petergarnett wrote:Scar I can see the map now. Surely the downside of this is that players will feel they need to fight locally. My idea was that all were at the edge on the inner & outer seas and so could invade any other player.
True, it might cause a bit of a more local focus, but it will give some point to treaties, negotiations etc, Also might keep the feeding frenzy down, as one person would be attacked over and over again by multiple armies of an alliance.
The map is basically you can attack anyone that your color (and maybe that of anyone you have a declare alliance with) touches, so we would still get lots of room to fight lots of people.
I'm happy to surrender re the map as long as someone else maintains it and players realise fully that countries are not geographically located next to each other.
Why not 19 separate maps...like...Map of Texas, Map of Egypt...etc. They wouldn't have to be big...just an easy reference to who holds how much. And each could show who holds the state if it's been conquered.
I have to say that 12 countries, with all being in contact with all, makes for mayhem, but isn't very realistic and does not allow for any sort of realistic diplomacy of the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" variety.
Why not arrange the countries round the doughnut but:
1) You can attack any adjacent country by land.
2) You can attack non-adjacent countries across the sea, but will lose 25% of the force in transit. (It would be better random, but that might be hard to administer). Also armies "across the sea" cost 50% extra to maintain.
That should be sufficient deterrent to random backstabbing to make diplomacy somewhat meaningful.
You can make the map large enough to add more players if you want.
Or - you can have successive doughnuts (12 countries in each) going down to the centre of the earth, with travel upwards and downwards to separate doughnuts on the same basis as cross-doughnut travel.
Deoends how off-the-wall you want to get, but I must say that, for me, any topography would be better than no topography at all.
Last edited by rbodleyscott on Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rbodleyscott wrote:I have to say that 12 countries, with all being in contact with all, makes for mayhem, but isn't very realistic and does not allow for any sort of realistic diplomacy of the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" variety.
Why not arrange the countries round the doughnut but:
1) You can attack any adjacent country by land.
2) You can attack non-adjacent countries across the sea, but will lose 25% of the force in transit. (It would be better random, but that might be hard to administer). Also armies "across the sea" cost 50% extra to maintain.
That should be sufficient deterrent to random backstabbing to make diplomacy somewhat meaningful.
And you think a world shaped like a doughnut would ever be realistic
My biggest issue is the map maintenance & recording of who has an army where. By abstracting all of that my task is greatly simplified. However I'm open to what many of you are suggesting but would merely ask that we do it this simple way for say the first year of play. After that, if the majority want it, I can randomly assign map positions with the aid of whoever wants to be the cartographer.
Or to put it another way lets start to crawl first please
petergarnett wrote:I'm happy to surrender re the map as long as someone else maintains it and players realise fully that countries are not geographically located next to each other.
I would be more than happy to update and keep the map posted, however we decide it should work, I would just need reports on who lost a province etc. If we go with the anyone can attack anyone, all the map will show is who has provinces.
If we go the other way, with the map representing the world and restricting access to people as you have to be able to get at them, then we may see more diplomacy; and at its heart this campaign is really about diplomacy and allies...I think...but maybe it will just be more of a free for all.
rbodleyscott wrote:I have to say that 12 countries, with all being in contact with all, makes for mayhem, but isn't very realistic and does not allow for any sort of realistic diplomacy of the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" variety.
Why not arrange the countries round the doughnut but:
1) You can attack any adjacent country by land.
2) You can attack non-adjacent countries across the sea, but will lose 25% of the force in transit. (It would be better random, but that might be hard to administer). Also armies "across the sea" cost 50% extra to maintain.
That should be sufficient deterrent to random backstabbing to make diplomacy somewhat meaningful.
And you think a world shaped like a doughnut would ever be realistic
My biggest issue is the map maintenance & recording of who has an army where. By abstracting all of that my task is greatly simplified. However I'm open to what many of you are suggesting but would merely ask that we do it this simple way for say the first year of play. After that, if the majority want it, I can randomly assign map positions with the aid of whoever wants to be the cartographer.
Or to put it another way lets start to crawl first please
We should be able to avoid where armies are located, or even tracking them. If I understand how the attacking goes, you can attack, and be attacked in each season. SO it really doesn't matter where your army is, you can attack any one adjacent to your territory, and be attacked by anyone. Otherwise, it won't change fofrom your origianl vision, just limiting who you can attack and who can attack you.
Hope this isn't too late, but I opt for Deeter Magnus of the Utopian Empire. As for the enviornment, I've always thought the campaign map in the first DBA would work well. Rather than a donute, it's a wheel.
First formal alliances in place on the other forum.
To remind you - if you declare war your opponent nominates an area to defend. You both raise a DAG army (must stick with your army list choice & where that choice was not clear, i.e. which Seleucid army list, it will be the first one you choose). Even if you are not selecting 650 points of troops in the army you still tell the DAG it's a 650 point army.
Also remember to save it with a name you can find again. After the first battle you may need to load it into the DAG and amend it to reflect the outcome of the first battle before fighting the next one.
Let me know you're actual army costs please.
If you get attacked by a second player you nominate a different area to defend & repeat the process.
You can make peace at any point but if you lose a battle & choose to withdraw from the area, assuming no city is involved, you concede the area.
I think the FoW has not been fully accepted by all owners of FoG so may I suggest players agree this before each war.
Open diplomacy via the forum or closed via PM's to each other. However formal alliances must be sent to me by PM and are noted in the player table. They last a year (can be renewed) and are the only ones which are binding. Later on we get into marriage alliances & dowries!
I haven't heard from Morbio or iandavidsmith recently so I'll PM them to say we are starting.
Okay - just had a random idea that may help with both the abstraction issue as well as provide us somewhat of a 'map' to give more purpose to alliances... On the other post - this list of players was set up:
1 Amaz_Ed is Parthia using Suren-Indo Parthian
2 deeter of Utopia using Seleucid
3 TheGrayMouser is Rome using Mid Repblican Roman and is allied to 5
4 Scar is the Empire of Texas using Pyrrhic
5 Blathergut is Egypt using Ptolemaic and is allied to 12 & to 3
6 RyanDG is the Nervii using Gallic Lowlands
7 rbodleyscott is Kappadokia using Pontic
8 Morbio using Seleucid
9 ianiow is Rhodes using Ptolemaic (Roman)
10 Xiccarph is Eupatoria using Pontic
11 iversonjm is Crimea using Bosporans
12 deadtorius is the Covenanter Empire using Late Jewish and is allied to 5
13 CharlesRobinson using Late Carthaginian
14 hidde is Canaan using Late Jewish (Antigonus)
15 iandavidsmith using Armenian
16 keyth is Hyperboria using Late Macedonian
17 pantherboy using Illyrian
18 batesmotel is Phanagoria using Bosporans
19 Ironclad is Arrakis using Seleucids (pre 166)
How about we do it this way... Each of us have one of our cities be the capital (as was already stated) while another of our 7 cities (maybe the 6th city) is a port. As long as you control a port, you can attack anyone. If you lose your port, your attacks are limited to only those players directly below and above your name in the list (or maybe expand this even more to give us a few more potential 'targets' -- you can stretch to 2, 3, or 4 above your name and 2, 3, or 4 below -- whatever we fancy to make this work). To make it a donut, the 19th and the 1st player can attack each other to complete the circle. As we add new players, they can be added to either the top or the bottom of the list at random.
This keeps it incredibly abstract still, really easy to keep track of, but will also encourage alliances between certain players to help control the chaos. Just my thoughts...
Last edited by RyanDG on Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
