They are among us - Search & Destroy!

[Moredhel]

They are among us - Search & Destroy!​

Welcome warmongers, If you are what the adjective before had described you than you’ve come to the right place. Because next Sunday you will be attending the first season of “Search & destroy”, a game designed for those of you who LOVE wars. The rules and the scenario (Ryoken’s empires of steel-1492) make this game what you warmongers are looking for. The game is going to include mostly, how do you call them? Ah yes! Wars Wars and what more… yes you guessed it! WARS!

Only to give you a small taste of the idea of the game I will put the first most interesting rules up here where you are sure to read them

1. Every nation must declare at least one war every 40 years. If you think of declaring a fake war you are in for a big hit cause the GM and Co-GM are not afraid to edit you some inflation. Every violation of not declaring war will bring a severe punishment.

2. Allies and alliances. Those are the key for a powerful empire, ruling your allies and using them to destroy your enemies. Well this game will include a very nice part of betrayal. Whoever betrays his allies-alliance-ally will gain an immediate bonus of a leader and reduce of inflation. The bigger and more shocking the betrayal is, the more inflation reduction you receive, the better leaders you get and the more money you gain.

3. Every member of the game will have to maintain a royal court, stating an up to date foreign affair policy towards every other player. Britain will have to state her status towards France, Spain, Russia and so on.

France- War
Spain-neutral
Russia- give rights to Chinese cots
Portugal- declaration of war in case Portugal conquers Chinese cots.

And so on…


So don’t forget, the game will be played every Sunday between the hours of 19:00 CET to 23:30 CET, Your nation needs YOU!

Time:

Every Sunday 19:00-22:30 CET (we can play longer if all agree)

Scenario:

Ryoken's 1492 Empires Of Steel mod - download here
Installation instructions - HERE

Staff:

GM's: Von Diplomacy and Moredhel
Editor & Co-GM:

Nations:

England - Moredhel (ICQ 64030926)
France - juv95hrn (ICQ 103632632)
Portugal
Spain - FranK XIV
Austria -
Ottoman Empire - Lord Jarski
Muscowy - Konrad der Rote
Sweden - von Diplomacy (ICQ 210-498-198)
Brandenburg - Salam (ICQ 204-573-487)
Poland - easterncali (ICQ 318091616)

Rules:​

- Peace deals between alliances can include only 3 provs (COT=2 provs, Colony=1/2 provs, TP=0 provs, Gold prov=1)

- 3 Prov Max in peace deal rule will expire in 1750

- Non-aggression pacts and diplomatic intentions must be stated openly.

- Breaking the in-game pacts and agreements is allowable and even encouraged. Of course it excludes such thing as province trading that's difficult to do in game.

- Map trading with AI is stricly forbidden. Map trading between humans is forbidden until 1650.

- Persian culture is off-limits to human players until 1720.

- If a nation has -99WS and -3 stability it must accept the next stabhitting offer of peace.

- Stay within limits of ethical behavior if it's possible. Don't deliberately destroy somebody's nation.

- When attacking somebody's vassal you must attack his overlord as well.

- Every nation must fight a war every 40 years. Failure to do so or fighting a "faked" war will result in +10 to inflation, -6 to stability and all your current tech investments will be erased. Small nations like Portugal, Venice and Brandendurg will recieve 30 years more for their first war (so they must fight it within the first 70 years of gameplay and not 40).

- Dishonouring an alliance will result in -2 to inflation and 2 leaders with average stats of 3 (or 1 with average stats of 4).

- Dishonouring an alliance and joining the other side will be rewarded with -4 to inflation and 4 leaders with the average stats of 3 (or 3 with 4) provided that it won't result in a gang and both sides have the same chance to win (that's up to GM to decide). Otherwise betraying nation will receive the same bonus as when simply dishonouring the aliiance.

- Every nation that was involved in a PvP wars during the last session will recieve certain amount of points, based on the relative percent of its mapower lost during the session and the total amount of provinces gained from / lost to other players, according to this formula -
points = ln(m+1)*25-(15p-5), where m equals manpower factor and p - provinces gained from players (negative if lost). These points can not be accumulated and must be spent (or not spent at all) until the next session to purchase generals (admirals) - not more than 4 and only one with 5 in any of his stats, and mayors in the province of your choice (only one - no need to have infra 5). The costs are:
3-3-3 general - 10 points. 3-3-3-1 - 15, 3-3-3-2 - 20.
Every point rased to 4 will cost an additional 2 points.
Every point rased to 5 will cost an additional 3 points (total 5 to raise from 3 to 5).
Mayor - 25 points.

- The punishment for breaking any of these rules is +5-10 inflation or/and -6 to stability according to the situation.

 

[Owen]

Well, this has a few interesting ideas, certainly.

1. Every nation must declare at least one war every 40 years. If you think of declaring a fake war you are in for a big hit cause the GM and Co-GM are not afraid to edit you some inflation. Every violation of not declaring war will bring a severe punishment.

Are you going to differentiate between countries with this rule? It's much easier to declare war as the Ottoman Empire than it is as Portugal. If you're specifically talking about player/player wars, then Russia and OE will have problems at the start.

2. Allies and alliances. Those are the key for a powerful empire, ruling your allies and using them to destroy your enemies. Well this game will include a very nice part of betrayal. Whoever betrays his allies-alliance-ally will gain an immediate bonus of a leader and reduce of inflation. The bigger and more shocking the betrayal is, the more inflation reduction you receive, the better leaders you get and the more money you gain.
No limit of how many players may be allied in the same alliance, just remember that it is enough for one player to betray his 5 member alliance to gain a 20 inflation reduction and some hell of leaders to make sure he starts with the right foot.

