TWBW: A New Hope

[Varyar]

We could hold GM elections for before we start this saturday.

I vote for KoM as primary GM, and myself as vice-GM.

Best to have a clear leadership for our irst session.

It could turn out to be tight since we're voting on pretty much everything from realms to game rules etc. I think we can make do with KoM as temporary GM for now, and hold an election next week.

We should make it: No dowing or bashing pagans PERIOD unless a crusade is called.

If there is a crusade you can only dow the crusade target OR a pagan bordering your King Title.

I could agree with this.

BTW Sid, I'd recommend that you switch to a less powerful russian prince. ATM you've chosen the second most powerful duchy in the game and you'd end up being at least twice as strong as anyone else.

 

[King of Men]

I think perhaps some simplified rules for pagans are in order, considering the confusion we had in TWBW over who you could attack. How about this: Attacks on pagans only during Crusades, but attack whoever you like? And if a pagan DOWs you, they are fair game.

I suppose we may as well start the GM election right away. We are electing a GM and a vice-GM. I vote Varyar for GM, ulmont for vice-GM. And I also think that editing should be done by one of the GMs.

 

[Sid Meier]

i dont like the idea of being able to bash pagans anywhere, it should only be the ones next to you relatively speaking, like england baching northern rus as an example we can all agree makes little sense.

 

[ulmont]

I think perhaps some simplified rules for pagans are in order, considering the confusion we had in TWBW over who you could attack. How about this: Attacks on pagans only during Crusades, but attack whoever you like? And if a pagan DOWs you, they are fair game.

I like these rules, although I suggest that they may need to be revisited if and when all legal crusade targets are in Christian hands.

I suppose we may as well start the GM election right away. We are electing a GM and a vice-GM. I vote Varyar for GM, ulmont for vice-GM. And I also think that editing should be done by one of the GMs.

I vote King of Men for GM, Varyar for vice-GM.

 

[ulmont]

england baching northern rus as an example we can all agree makes little sense.

England crusading anywhere makes little sense, and yet they did historically.

If England can follow a crusade to Jerusalem, they can follow a crusade to the Baltics or Finland.

 

[King of Men]

Well - there are two sides to the argument; England did historically crusade all over the place, but what they didn't do was establish permanent ownership of the land they took from the Moslems. Unfortunately CK doesn't really model that Crusades usually took the form of campaigns in support of the local Christian ruler, who would receive the land taken, usually in the form of accepting vassalage from the knights who had taken part. The Reconquista worked this way where non-Spanish crusaders were involved. The establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was pretty exceptional. Establishing French direct rule of the Levant - well, it didn't happen.

With that said, we must adapt to the game we have. I think that there are sufficient constraints on maintaining distant vassals that we don't really need to worry about, say, England permanently conquering the Levant. And, if they do, it will be very costly to make it stick. In other words, I think the game mechanics accurately reflect the difficulty, and there is therefore no need for house rules on top of that.

ulmont is obviously correct that we would need to reconsider the only-during-Crusades bit if all the Crusade targets were taken, but that is hardly going to be a problem for the first hundred years or so.

 

[hyme]

1. use, i would also to usej ordarkelf DV: pledging fix mod
2. ban kings 1200
3.vh

gm kom
for vice-sid

 

[Varyar]

I think perhaps some simplified rules for pagans are in order, considering the confusion we had in TWBW over who you could attack. How about this: Attacks on pagans only during Crusades, but attack whoever you like? And if a pagan DOWs you, they are fair game.

Sounds like reasonable and most of all easily enforced rules. What could possibly cause trouble is if a crusade end in the middle of a pagan campaign. Should we then be forced to make peace immediately or be allowed to finish the campaign?

I suppose we may as well start the GM election right away. We are electing a GM and a vice-GM. I vote Varyar for GM, ulmont for vice-GM. And I also think that editing should be done by one of the GMs.

I'm honoured. However, in the near future I may end up being either absent or late for several sessions depending on my work schedule. Therefore I think it would be better if we have someone else as GM. I'd be happy to be vice-GM though.

With that said, we must adapt to the game we have. I think that there are sufficient constraints on maintaining distant vassals that we don't really need to worry about, say, England permanently conquering the Levant. And, if they do, it will be very costly to make it stick. In other words, I think the game mechanics accurately reflect the difficulty, and there is therefore no need for house rules on top of that.

I fully agree with this.

 

[Varyar]

BTW, Sid, what about Pereyaslav?

 

[fasquardon]

1. No DVIP, in fact, I'd rather not have any large mods. MP seems to work better with vanilla. Also, I'd rather try a session before we use the vassal breaking patch, to see how the beta patch does.
2. Ban all claiming of King titles until 1200, though 1150 would be fine. Does this limit apply to inheriting crowns too?
3. Difficulty: Hard

GMs: KoM and Sid sounds fine

For Crusade rules, considering the difficulty level (which is going to make BadBoy hard to shed anyway), I'd prefer we either had no crusade rule, or a crusade rule restricting you to only attack heathens within a short distance of your duchy's borders. I really want to mug some of the small heathens in my area within my first decade (i.e. before the Seljuks or Cumans conquer them) so that I have a decent power base for defending myself against said Seljuks and Cumans... If it hadn't been for some jammy events popping up at the right time, Georgia would have very quickly become Cuman in the last game.

fasquardon

 

[ulmont]

2. Ban all claiming of King titles until 1200, though 1150 would be fine. Does this limit apply to inheriting crowns too?

