The Great Game 2

[binTravkin]

The problem is that if the iberian player is restricted like that, I fear that Iberia will become a smörgåsbord, where France, Italy, Germany and possibly England viciously grab whatever they can hold at leisure. Wouldn't be very fun long-term.

I don't see how Iberian player gets restricted with this more than any other player.
In fact, as I already pointed out, most iberian realms have claims to realize from the very start, thus before crusades have started, there will be quite much of christian infighting.

Also, as I already pointed out, christian player in Iberia can easily become ally of some weaker neighbour who is sure to be attacked by muslims sooner or later, thus an Iberian player is sure to be fighting at least twice as often as say French player.

And as there are only so much muslims in Iberia, I expect that the Iberian player whomever he is will conquer 2 emirates (as of starting setup) per a single crusade.
At least I find it doable. This means, that in 3 crusades (I doubt we have >3 crusades for the entire game) the christian Iberia player will at least have reclaimed Zaragoza, Toledo, Badajoz, Mallorca, Murcia and probably some other small muslim states. It will only be Cordoba and/or Sevilla left at best.
Furthermore, a skilled player can easily manipulate AI into dowing him - you just need to have a border and a little less troops than AI.

I will probably test that all out during the week and I also suggest you try to play an SP game by those rules listing down your progress.

I understand the logic, but if this rule will be in the game, why would I want to crusade? It'll cost a ton of money and give me absolutely nothing. Or rather, I'd crusade but never entirely wipe out my enemy and instead focus on gathering 'goodie' provinces for my own realm.

There must be a bonus associated with creating crusader kingdoms, be it victory points or piety/prestige boost or BB reduction, for this to work IMHO.

Hmm, good suggestion.
What could be the amount of piety/prestige recieved or BB taken away?
Probably it could be good if someone who releases KoJ can become the next PC easily (by having most piety). It should also be quite feasible.

 

[Varyar]

I don't see how Iberian player gets restricted with this more than any other player.
In fact, as I already pointed out, most iberian realms have claims to realize from the very start, thus before crusades have started, there will be quite much of christian infighting.

Hope you're right.

Hmm, good suggestion.
What could be the amount of piety/prestige recieved or BB taken away?
Probably it could be good if someone who releases KoJ can become the next PC easily (by having most piety). It should also be quite feasible.

Difficult to say, since the creation of the kingdom itself does have some goodie effects(reducing BB for instance). A lot of piety, perhaps +50 per released province, and some victory points to represent the eternal glory of having freed lands from the heathen? Jerusalem, Mecca and Baghdad could have even greater bonuses.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

GM: binTravkin
2nd GM: CSK

Eh what?! Why don't I know anything about that?

 

[binTravkin]

Difficult to say, since the creation of the kingdom itself does have some goodie effects(reducing BB for instance). A lot of piety, perhaps +50 per released province, and some victory points to represent the eternal glory of having freed lands from the heathen? Jerusalem, Mecca and Baghdad could have even greater bonuses.

Hmm, let's say:

- 50 piety for each released province
- -0.5 BB for each released province

which means basically the same if you gave half of the provinces to bishops and other half to counts.

- some prestige boost, only how much? 1000? 2000?

Eh what?! Why don't I know anything about that?

Now you do..
If you want to know reason - you're the scenario author, have some skills in balancing and have shown good objectivity.

And here a few more rules I thought up (I'll compile a complete set later this week, once I get more opinions and suggestions):

First - at least some of you know how much bad a single session being run by an AI can mean. Therefore a rule:

- if a session or at least part of it has been run by the AI, a player gets:
a) all BB made by AI nullified if AI has not gained any lands
b) half BB made by AI nullified if AI has gained any lands, but at the same time lost any
c) no BB reduction if AI has fully maintained realm's territory gained any lands

This should help to deal with situations which were commonplace in MTT - AI cannot manage big realms and gets huge BB in a matter of months.

And another for heathen bash:

- A player is allowed to execute any claims he might have on a muslim, in any time, but only those claims. Penalty for not being consistent with this rule will be harsh. +5BB for any non-claim province.

Do I make too much rules?

 

[unmerged(48100)]

And another for heathen bash:


Do I make too much rules?

Well, one point. What is one supposed to do when he has a claim on the title Emir of Sevilla or such? Nothing? Or take all lands? Getting the title of a muslim isn't possible AFAIK. I would say nothing and wait until the title is in christian hands, but I don't know.

