RULES For Campaign of Honor/Campaign of Valor

[DoomCarrot]

And also it sounds like Risk the board game.

Funny story: I have played multiple games of risk in the past few weeks.

Maybe that is what inspired this actually.

[Midonik]

There is a lot of strategy games using similar map concept,like Conspiracy.

[makazuwr32]

Or (really old one) Dune 2000 for a campain

[DoomCarrot]

Well the original idea for the campaign I tried to run 2 years ago stemmed from a suggesting that Daniel add a sort of campaign feature to the game.

It was ultimately shot down as way too much programming work, but nobody said we have to have a campaign feature in-game to play such campaigns

[DoomCarrot]

added rule #11 to define exceptions regarding retreats. A player cannot retreat to a territory if it is under attack that round, otherwise this may result in a long list of game-breaking problems.

Also makes retreating much harder

[Midonik]

Can you retreat to territory from someone attack and someone else retreatd to? (last one cloud result in battle mayby?)

[DoomCarrot]

What do you mean? You cannot under any circumstance retreat to a territory that is under attack. You can only retreat to an adjacent friendly or neutral territory if it is not being invaded that round. Since a retreat is non-aggressive, a player cannot retreat into another battle.

The only thing I can think you mean is this: Player one retreats into neutral territory, then player two tries to retreat into that same neutral territory.

Two fixes:

1. Players cannot retreat into neutral territories

or

2. The player who first posts on forums that they are issuing a retreat into that territory immediately owns it, and therefore the second player cannot retreat there.

[Midonik]

Lest mayby make retreat passible only to frendly territory,it sounds most fair.

[DoomCarrot]

Very well, that is what I would lean towards as well.

Thanks for spotting that loophole midonik lol

[DoomCarrot]

EDITED the MAP rule #9 to redefine a retreat

[Sunrise Samurai]

I actually think it would be funny to have 2 players retreat to an empty territory, only to have to fight over it.

[DoomCarrot]

It would be humorous, but it would cause game prolonging issues, as everyone would be waiting for that battle to happen because most other battles would be over. So I think for the sake of gameplay the rule change is probably for the best

[General Brave]

I think I understand it, where at least I think so. So prepare yourself, because I'm the head General of the Armed Forces of Warfell. And we shall win? Or at least be a big menace until we collapse from a obvious mistake.

[godOfKings]

Wen multiple players atk same territory, how is it decided who gets which position? I got an idea to make sure a player joins his correct position, simply pm the password to the first player to join, then the next, then the next etc

[DoomCarrot]

You could do that. Or just wait until it i your turn to join lol.

If you are blue, don't join when the team red plyer hasn't joined yet, etc.

[Sunrise Samurai]

Possible rule additions:

Free Passage: an army may pass through another player's territory without attempting to conquer it, but only if both players agree. Said army can defend that territory for the host player in an attack, and can attempt to seize the territory as a free action on its owner's turn or during any battle for that territory.(not a movement, so another army can still move)

Adds diplomatic options, including the possibility of alliances to attack or defend a territory. Have fun deciding who gets to rule a territory you allied to take though. Backstabbing is also an option, so watch out.

Vassalage: when a player is eliminated, the player who defeated them can choose to leave the last army alive. The defeated player cannot attack them for 5 rounds, and their armies count​ towards the territory limit of their master. They cannot recruit their own armies, but their master can choose to recruit for them. They still move on their own turn. Territories they capture are given to the player they serve. After 5 rounds, they can at any time choose to start a rebellion, at which point they are their own player again, and can capture territory for themselves, including ones currently occupied by their troops (like those owned by their former master)

Making someone your vassal gives you an extra general​ to work with, but comes with the inevitable betrayal when said vassal wants to get back in the game later. Just be careful how much power you want to let them have.

[Midonik]

All options seems good,especialy the last one...

[Sunrise Samurai]

Yeah. You're just hoping if this gets in that I'll let you live. I'm considering it, honestly. You could be a big help expanding, and as long as I don't give you too many armies I don't think you would be a big threat.

Similarly, I think Doomcarrot might want to vassalize General, just to help against Puss

[Midonik]

Additional action per turn is a good price for a small,minimal risk of not dangerous rebellion,right? (Even if I'm the weakest player here lol)

[Sunrise Samurai]

Small, minimal risk my big toe. I wouldn't be surprised to find out you were already messaging other players hoping for support from them. Namely Puss, since he's the closest player to us. Still, despite the fact that I know you WILL turn on me at the worst possible time, I find it worthwhile. I don't think I'd be willing to let Doomcarrot or General stick around though. They are a bit more dangerous, and probably would be better at politics anyway.

[DoomCarrot]

These are cool ideas, but it might be a bit late in these two campaigns to implement them. After all, a player has already been eliminated in the AoS campaign, and adding the vassalage rule now would be.... Sort of unfair to mak....

[Sunrise Samurai]

Maybe ask whoever defeated make if they want to reinstate him as a vassal now?
Not too late for the AoF campaign. First round is still underway.

[makazuwr32]

The one who defeated me was DoomCarrot.
Also personally i just don't want to be in game.
No second chances for myself. I'm not so good as i thought. Also as said Doom i'm better than most of players in random he fought i still have to learn more.

[Sunrise Samurai]

Alright then. If you have no objection, I suppose Doomcarrot can implement it starting now.

Not sure if Doom and General trust their ability to take one another on enough to vassalize the other, but I'm willing to take that risk with Midonik.

At the very least, I think we can add free passage with no issues.

[DoomCarrot]

Some problems though. Let's say that someone has a vassal, and he has an army in the ruler's territory. Territory is attacked. Vassal defends with his ally. Ally is defeated in game, but the vassal manages to pull off a win....

What happens? Does the territory now go to the vassal and he is back in the game? Or does the territory stay to the defender?

You get my point. Somewhat problematic lol. I think it could be worked out, but there would be many situations to go over possibly

[Sunrise Samurai]

Unless the vassal chooses to rebel, it is assumed he is being a good citizen and kindly protecting it for the care of his master...... however, that would be a good time to declare a rebellion, as it makes a ready made unguarded territory. Same goes for most situations. Just about anything can provoke a rebellion, but it must be announced as such. Otherwise, we pretend they aren't just letting their "ally" lose armies left and right to pave the way for taking over.

[General Brave]

Vassals sounds great, let's hope people could put it in good use.

[godOfKings]

Is it possible to get rid of the vassal army after I have made use of it and it didn't get destroyed, or do I need to wait till he starts rebellion before I can get rid off him? May b make it that after 6th turn I can get rid of it whenever I want, but my action would end, wat if I attack with a vassal then withdraw? Would his game finally b completely over?

[Sunrise Samurai]

Considering you are the one who decides how many armies your vassal has by recruiting for them, I think it's fair to say you have to wait on them to take any hostile action. Until then, just don't give them any more armies to work with if you want to dispose of them. They will either revolt in protest over the lack of reinforcements or wither away as they take losses, until they are gone, and eliminated anyway. You might want to supply them with a few armies just to encourage helpful behavior though, as they may not want to risk their troops if they can't get any more.

I suppose a vassal could potentially stay obedient to the end, and be listed as an ally of the winner, but that wouldn't​ exactly get them credit for winning themselves.

[General Brave]

Let them have a small trophy, for assisting in winning. Nothing too special.