My assumption, which is of course only my assumption, is that if a King title is inherited before 1200 there will have to be edits similar to those done to Norway and Georgia pre-start. Probably the simplest fix would be to require the King title to be given away to another Duke in the kingdom, so you would end up inheriting only the desmense as a practical matter.

 

[Lurken]

My assumption, which is of course only my assumption, is that if a King title is inherited before 1200 there will have to be edits similar to those done to Norway and Georgia pre-start. Probably the simplest fix would be to require the King title to be given away to another Duke in the kingdom, so you would end up inheriting only the desmense as a practical matter.

Sounds as a good solution.

And for GMs...

Kom for GM and Varyar for Vice-GM

 

[Sid Meier]

I really don't think me playing as Pereslavyl is a big deal, at a hard difficulty not only will BB be harder to shave but harder for me to claim Duchies, I think the very difficulty we play at is far more of an affect on the wealth cutoff then the actual duchies we play.

I am also pretty far from most people with alot of strong pagans in the way between me and closest neighbours me being a tad stronger then I would otherwise is mostly diluted and you all know I am not a power gamer I play Duchies mostly to have fun and have long term goals, also I suck at CK so if anything my realm will collapse within 5 years.

 

[Varyar]

2. Ban all claiming of King titles until 1200, though 1150 would be fine. Does this limit apply to inheriting crowns too?

I have assumed so, yes. The "spirit" of the rule is to prevent players from being kings for an initial time period.

Ulmont's suggestion sounds fine if an inheritance does occur.

For Crusade rules, considering the difficulty level (which is going to make BadBoy hard to shed anyway), I'd prefer we either had no crusade rule, or a crusade rule restricting you to only attack heathens within a short distance of your duchy's borders. I really want to mug some of the small heathens in my area within my first decade (i.e. before the Seljuks or Cumans conquer them) so that I have a decent power base for defending myself against said Seljuks and Cumans... If it hadn't been for some jammy events popping up at the right time, Georgia would have very quickly become Cuman in the last game.

I'd rather be willing to make a temporary exception for Georgia to mop up Abkhazia & Co (which are the ones I believe you're thinking of) than implementing distance rules on pagan-bashing. I'm very fond of keeping the rules simple and easy to implement.

 

[Varyar]

I really don't think me playing as Pereslavyl is a big deal, at a hard difficulty not only will BB be harder to shave but harder for me to claim Duchies, I think the very difficulty we play at is far more of an affect on the wealth cutoff then the actual duchies we play.

I am also pretty far from most people with alot of strong pagans in the way between me and closest neighbours me being a tad stronger then I would otherwise is mostly diluted and you all know I am not a power gamer I play Duchies mostly to have fun and have long term goals, also I suck at CK so if anything my realm will collapse within 5 years.

Everyone else isn't necessarily a good player either, nor do you necessarily have an unusually difficult position. Carinthia will not have a cakewalk whilst suffering under the Franken yoke

Bottom line is that everyone suffers equally from the difficulty level. It is supposed to be hard to claim duchies, if we have a game where one king may rule without any expansion at all I say that is a good thing, not a bad thing. A little difference in strength isn't bad but ATM you're twice as strong or more as anyone else and also commanding the second strongest startup duchy in the game. Even if it doesn't matter much to the game or to the rest of us players, there is a serious imbalance there. If everyone else is fine with it I'll accept it though.

 

[unmerged(83245)]

I think we should have a general understanding on pagan bashing rather than strict rules. For example as Reggio id like to establish control over Sicily within the first 50 years of gameplay and as it stands ill be waiting till 1150(or 1200) which doesnt make much sense, the same applying to Georgia Etc. Of course we dont want heathens washed away in the first few decades so maybe a restriction on how many you can attack every half-century/ruler? Or if you border their lands you can take them on? Also im still considering swapping to a Byzantine Principality as it seems Italy and its surroundings will get very busy in EU

 

[ulmont]

I think we should have a general understanding on pagan bashing rather than strict rules. For example as Reggio id like to establish control over Sicily within the first 50 years of gameplay and as it stands ill be waiting till 1150(or 1200) which doesnt make much sense, the same applying to Georgia Etc.

You can establish control over Sicily as soon as the first crusade gets called (after which you can attack any pagans or muslims you want, like the ones in Sicily), you just can't claim the King title until 1150 or 1200. The only reason the king title is so important is to stop you from force-vassalizing dukes (after that point, it's an easy free-for-all).

 

[Varyar]

Or if you border their lands you can take them on? Also im still considering swapping to a Byzantine Principality as it seems Italy and its surroundings will get very busy in EU

As long as there is a crusade you can take on anyone IIRC.

... and expect a fruitbasket and possibly some gold from Carinthia if you pick Byzantium *wink wink nudge nudge*

 

[unmerged(83245)]

Ok im gonna probably take Epeiros although i may switch back to Reggio. I can't decide what I want more, a Norman Empire in the Central Med or a Greek Empire in the East. Also if its possible could I forge a new CoA for them?

When are we planning to play the 1st session? This week or will we leave it another to resolve any rule/player issues?

 

[Sid Meier]

so far both KoM and Fas, the two pwoers closest to me have no problems with it. I personally want Pereslavyl because its the closest way to play as "Moscovy"/