 

[Varyar]

Hmm, let's say:

- 50 piety for each released province
- -0.5 BB for each released province

which means basically the same if you gave half of the provinces to bishops and other half to counts.

- some prestige boost, only how much? 1000? 2000?

I'd rather see that we don't award both piety and prestige. Since the piety boost will give the player a good chance on becoming papal controller, it would be too unbalancing if at the same time the player is given enough prestige to claim every title available from excommunication.

Also, there's no need for the BB reduction. The game mechanics takes care of that. I'd much more like to see Victory points handed out, if they are supposed to matter. Otherwise, piety is fine. Perhaps some gold?

 

[binTravkin]

Also, there's no need for the BB reduction. The game mechanics takes care of that.

There is. MP expierence shows so. See MTT thread for reference. At least 2 players have left the game due to inability to cope with AI-made BB, one of them Lurken.

 

[Sterkarm]

I just want to say my bit about these rules. I do not like complete restrictions on players' activities and rules limiting power (beyond changing the original setup). I feel that players should balance each other out. For example, say I go on a massive crusade all through the baltics at the start (let's assume there are lax crusading rules) and start to take lots of land quickly. However, if Germany, Kiev, Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, and another Russian power are on their toes, they will want to limit my power (at least some of them will). Therefore, some will likely start a war against me and try to bring me down as my armies are away fighting pagans. I quite frankly think that this should be a main pillar of maintaining balance, while rules should not be. There could be a few rules about crusading, like maybe a limit on provinces or something. However, with the INCREDIBLY high prestige costs for claims, it will make expansion near impossible except for crusades when everyone will bash the pagans and heathens instantly.

Also, forcing people to release titles is very unfair. I think that 1-a player's nostalgia or simply wish to see cool kingdoms created (I personally love creating many Piast-ruled independent kingdoms) 2-outside pressure from other players or 3-the waste of resources from defending a faraway realm would cause nations to release independent crusader states, etc. In March Through Time, 1 and 3 were the main reasons I released a very, very powerful Kingdom of Jerusalem with a little bit of reason 2 adding to the mix. I think forcing one to give up anything by rules is a bad thing in most cases.

 

[King of Men]

I agree with Sterk on this; except for actual exploits, house rules should be very limited in MP games. Balance should be maintained by internal player dynamics, not restrictive rules on what can be done and not done. If someone threatens to win in 1250, too bad - he played well, the rest of you didn't. (Take a look at how well Sterk did in the Great Game around that time, and also at where he is now. )

Apart from that, I see that Sterk is up to his old tricks with Poland in the dip thread. Watch out, preciouss - it is trickssy! Very trickssy indeed, yess... We hatess it, preciouss, so we doess!

 

[Sterkarm]

I agree with Sterk on this; except for actual exploits, house rules should be very limited in MP games. Balance should be maintained by internal player dynamics, not restrictive rules on what can be done and not done. If someone threatens to win in 1250, too bad - he played well, the rest of you didn't. (Take a look at how well Sterk did in the Great Game around that time, and also at where he is now. )

Apart from that, I see that Sterk is up to his old tricks with Poland in the dip thread. Watch out, preciouss - it is trickssy! Very trickssy indeed, yess... We hatess it, preciouss, so we doess!

Revealing my ploys, eh? Bastard.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Sorry Sterk, but no. If you want it this way I could have edited the game enough that I put out all heathens and give the lands to players. Because this is exactly what you want. It would take less time, yes, but the effect is the same. And when I talked to bin he said one of his intentions was to have some AI in the late game. He meant it is bad to have all pagans wiped out in 1150. And I agree. Balance of power is good, but that means the others have to wipe out pagans to get strong enough to keep you under control. And that means we wouldn't need to have any pagans in the beginning.

Besides, pagan bashing is nothing I would call a hard game. You aren't a good player only because you can take all pagan lands as Poland. Everyone can.

I like the rules and think this is the only way to keep a different feeling than a fight between major powers all the time. If you want to fight world wars and with the only balance made by the player play Vicky or HoI2. The game will get to this stage and then it's ok to get away of some rules. But CK is a medieval game, and I don't want to see a world war. Or even more than one.