What are you hoping to achieve with this rule? I would consider a decrease of 20% inflation for a single event to be completely game-breaking. No alliance will ever be honoured, probably alliances won't even be entered into, rather defeating the point of your first two sentences.

 

[Moredhel]

The rules aren't exactly finished yet. Wars are meant to be PvP. Small nations will recieve some period of grace. Of course -20 to inflation is too radical. In most extreme cases betraying nation will recieve -10 inflation and some good leaders as well. Also, this scenario has much more events that increase inflation..

 

[Owen]

The rules aren't exactly finished yet. Wars are meant to be PvP. Small nations will recieve some period of grace. Of course -20 to inflation is too radical. In most extreme cases betraying nation will recieve -10 inflation and some good leaders as well. Also, this scenario has much more events that increase inflation..

I still don't understand what you hope to achieve with this rule. Is it that you want to see more fluid alliances? If so, I don't really see why you would choose to control it this way, rather than just allowing the GMs to break up alliances that are too powerful or have been in place for too long.

 

[unmerged(24007)]

I still don't understand what you hope to achieve with this rule. Is it that you want to see more fluid alliances? If so, I don't really see why you would choose to control it this way, rather than just allowing the GMs to break up alliances that are too powerful or have been in place for too long.

Owen,

Well it is simple. In order to make sure no one enters a game breaking alliance there are many rules. There isthe famous 3 members limitation and there are some other different ideas going through the this thought. However it had occured to me and Moredheal that most of the euii games are based on rather known rituals. France fights Austria and usually Spain. England keeps netural until she is powerful enough, and theese are only few examples.

One question must come up, why? Well I thought for it for quite some time and then I came to the conclusion. Tt is quite simple, they do it to immitate historic events. However how can a game be historical when it's all so pre known. Certain powers ally other certain powers. Great wars in Europe between France and Austria and their alliances. This is the point- Their alliances. members of an alliance must have their own intrests above the simple "honor" concept. Betray your friend and you gain, this is the most historical concept to be kept out of Euii- Betryal.

That is the idea of the law.

 

[Moredhel]

Well, it wasn't exactly my idea so you shoud speak with VD about it I think it will create some sense of instability and extreme paranoia which might be fun (in a way)

 

[unmerged(24007)]

Well anyways I think I will be taking Venice...

 

[Owen]

Owen,

Well it is simple. In order to make sure no one enters a game breaking alliance there are many rules. There isthe famous 3 members limitation and there are some other different ideas going through the this thought. However it had occured to me and Moredheal that most of the euii games are based on rather known rituals. France fights Austria and usually Spain. England keeps netural until she is powerful enough, and theese are only few examples.

One question must come up, why? Well I thought for it for quite some time and then I came to the conclusion. Tt is quite simple, they do it to immitate historic events. However how can a game be historical when it's all so pre known. Certain powers ally other certain powers. Great wars in Europe between France and Austria and their alliances. This is the point- Their alliances. members of an alliance must have their own intrests above the simple "honor" concept. Betray your friend and you gain, this is the most historical concept to be kept out of Euii- Betryal.

That is the idea of the law.

I disagree with your conclusion as to the reason for the same countries usually developing in the same way, since I believe that it is primarily driven by a combination of geography and Paradox's historical events. France fights Austria and Spain because they are her most powerful neighbours. England stays neutral until she is more powerful because it would be stupid to do otherwise. That said, there is an element of players being expected to conform to history in many games, but it generally relates to province ownership, not to the makeup of alliances.

I do agree that alliances can sometimes become too static, but think that while your method will make people dishonour alliances more often, it will also create far greater problems.

It's your game, I guess.

 

[Casluerj]

I think that the ideas are good but playing a 1492 scen with them wont working... Consider play a AoM or AoE so the game will be more balanced... BTW, is just my opnion.

 

[Adam B.]

I can provide you with a free SubFora for this game in the Adamo if you like, for all the courts

 

[unmerged(24007)]

I can provide you with a free SubFora for this game in the Adamo if you like, for all the courts

Hah Adam you saleperson yeah that would be nice, up for joinning the game yourself?

 

[Sterkarm]

I'd like to state my interest in this game... the time isn't great, but I suppose it's just about the only time I have open for a new game anyway. And, if I can, I'd like to take Poland, no surprises there.

 

[Moredhel]

Ok, first post edited. Any chance to get your ICQ number as well?

 

[Sterkarm]

I don't have ICQ. I have AIM, and it's compatible with ICQ (I've used it to manage quite a few backstabbings and gangs, so it works just fine ). As for time, there are quite a few Sunday games already, we might be able to get more.

 

[Slargos]

Every 40 years?

That sounds far too peaceful for a game dedicated to warmaking.

 

[Adam B.]

Hehe, but the burdon is high apparantly ...

As for all ppl who think it won't work, let them try and "fail miserably" or succeed.

 

[Slargos]

ahem. i might actually want to play this one.

i call sweden

icq: 4070257

i also think sweden should be given a grace period on the warmaking as it starts out pretty pathetic.

 

[Moredhel]

Sorry, no period of grace for you. Besides, the grace period doesn't really prevent small countries from being attacked even in the first year of gameplay, just gives them more time to try to stay out of wars

 

[juv95hrn]

I'll try to make it sundays.

I think it's time I tried France in MP.

 

[unmerged(33259)]

S-Pain!!!



Urko, is back (and this time i come to kill u!)