ok thank ubinTravkin said:That's why I was saying he should claim Bulgaria instead.
hyme, check back once the list is finished, I think there was some talk about Bohemia but don't remember if it was taken
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As Bin said, tbh, we should spread out more. I asked for an initial "game roster of playable nations", so that we could get "breathing space". By a "game roster of playable nations" i dont mean the list KoM gave. The list KoM gave is too vague - basically you can pick everyone except for the 10 first nations or so.
I believe we should have something like this...
As you can see there is a big green blob near Byzantium - that is Bulgaria. Which, should be edited in. This roster will give us 11 player nations. 14 if we really have that many players. I believe 14 players is already too much but i have no experience and i do not know if it will lag or not. I also think that in case we lack players the player on Poland should move to Novgorod. Regarding the map - the green slots should be filled first - followed by blue, pink and consequently red ones.
However, i do think we should also have the following set of rules and edits:
I would like to remember everyone that this is NOT only a CK game, but a conversion game, spanning almost 900 years! Taking that in consideration, i hope everyone recognizes these rules/edits are required to make the game more balanced and thus more funny.
Opinions? Suggestions?
I believe we should have something like this...
As you can see there is a big green blob near Byzantium - that is Bulgaria. Which, should be edited in. This roster will give us 11 player nations. 14 if we really have that many players. I believe 14 players is already too much but i have no experience and i do not know if it will lag or not. I also think that in case we lack players the player on Poland should move to Novgorod. Regarding the map - the green slots should be filled first - followed by blue, pink and consequently red ones.
However, i do think we should also have the following set of rules and edits:
- Castile should loose its claim on Leon, and vice versa
- Byzantium's Elective law is changed to something else (someone like the Duke of Apulia might become a vassal at the start and inherit the entire empire if we dont)
- The Jimenez Kings should not have each other as sucessors
- Duchy of Masovia, if played, should not have the King Of Poland as sucessor
- The Rurikovich Princes should not have each other as sucessors
- Player nations cannot conquer more then 4 Pagan/Muslim provinces in a period of 40 years. If a crusade is declared you may take as many provinces as you can, but only from the realm (King, Dukes and vassals included) that owns the crusading target. If you are still at war and the crusade comes to an end, the last part of the rule is void.
- Orthodox nations cannot crusade, but may still take 4 Pagan/Muslim provinces per period of 40 years.
- If you do not take any province in a period of 40 years from any Pagan/Muslim, you may still take that amount of provinces later on. For example: I do not take any provinces from a Pagan/Muslim in the first 40 years of the game. So in the next 40 years i am able to take the 4 usual provinces, plus the 4 provinces i did not take previously. In other words - the value is cumulative.
- If a Muslim/Pagan declares war on you, or in your vassals, you may take 2 extra provinces from them. If you, for example, are attacked by a Muslim/Pagan vassal and consequently by a liege, you may only take from both a TOTAL of 2 provinces. For example: Emirate of Jerusalem declares war on my nation. Their liege, the Fatimids, do the same afterwards. In the end, i can only take a total of 2 provinces.
- You are free to take any province from a Muslim/Pagan as far as your ruler got a claim on it. Provinces taken that way do not count to the maximum amount taken per 40 years. Basically making "Reconquests" possible, should you be overwhelmed by the Muslim/Pagan AI (like in the case of the Golden Horde).
- North Africa (in other words, the Kingdom of Mauretania, Tunisia, Egypt and North Africa) should be TOTALY Off-limits (previous rules do not count!). Exception being the Canaries, and any Crusader target province.
I would like to remember everyone that this is NOT only a CK game, but a conversion game, spanning almost 900 years! Taking that in consideration, i hope everyone recognizes these rules/edits are required to make the game more balanced and thus more funny.
Opinions? Suggestions?
The Crusade rules are way too complicated; you cannot possibly keep track of that for 11 players, or however many we have. The claim and succession edits are reasonable. I'm not sure why you want North Africa to be off limits - it's not very valuable, so a Crusade limit should keep it pretty much in Muslim hands anyway. As for the playable nations, you seem to have got a fairly reasonable compromise between interaction and isolation; I'd be willing to go with that, although any additional players may have to be sandwiched in between the current ones.
Cool map. I would put more 3rd/4th priority places though (as there are actually more people signed up).
I am also totally against any edits of the historical situation apart from maybe changing Byzantium's elective law as a very special case and because it wasn't that elective anyway.
Rather we should exclude the countries that should not be taken by a player, because he can immediately gain too much land by inheritance and stuff.
In those cases we should just simply measure the total strenght of what he has can quickly inherit, so in case of Leon that'd be Leon+Castile+Galicia (and I guess over the limit) and in case of Kiev/Novgorod, that'd be Kiev + Novgorod (again, could be over the limit).
And I agree that crusade rules are too complicated. I had proposed I think the simplest rule:
You may only crusade when there's actual crusade going on and you may not crusade countries other than crusade targets and ones you have border with.
Bulgaria needs a neighbor - it's probably the weakest you've put there and is likely to be harassed by cumans early on.
