, to be honest. Welcome to the forums though!

And I shall go Softly into the Night Taking my Dreams As will You
Myth_ORG
Legionary
posted 26 April 2013 02:46 EDT (US)     13 / 38       
Well one of the most powerful things about Crusades/Jihads is that they turn upkeep to 0. Upkeep is what makes you lose gold in RTW/M2TW, not the initial training cost. With a single Crusade you can support an infinite number of stacks, provided you have the recruitment pools to do so.

LooseCanon's team won the first CoG, because our side got complacent (we thought it was "in the bag") and also because we had a ridiculous cheater in our midsts who finally got caught. He was both heavily abusing the game with some third party program, as well as being a complete dolt and failed to win any major battle even with free units to throw around.

When we discovered the extent of his cheating we decided to award the win without further conflict (we were getting mauled by the enemy 3 factions anyway, again due to Jihads and due to us being completely lax at the end)

I really want to get this thing a going - we need a fresh new game. I would like us to reach an agreement on these topics first:

1. Which version/mod will we play on?

I propose Stainless Steel 6.4 Late Era due to the great unit rosters and movement points, as well as the expanded trait system.

I am also ok retrofit though I have not played it. KGCM sounds good as well.

2. How do we do this logistics wise?

I propose two threads linking to each other in the title post. Save game files are posted in both threads.

3. Forced Autoresolve, LB/AR or Lead battles?

Forced AR means we start the game with autoresolve as the only option. This limits human growth vs the AI and makes some factions vastly superior to others, especially if it's not SS but more "vanilla"esque versions

LB/AR means we lead vs. the AI but we have to autoresolve versus human armies. This allows for greater versatility with faction choice and early game flexibility where you can divert fewer resources to expansion and more to early game conflicts (since leading battles lets you stomp the AI and take their delicious settlements)

Lead Battles means we lead all battles. This is great for faction balance, because this way the Turks or Egyptians suddenly become a scourge on the battlefield with their horse archers. It's very specific though, and it can turn a game into a fort conflict. This definitely needs rules for spies opening gates and so on. It's very fun for me, though some don't like it as entire armies can just up and disappear if the enemy gets the jump on them. LooseCannon recently wiped out two of my Moorish stacks this way in CoG!2

4. Who are the potential players?

Please let's make a list for the potential players in both sites so we can see if this is a 3v3 4v4 or even 5v5.
EnemyofJupitor
HG Alumnus Superbus
posted 26 April 2013 05:44 EDT (US)     14 / 38       
2. How do we do this logistics wise?

I propose two threads linking to each other in the title post. Save game files are posted in both threads
We don't have the software for this, I'm afraid- we can't attach files to posts. We've got around this by e-mailing instead.

Ooh, Stainless Steel. Fun fun. Regarding how battles are fought, I thin I'd probably prefer it Lb/AR, which seems fair (especially with Stainless Steel's autoresolve outcomes I've seen in my games...) but I'm not opposed to all Live Battles

And I shall go Softly into the Night Taking my Dreams As will You
Nightbringer_ORG
Legionary
posted 26 April 2013 07:23 EDT (US)     15 / 38       
Hello all!

I have always been a fan of SS 6.4 myself, so I would support that pick.

As to game type, I like the team game concept. I think this makes a nice change to the common FFA format, and let everyone on both sides get fully involved. When teams are controlling one or two factions it could be easy for less senior players or the like to get a bit left out of making decisions.

For rules, I think the no moving after defeat rule actually works really well in practice, and should definitely be used.

Restricting building destruction is also important to me, and I think Kilij Ae Varyl did a good job describing why. You can still do some economic damage to settlements by exterminating, but you can't make them useless for the rest of the game that way.

The last thing I have a strong feeling about is crusades as they simply offer such a huge advantage that any faction without access to them or jihads is at a huge disadvantage and is probably not worth playing in a competitive game

As to spies, I am fine with any set of rules involving them, but would say that things can get a bit insane with crazy quick attacks. Also, I enjoy the mechanics of siege weapons that are forced when spies are limited or banned.

Looking forward to it everyone!

[This message has been edited by Nightbringer_ORG (edited 04-26-2013 @ 07:24 AM).]

Kilij Ae Varyl
Legionary
(id: AugustusCaesar)
posted 26 April 2013 17:05 EDT (US)     16 / 38       
Seeing as Stainless Steel is popular, and I've yet to really play it(other than a few turns), I think it could be both interesting and a good experience for me. However, looking through both early and late campaigns, I'd much prefer early campaign. Not only do I like the era better historically, but I like that factions are much less developed, haven't expanded much, and you get to rise them from their humble beginnings to a great empire.

"An emperor is subject to no one, but god and justice" -Barbarrosa
"The best fortress a prince can possess is the affection of his people" -Niccolo Machiavelli
LooseCannon1
Legionary
posted 26 April 2013 17:33 EDT (US)     17 / 38       
Most games over at twcenter now ban extermination when capturing a settlement.
Also, spies and assassins must have a 60% chance of success to do any missions they attempt. Both rules kind of eliminate the real cheesy play.
Myth_ORG
Legionary
posted 29 April 2013 05:22 EDT (US)     18 / 38       
The thing with the 60% rule is that it requires screenshots and admin intervention to prove, and from what I gather the TWH guys don't like to encumber their games with such strict procedures and they don't really value rules and competitiveness that much, prefferring to have fun and learn together.

If we just have a gentleman's agreement not to abuse and set the really important rules down (the ones that can break your game like merchant fort or assassin reloading) I think we will have fun one and all.

