Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Pre-Signup; Who will be in?
Topic Started: Jan 18 2015, 11:46 AM (1,341 Views)
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
Please post here if you are definitely in for Age of Empire 6. Thanks!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Yep
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Crimdal

House of Lords
Yes sir
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kunarian

House of Commons
tentative
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
shampoocat
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Yup!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Seleukos
Member Avatar

House of Commons
:lol:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MajorAF
Member Avatar

House of Commons
alskdjfhg B)

I just hope school work won't interfere.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
CynicalLiberal
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I'm in.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
MajorAF,Jan 19 2015
02:17 PM
alskdjfhg B)

I just hope school work won't interfere.

Hsa schoolwork interfered in the past, with your ability to have fun time to play the game?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
philly_boy
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I'd be up for joining :)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MajorAF
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Kristjan,Jan 19 2015
10:04 PM
MajorAF,Jan 19 2015
02:17 PM
alskdjfhg  B)

I just hope school work won't interfere.

Hsa schoolwork interfered in the past, with your ability to have fun time to play the game?

This last took place over the holidays, and I only had easy classes.

I should be fine as long as I can understand math.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
MajorAF,Jan 20 2015
04:43 PM
I should be fine as long as I can understand math.

Aha. Gentlemen, have we got any mathematicians about in the community, in case our dear Major needs some help???
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Marauder709

House of Commons
I think Ill play again...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MajorAF
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Kristjan,Jan 22 2015
11:04 PM
MajorAF,Jan 20 2015
04:43 PM
I should be fine as long as I can understand math.

Aha. Gentlemen, have we got any mathematicians about in the community, in case our dear Major needs some help???

If anyone can do calculus that would be great ;)

Also, anyone have any suggestions on what nation I should play?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
shampoocat
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Since we do not have a general discussion thread yet, i hijack this one.


I would propose:

Quote:
 
3. All alliances are only valid for one session but may be renewed each session by the contracting parties if desired (as per the deadlines below.). Mid-session alliances can be created but both signatories must paste agreement via Steam to a GM AND take PrtScrn screenshot of steam chat.


And

Quote:
 
5. All treaties that do not involve alliances are valid for two sessions only.


To be changed to something(the wording might be done better) like:

Quote:
 
All signed treaties are valid indefinitely unless otherwise stated in the treaty.

A nation may brake a treaty by making an declaration in the respective treaties forum post.
This may be done after one Session for alliances and two sessions for non alliance treaties.

Mid-session alliances can be created but both signatories must paste agreement via ingame chat. A forum post is to be made after the session ends.
Ie:
France: "*****France and Spain enter an unconditional defensive alliance.*****"
Spain:  "*****Spain and France enter an unconditional defensive alliance.*****"



The first part does not actually change anything, it just takes the annoyance out of the constant renewing of alliances.
My idea is that most alliances etc. are renewed anyways, not doing so is the exception. So this should get rid of some of the "maintenance" posts.
I also found the way mid-session alliances work to be a bit convoluted. Our way of handling it by making a forum post does not give other players the information ingame. I also see no point in the Steam Chat screenshot(has that actually been enforced?) and i think public chat will serve the same purpose.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
I do agree that your reworded approach is a much simpler method of arranging and renewing agreements. But, may I dare suggest, perhaps we are looking at the problem from the wrong viewpoint? Consider that maybe instead of taking the hassle out of having forever/indefinite alliances, we should instead consider how we could encourage alliances to be more fluid and less predictable? Perhaps it might be more interesting and less tedious to make and renew the deals if the same ones weren't always renewed forever? May I inquire, has this line of thought crossed your mind? What are your thoughts upon my query?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
icendoan
Member Avatar

House of Commons
I much prefer the automatic destruction of treaties, as it leads to greater (even if only largely superficial) engagement with the game and forum diplomacy. Changing this to an indefinite model aids more static alliances, which aren't tremendously fun.

I am, however, very much in favour of having in-session alliances. We do need to be able to react to the unforeseen circumstances of each session, and I would propose that such an alliance would exist in that session only. If it's required at the end of the session, the players should then set up formal treaties on the forum.

Another point is the restriction on punitive treaty-breaking penalties. It's generally the case that you get quite absurd penalties for breaking alliances, and it could be quite fun to allow more nations to think seriously about betraying their previous allies.

Just some things to think about.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
shampoocat
Member Avatar

House of Commons
The idea came from the experience of our last game. People did mostly stick to static alliance blocks and i doubt that the way alliances are handled on the forum post level would have any influence in that matter.
If you want less static power blocks, i do not think this is the right way to do it.

In our EU4 games we did away with any GM enforced alliance/napīs. And it really spiced the game up a lot, lots of backstabbing going on.
It would have been interesting if Russia had the option to just obliterate Korea mid session with no real punishment other than general distrust from the other players.

I am not sure how well this would translate in to Vicky as diplomacy plays out differently than in EU4, where everyone just blobs as much as possible anyways.
One thing to note is that once you reach an anything goes state in terms of diplomacy, forum diplomacy more or less dies out and backroom deals via Steam are the new way to go.
Also i feel we either keep penalties or we donīt. 20% Prestige ain't that bad to begin with and lowering it even more will make them kinda pointless while still needing GMīs to enforce.

Would a hands of way of doing alliances be worth an experiment?
I think if we do something like that the rules for adding wargoals might be in need of an overhaul though. I did have some ideas regarding that(even bevore this came up, letīs admit it the current rules are confusing as hell)but did not find the time to put my thoughts to paper jet. The basic idea of mine to limit wargoals by type(territorial versus non territorial) rather than have the "wait one year" thing.

Thoughts?

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Well way back i recall playing games without posting alliances or at least those alliances had no punishment for breaking them and those games worked. i do agree that last game was very static but I think that had more to do with the EFS system needing some reworking or at least the way we balanced wars.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kunarian

House of Commons
I think, considering the lack of ability for the world in revolution game to get going I'm definitely going to be here for AOE 6 :D

Also I do agree with the above what Shampoo is saying. Also I would say any way to simplify the war and diplomacy situation so that all players can easily understand it is for the better.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MajorAF
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Count me out. I would rather take a precaution and not sign up for this game in order to keep a priority on my school work. That was a good last game. I will probably join a game in the summer.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ryeassassin

House of Lords
Since we are supposed to start this week are we going to get a play list :D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
shampoocat
Member Avatar

House of Commons
Wait we are supposed to start this week? :o
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kristjan
Member Avatar
Administrator
Head Administrator
That has been the intention. Admittedly I set that 3 weeks ago when it was mistakenly assumed we would finish the old campaign off 2 weeks ago.

I have been a bit on the sick side, but I am working on the roster now, talking to Felicity and such.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sunstersun

House of Commons
Hey guys! I'm a new guy, and I'd love to join your group. I have plenty experience in vic and a decent amount in mp. I'll take whatever country is left but I'd prefer Europe.

Thanks!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Age of Empire VI · Next Topic »
Locked Topic