I would put more 3rd/4th priority places though (as there are actually more people signed up).I am also totally against any edits of the historical situation apart from maybe changing Byzantium's elective law as a very special case and because it wasn't that elective anyway.
Rather we should exclude the countries that should not be taken by a player, because he can immediately gain too much land by inheritance and stuff.
In those cases we should just simply measure the total strenght of what he has can quickly inherit, so in case of Leon that'd be Leon+Castile+Galicia (and I guess over the limit) and in case of Kiev/Novgorod, that'd be Kiev + Novgorod (again, could be over the limit).
And I agree that crusade rules are too complicated. I had proposed I think the simplest rule:
You may only crusade when there's actual crusade going on and you may not crusade countries other than crusade targets and ones you have border with.
Bulgaria needs a neighbor - it's probably the weakest you've put there and is likely to be harassed by cumans early on.
Um, bin, your rule totally screws over the Baltic countries - they do need a spot of expansion against the Baltic pagans. I say we stick to the one-DOW-per-ruler-lifetime version, it has already been tested and shown to be enforceable and to preserve the pagans to a reasonable degree.
No.
This rule has also been tried and tested, Sterk can confirm that he was quite in trouble not being able to territory-boom in the game it was enforced.
Besides - one dow rule is prone for exploiting:
- dow an enemy who has an ally, I tried this with Leon, was ruling the whole peninsula after 3rd king, which was before 1100.
- make your king die (it is often enough that the successor is better, being bred/educated by player's preference)
How about Croatia in that map? As for crusading rules, I'm kinda leaning to the suggestion bin made, though the KoM rule has it charm to.
Interesting map - any chance that we could see people's current choices on it for comparison with the suggested pick-list? If we do end up having to move house I'm going to plump for Toulouse.
The rules all sound reasonable, but I still think that it'd be better to wait and see what DV is like before fixing any of them in stone (plus additional one may be needed).
Have fun
Finn
The rules all sound reasonable, but I still think that it'd be better to wait and see what DV is like before fixing any of them in stone (plus additional one may be needed).
Have fun
Finn
What about it now?
Regarding the crusading rules, why are the rules i proposed just too hard to keep track of? I am fairly sure we can check it after the session properly, and if someone broke the rules he would loose provinces.
binTravkin said:
First of all, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to for me to confirm (and the cheap shot is, once again, unwelcome).
Secondly, since Pagans are everywhere in the Baltic, wouldn't this rule allow massive expansion? I mean, I could just DOW one after another, carving a path through pagans because well, my borders keep expanding.
I'm in favor of the one DOW per lifetime, and besides, let's wait until DV comes out anyway.
I'm referring to the game where you asked all your vassals to give up their territories and when they refused, used the newly gotten claim, to attack them and get more prestige.
This was caused because you didn't have enough prestige to expand early on, while I, being your neighbor as Pereyaslavl could unite Rus with the initial claims and prestige gained in the process.
You got Realm Duress because of it, and were pretty weak for quite a long period because of extreme vassal disloyalty.
I think I still have some saves of that game lying somewhere and Lurken could be having too, as he was mostly hosting (and was Germany).
Also, the game (GG2) thread is still around on page 3 or 4.
I don't see how one dow per lifetime would stop you doing just the same much earlier (in 1066 not ~1080 when first crusades start), since Prussia those pagans mostly form 2 alliances (Esthonia + Courland and Prussia + Lithuania) and you just need to dow one to kill two.
Besides, knowing you could use your dukes to gain prestige and the fact you can inherit Masovia(and the able kings brother as next king) if king dies early, I can imagine you risking your king in every battle to get him to die.
Bin, are you that bitter still? Your example has very little to do with pagans/heathens. It's an example of a Christian overlord fighting with his Christian vassals in a manner for which the game engine was designed. Also, at that point the Baltic pagans were already destroyed, they had no effect on my "troubles".
And for the last time bin, cut out the little jabs at me. I have been as patient and polite as possible. Stop insulting me, quit your whining, give up the excuses, and get used to the fact that I beat you in some computer game over a year ago. Quit acting like a child and start behaving like a grown man.
And for the last time bin, cut out the little jabs at me. I have been as patient and polite as possible. Stop insulting me, quit your whining, give up the excuses, and get used to the fact that I beat you in some computer game over a year ago. Quit acting like a child and start behaving like a grown man.
As far as i see these 2 rules are both prone to exploiting.
The one KoM proposed, can be exploited just for attacking a Pagan with allies. The one Bin proposed can be exploited as well, allowing massive expansionism while the Crusade is going on.
Instead of insulting each other can you please explain to me why "4 provinces per 40 years rule" is very hard to enforce/oversee?
The one KoM proposed, can be exploited just for attacking a Pagan with allies. The one Bin proposed can be exploited as well, allowing massive expansionism while the Crusade is going on.
Instead of insulting each other can you please explain to me why "4 provinces per 40 years rule" is very hard to enforce/oversee?
Sterk, I am not bitter, but your ignorant talking here is quite upsetting.
It had exactly to do with crusade rules, because pre-crusade one was only allowed to expand into fellow christian lands.
