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.
The options I can think of are:
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?
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 orgafter 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:
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?'
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
- 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
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:
Main points I have issues with are:
- No destruction of buildings
- No opening gates with spies
- No calling or joining jihads and crusades
- 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).]