 

[binTravkin]

Well, Sterk, what can I say.
The only problem with bashing I see (if those rules become reality), is that you wont be scrapping all your army in 1066 dec 26th, but most probably somewhere in 70's, which means that before this time you have some buildup, can claim some christians and do other early stuff.
If there are no rule which prevents from immediate heathen bash, it will be a mad clickfest on the very first day of game. I do not want clickfests in Crusader Kings. I hope Im not the only one.
I admit it will go a bit mad once crusade starts aswell, but people will at least have time to prepare and set up some alliances, build some infrastructure and other stuff.
If we go heathen bashing early on, there's little relevancy to player's skill.
The only thing that matters is whether you have some weaky heathens nearby and what is your army size.

Okay, the release rule will be scrapped.
But we then need to decide what happens if someone decides to join us.
We should release some place then, but who would and should do it?
Maybe then kingdoms holding crusade targets should be released (in order of crusades)?

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Okay, the release rule will be scrapped.
But we then need to decide what happens if someone decides to join us.
We should release some place then, but who would and should do it?
Maybe then kingdoms holding crusade targets should be released (in order of crusades)?

Why? Is there another reason than one wants to keep the land for himself? If you get something for releasing I see no problem of doing it.

 

[Varyar]

I'm behind binTravkin and CSK regarding the rules. Why must the game start with explosive expansion? Don't forget that we're supposed to run this game all the way to EU2. How fun will that game be if all that's left is 10 or so überplayers?

@binTravkin: I've run a few startups as various Iberian powers, and I'm starting to think that the region needs a more experienced player than myself. I am simply unable to either become the dominant christian power or secure enough pagan territory before the first crusade kicks in.

 

[binTravkin]

Ok, then lets swap our places. I would probably be able to kick butt as Leon.
The trick is to kill Castile early (actually raising troops ASAP) by executing your claims on it. After that it should be no problem whatsoever..

 

[Varyar]

Ok, then lets swap our places. I would probably be able to kick butt as Leon.
The trick is to kill Castile early (actually raising troops ASAP) by executing your claims on it. After that it should be no problem whatsoever..

I tried that. While sieging Burgos with the few remnants of my army after the clash with Sancho, Toledo declared war and I got whacked. Ah well... I probably did something wrong somewhere o

 

[binTravkin]

You got poor luck!

Actually Im playing on VH/F all my SP games and I usually succeed whacking Castile.
I wonder if H/A is not much easier.

If Toledo dows you, it's always good idea to WP with all your remaining money. They usually hook it..

EDIT: there's always an option to sit it out and wait when Toledo dows someone else..

 

[BurningEGO]

Yesterday, i remember playing SP as the Duchy of Braganza. Declare war on the moors in 67. Had about 4000 men besieging my capital... But i was so lucky that the whole PC army simply disapeared! I guess it had one of those wicked events... by 1080 i had my Kingdom of Portugal created. I was playing Normal/Normal.

Anyway, i agree with Sterkarm in some points (i don't like the idea of being restricted to conquer just a few provinces). But i don't want to see nations as in the MTT thread either, where just a few control the whole world. About that "release crusader kingdoms" rule, i don't even think we should EVER release them, be it to the PC, or to a new player. I simply don't like the idea of giving half of my kingdom to someone. It doesn't even make sense but if you simply don't abolish that rule by 100%, i will be forced to conquer one province here, another there, so that i cannot release a title that i cannot claim

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Ok, then lets swap our places. I would probably be able to kick butt as Leon.
The trick is to kill Castile early (actually raising troops ASAP) by executing your claims on it. After that it should be no problem whatsoever..

Why would you try to fight castile? You start with enough money to kill the spymaster and after that your brother after some months. Then you have Castille too. Besides, when there is no human controlled Castille you could just die in battle and get bigger too. When your brother inherits you get bigger too.

 

[Varyar]

Anyway, i agree with Sterkarm in some points (i don't like the idea of being restricted to conquer just a few provinces). But i don't want to see nations as in the MTT thread either, where just a few control the whole world.

You're not that restricted, more than half the map is available to you. You just have to get claims first. Don't forget that this game is supposed to last into the EU2 era. How fun would it be to convert if the Middle East/North Africa is split between Spain, Poland, Germany and France?

About that "release crusader kingdoms" rule, i don't even think we should EVER release them, be it to the PC, or to a new player. I simply don't like the idea of giving half of my kingdom to someone. It doesn't even make sense but if you simply don't abolish that rule by 100%, i will be forced to conquer one province here, another there, so that i cannot release a title that i cannot claim

You're free to do as you wish, be it picking single provinces here and there or abstaining from crusades altogether. But as you can see from the discussion, the ambition is that releasing a crusader kingdom should provide a huge bonus to the player.