You lacked the prestige and the claims and thus were doing something quite irrational to get the needed prestige.
Let's get one thing clear. Trying to downplay an argument with false claims whether out of poor memory or intentionally is not gonna help you. The situation I describe was exactly before first crusade, while I was expanding in Rus, using my initial claims and added prestige from action.
After the first crusade all Baltic pagan lands belonged to you, and you had so low vassal loyalty due to Realm Duress that you could not do any more of that revoke title and dow when refused.
I even remember quarrel when you imagined I'd buy into exchanging province of Novgorod (which you owned) for Kiev and Galicia, which was quite amusing.
Where did you see jabs there? I stated a fact which you don't remember or don't want to. That you took it offensively is your problem. Maybe something with being 'grown up'?
Umm, again, it's not me who sees insult in a fact.
Lol, I have no problem with the fact you beat me in a single war, though you apparently have as you're trying to forget the fact that you only was able to beat me due to game bug where all of my army (which was twice yours being at 6.5k while yours was little over 3.5k) suddenly disappeared in a max upkeep province having only 3.1 attrition, out of no visible reason, after a battle I actually won.
A couple of decades later you had no chances to stop me (as I had the whole Rus + Bolgar + most of Cuman) and instead proposed to re-start a game which resulted in Kings, Emperors and Statesmen game.
I'm not the one boasting about 'victories' here and seeing insults everywhere.
I'm also not the one who pretends to know everything better and being more 'grown up' than everyone else.
Last edited:
Are these games very prone to heated arguments over slightly trivial matters?
The way i see it we have two options regarding pagan-bashing:
1 DoW per ruler:
Pros: Easily enforced.
Cons: Players would try to attack as large alliances of pagans as possible in order to get the most per DoW. Smaller pagans/muslims would go unharmed for a long time. This might be a problem.
x provinces per y years:
Pros: Flat and equal expansion for all players.
Cons: Might be hard to enforce if there is several players crusading at once. When reaching your limit attacking large pagans/muslims you would be forced to go on the defensive (as you can't siege anymore provinces).
Is this an accurate analysis?
The way i see it we have two options regarding pagan-bashing:
1 DoW per ruler:
Pros: Easily enforced.
Cons: Players would try to attack as large alliances of pagans as possible in order to get the most per DoW. Smaller pagans/muslims would go unharmed for a long time. This might be a problem.
x provinces per y years:
Pros: Flat and equal expansion for all players.
Cons: Might be hard to enforce if there is several players crusading at once. When reaching your limit attacking large pagans/muslims you would be forced to go on the defensive (as you can't siege anymore provinces).
Is this an accurate analysis?
Quite ok.
Well, yes, there would be two problems mostly - first it's hard to keep track of who did what and conquered whom because you have to go through like 10 positions and compare each. Then you need to edit savegame where a person has broken the rule, which should be avoided by all cost (the edit of savegames), because it can corrupt the save. Second problem is related to the defensive issue you already mentioned. Having taken 4 provinces from, say, Seljuks means that you're drawn in an endless war, because they will mostly be stronger than you and will refuse your peace proposals.
The analysis is not full, however:
Crusading only during crusades:
Pros: Easily enforced, gives a 'preparation time' for everyone, so that the first years don't become a mad rush for 'who'll get more' / 'who'll get there first'. Containment - by only attacking bordering or crusade target countries, you cannot just steamroll all heathens in sight.
Cons: Named is the ability to take out large chunks in a single crusade, but it's only at certain areas (Baltics, Cuman, Bulgar) and will not likely happen as several people struggle for the same area.
This would make it difficult for Norway to expand in the baltic. I'm not sure if that's a problem though.
The reason the 4-per-40 rule is hard to keep track of is that no session goes for forty years, so you have to note down conquests over multiple saves, for 10 or 11 positions. Let's be clear: If this rule is adopted, someone other than myself is doing the tracking. Preferably the guy who proposed it.
It seems that Lurken is now GM by acclamation, since nobody has voted for any other candidate. I therefore suggest that he might want to pick a deputy for when he's not here. (The first act of tyranny - no more democracy, the gloves come off! ) I would also request that he picks one of the proposed Crusade-control rules, announces one of his own, or announces that the decision will wait until we see how DV works.
I think, perhaps, the last option might be the best one; I suggest we adopt the following temporary rule:
No DOWs against pagans or Moslems are permitted until the first Crusade is declared. At that time, Lurken will have enough experience with DV to tell us what the permanent Crusade rule should be.
It seems that Lurken is now GM by acclamation, since nobody has voted for any other candidate. I therefore suggest that he might want to pick a deputy for when he's not here. (The first act of tyranny - no more democracy, the gloves come off!
) I would also request that he picks one of the proposed Crusade-control rules, announces one of his own, or announces that the decision will wait until we see how DV works. I think, perhaps, the last option might be the best one; I suggest we adopt the following temporary rule:
No DOWs against pagans or Moslems are permitted until the first Crusade is declared. At that time, Lurken will have enough experience with DV to tell us what the permanent Crusade rule should be.