Regarding Early vs Late era, I always play Early in single player. However, in hotseats it is rare for games to go past turn 40. In fact, past turn 30 we have a mop-up of the weaker factions by the obvious victor(s). Stainless Steel has very different recruitment than regular m2TW.

In Vanilla, you just have to have the appropriate level of Castle and Barracks/Archery range/Stables to produce your unit of choice. In SS, you have to wait for special global events that appear on a certain date.

For example, England can't produce Longbows before they get the English Archers event in the year 1220, which is a whopping 120 turns after the start of the Early campaign!

The HRE can't produce Gothic knights until the Gothic Plate event which is around the year 1400... And so on. Even if we turn the Real Recruitment option off (which is what we do at the .org, otherwise the unit replenish rate is too low and you end up with milita armies all around), we still won't get much unit diversity in Early.

Hence I think Late is much better. The only downside to Late is that some factions are much more powerful than others. The ERE (Byzantine Empire) starts off much weaker than, say the HRE or Egypt.

We have three players on our end, how many for the TWH? I propose we take turns in faction choice, first choice going to TWH
Kilij Ae Varyl
Legionary
(id: AugustusCaesar)
posted 29 April 2013 06:17 EDT (US)     19 / 38       
Ultimately, I would still prefer early, I think England and the HRE are powerful enough that no longbows or Gothic Knights isn't a huge setback. I could be considered baised seeing as I was thinking of playing either Lithuania or Cuman Khanate who seem to be better early than other factions(maybe not the Cumans, they looked pretty weak all around). I like paganism, but I see it may not be good for team play seeing as they're only 2 of them, and I'm probably the only one who wants to play as a pagan on our side. Maybe I'll play Islamic if there is more interest on our side.

"An emperor is subject to no one, but god and justice" -Barbarrosa
"The best fortress a prince can possess is the affection of his people" -Niccolo Machiavelli
EnemyofJupitor
HG Alumnus Superbus
posted 29 April 2013 07:36 EDT (US)     20 / 38       
Yes, you are right about us being unworried with too much rules and procedures-our player base and indeed skill level is not that large to need it so far
I shall be in. If swampy or even selif play that'll be three for us too. Sorted.

And I shall go Softly into the Night Taking my Dreams As will You
Myth_ORG
Legionary
posted 29 April 2013 08:27 EDT (US)     21 / 38       
If we don't use Crusades or Jihads playing as an Orthodox or Pagan faction will be no issue and in fact, might be an advantage due to the public order issues you can create with your priests.

The Longbows/Gothic Knights were just an example. Most all factions in Early have only a few units apart from the generic stuff.

The strongest Pagan faction in Late is the Mongol Horde (aka. Golden Horde) bar none. I think it's the strongest on the map at the start of Late Era actually.

If we're playing Early note that the strongest faction is probably the ERE due to them owning Constantinople and Scholarii being so powerful a unit in both lead battles and autoresolve.
Kilij Ae Varyl
Legionary
(id: AugustusCaesar)
posted 29 April 2013 17:31 EDT (US)     22 / 38       
No Crusades or Jihads does make paganism more secure, but I don't see how they would be at advantage, the other religions can do the same thing, only difference is that the pagans and Orthodox Christians are outnumbered.

I'm not really familiar with the mod, but do the Cumans or Lithuanians get any of these event unlocked units? In the case of the Cumans, they seem rather weak and I noticed no difference between the early and late campaign rosters.

Anyhow, are we playing auto-resolve or played battles, that is a big factor as well. Ultimately my faction choice is somewhat dependant on what EoJ, Swampy, and whoever else may be on our side want to play. I nigh forgot about the mongols though, it is rather cool that they are pagan in SS than Islamic, I guess that means there is three pagans in late era, but I doubt we all want to play pagans, although I would be willing to play either Cumans or Lithuanians and let another on our side play as the Mongols and recreate the Mongol Terror. ;D

"An emperor is subject to no one, but god and justice" -Barbarrosa
"The best fortress a prince can possess is the affection of his people" -Niccolo Machiavelli
Myth_ORG
Legionary
posted 29 April 2013 18:29 EDT (US)     23 / 38       
Let's settle on Early or Late first, then one TWH player picks a faction, then it's our turn to pick, then you get your second faction choice and so on. Seems fair?
Kilij Ae Varyl
Legionary
(id: AugustusCaesar)
posted 29 April 2013 19:07 EDT (US)     24 / 38       
Alright, sound's good, I vote early, as implied.

"An emperor is subject to no one, but god and justice" -Barbarrosa
"The best fortress a prince can possess is the affection of his people" -Niccolo Machiavelli
LooseCannon1
Legionary
posted 30 April 2013 07:47 EDT (US)     25 / 38       
Banning Crusades & jihads would be the fairest thing to do. With a "no rules" approach one player can overwhelem another with the C/J free armies.

With Real recruitment on, it only seems to affect Lithuania's "lithuania regular spearman" at the fortress barracks level. Stables and ranges have same units. But with RR turned off, the HRE gets Zweihanders and Imperial Foot Knights at a fortress barracks. Lithuania starts with only one castle and no towns, the HRE has 4 castles and Hamburg can become a fortress quickly (early era). You can't use the "cavalry sally" trick in an SS hotseat because you won't be able to fight battles that occur on the AI's turn (unlike singleplayer). You'll have to win seiges the normal way.

The Cumans suffer from having split territory in early era. Two regions on west coast of Black Sea, rest way out east on the steppes. A human neighbor can hurt them quickly.

No one's played the Golden Horde successfully in a hotseat. Their economic problem has been too great to overcome. But I have a strategy I want to try with them if I get the chance. So choose the era carefully.
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames