Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 115
  1. #1
    Church of Maki fanatic Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,791

    Create your Kingdom 3 - Matches Discussion

    Here's what we have for the matches themselves:

    Troops: 300k each
    All of these guys are meeting for the first time, so no prior experience in dealing with a certain enemy i.e. Tou knowing Reiou likes to use pincers or Ouki fighting Houken.
    In character: Characters are in character except when it severely compromises team synergy i.e. Houken wanting to challenge any strong general on his team. However, if it's their strategy/tactical quirk, like Ousen's refusal to straight up fight a competent opponent or Kanki not keeping his allies informed of his moves during battle, they keep it.
    Synergy: Characters that have canon synergy/familiarity keep it, like Hakurei and Kouyoku or Kaine and Futei.
    Elites: elites can do independent actions but they cannot be assigned to another character. You can have Karin's elites assist Bajio in an objective but he cannot lead them.
    Knowledge: No knowledge since they are meeting for the first time

    I forgot to add prep last time so we can discuss it now

    Strat layout:

    DEPLOYMENT
    Can be done with a pic, a sketch, a text description, or a combination of them. This is only about the starting position of armies and units. It's the photography of the battleground at time zero. So, no ifs no dispositions no mentions of the opponents no downplaying but you can post arrows of where you want them to go in the "first stage". Be sure to make clear the size of the armies and the number of troops appointed to the generals. A sentence at most for each unit.


    GENERAL STRATEGY
    A rather simple overview of your overall strategy with your whole team. I would like this to be 2-3 sentences but not to exceed 5 sentences. This is not where you explain your strategy, that can be done in the thread. This is only for stating your general strategy. If you need to explain your strategy in detail here, most likely you are trying to be too clever.


    INDICATIONS
    The players' allowed to write up to three clauses for each one of his units/armies. They can be general indications, possible reactions in case an event occurs, specific in-battle movements and operations. These represent what the commander, given the conditions, must do. All the rest is up to the general himself, to the Commander in Chief's orders, and to how the battle itself develops. For each clause, 1-2 sentences, not to exceed 2 sentences. Burning is limited to Kanki, Raido, Zenou, and GHM.

    There was a problem with people using the deployment part to add clauses to their strat, wasn't sure what to do with that. I think we should open up this layout, to include elements of the first game as well with restrictions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also, want to address matches formatting, like if we had the nine from last game: have each player in each block separate their armies and designate who they will fight against. Example: I have Gokei and some underlings face GP while Duke Hyou and some underlings face Dofla. Each have 150k armies. Well, this is only if we have a certain amount of players.

  2. #2
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Void King View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Burning is limited to Kanki, Raido, Zenou, and GHM.
    Put this under the match rules, in case.

    Actually... do we really want to limit burning? Nobody else knows how to use a torch, just the bandits and the engineers?

    There was a problem with people using the deployment part to add clauses to their strat, wasn't sure what to do with that. I think we should open up this layout, to include elements of the first game as well with restrictions.
    I think the layout is good and we shouldn't keep it too open to everyone's caprices, or in a handful of matches we'd be back to square one (CyK 1 strats).

    Also, want to address matches formatting, like if we had the nine from last game: have each player in each block separate their armies and designate who they will fight against. Example: I have Gokei and some underlings face GP while Duke Hyou and some underlings face Dofla. Each have 150k armies. Well, this is only if we have a certain amount of players.
    Please develop this point, not sure I got it right.

  3. #3
    Church of Maki fanatic Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Put this under the match rules, in case.

    Actually... do we really want to limit burning? Nobody else knows how to use a torch, just the bandits and the engineers?
    okay

    GP said we should limit burning to those who have canon burn feats. As much as I want AoE2 Tarkans in this game, he's got a point, it's ridiculous what these strats have people do.



    I think the layout is good and we shouldn't keep it too open to everyone's caprices, or in a handful of matches we'd be back to square one (CyK 1 strats).
    I like the layout as well but we should have another option, like a four paragraph strat with 5 sentences for each paragraph.


    Please develop this point, not sure I got it right.
    you know the state playing thing we wanted to do in the first game? I was thinking we could do it here if certain conditions are met. Like our 3 3-man blocks last time, we could have each player choose a certain amount of generals/troops to fight in one match and the others to fight in another match.

  4. #4
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Void King View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    okay

    GP said we should limit burning to those who have canon burn feats. As much as I want AoE2 Tarkans in this game, he's got a point, it's ridiculous what these strats have people do.
    I do think associating a fire to every forest just to get rid of a front is a problem as well, but I don't like limiting fire to a bunch of fire users. Because really anyone should be able to set fire, let's face it.

    We might take two pigeons with a pea and add meteorological conditions to our maps, with an eventual rain or humidity factor that among other things make fires almost ineffective.

    I like the layout as well but we should have another option, like a four paragraph strat with 5 sentences for each paragraph.
    Where? In deployment?


    you know the state playing thing we wanted to do in the first game? I was thinking we could do it here if certain conditions are met. Like our 3 3-man blocks last time, we could have each player choose a certain amount of generals/troops to fight in one match and the others to fight in another match.
    I feel like we should try this before marking it as inopportune. It might represent a variant

  5. #5
    Church of Maki fanatic Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I do think associating a fire to every forest just to get rid of a front is a problem as well, but I don't like limiting fire to a bunch of fire users. Because really anyone should be able to set fire, let's face it.

    We might take two pigeons with a pea and add meteorological conditions to our maps, with an eventual rain or humidity factor that among other things make fires almost ineffective.
    I still find it funny that GP had Oukotsu and his cavalry try to set fire to a bridge, the alias/felix match shenanigans, or pretty much anything Kanki did.
    @Kanki; This is your forte is it not?

    Where? In deployment?
    No, they either do the current layout or the four paragraph one.

    I feel like we should try this before marking it as inopportune. It might represent a variant
    Thing is, the amount of players has to be right.

  6. #6
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Void King View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No, they either do the current layout or the four paragraph one.
    Oh, an alternative?

    Dunno, it might be easier for some members but it subtract friendliness for readers, and the indication system is good especially because it's precise to determine the generals' priorities and stuff.

  7. #7
    In my defence I had two members of Kanki's army

    Oukotsu setting fire to a bridge though

  8. #8
    Church of Maki fanatic Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Oh, an alternative?

    Dunno, it might be easier for some members but it subtract friendliness for readers, and the indication system is good especially because it's precise to determine the generals' priorities and stuff.
    Yes

    The issue I'm addressing with this is effectiveness: people like Dedede and Kanki loved to write essays for their main players and wrote barely anything for their lesser players. With a clause system, all commanders are kinda forced to have the same amount of "exposure" because each commander gets up to three clauses but with the paragraphs, they can spread their spotlight however they want.

    So it'd be like:
    Deployment (pic/troop allotments/positioning)
    General strategy
    Clauses/paragraphs

  9. #9
    So an option of paragraphs or clauses? Im ok with that

  10. #10
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,815
    Why are we having so many threads, anyway? Can I merge them?

  11. #11
    Church of Maki fanatic Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why are we having so many threads, anyway? Can I merge them?
    No you pustule, do you want a clogged thread?

  12. #12
    Church of Maki fanatic Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,791
    This is the a rule per second but rather a guideline I want us to operate under when reading glasses strats. It's popped up in other matches but I feel like it's becoming a big problem: people not sticking to clauses when something unexpected arises, like an attack they didn't plan for. Yes, it's common sense to assume so and so would a thread in a certain way towards that and others would as well but it allows for a multitude of actions one didn't write into their strat, allowing the strat writer way too much freedom and flexibility to bend the strat to fit their argument. What I want to improve introduce is that written clauses have first priority over these common sense actions, and non written "common sense" things take second priority automatically. So if your general is climbing a hill and is attacked, he will continue to climb said hill unless he has a clause that allows him to react in anyway towards the attack.

  13. #13
    Knight of Elegance Aliasniamor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    4,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Void King View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is the a rule per second but rather a guideline I want us to operate under when reading glasses strats. It's popped up in other matches but I feel like it's becoming a big problem: people not sticking to clauses when something unexpected arises, like an attack they didn't plan for. Yes, it's common sense to assume so and so would a thread in a certain way towards that and others would as well but it allows for a multitude of actions one didn't write into their strat, allowing the strat writer way too much freedom and flexibility to bend the strat to fit their argument. What I want to improve introduce is that written clauses have first priority over these common sense actions, and non written "common sense" things take second priority automatically. So if your general is climbing a hill and is attacked, he will continue to climb said hill unless he has a clause that allows him to react in anyway towards the attack.
    I understand why you'd want that (The example is referring to your match against felix right ?), but here's how I saw it : let's say Riboku tells one of his generals "on the first day you'll climb that hill" without adding anymore information, of course the general is gonna take into account the ennemies going to him and not let his army being wiped out because he'd be stubborn. Not saying I am against the "Clause > common sense" rule, rather explaining my reasoning before this rule was brought into the game

    The good thing about this rule is also that it will force the players to consider their options even more carefully.


    On another note : you tried the prep rule in this game : what do you guys think about it ? @felixng2015; @DoflaMihawk; @Heart; iirc there was a discussion of a possibility to buy prep days with the 300 points given at the start of the game with the format used for the 2 first sessions. Do you think it's a good idea given how the prep have been used ?

    And also : when's the finale taking place and who's in it ?

    - - - Updated - - -
    @Crispinianus;

  14. #14
    Dai Don Dedede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    4,882
    I'm against the clause being absolute. The clauses are here to give precise objectives, not to restrain all the possible moves to only three, getting rid of the generals' ability to adapt. Otherwise there's really no reason anyone would even give out clauses instead of just saying "yeah he goes around there and sees what's best".

    Though I think we might as well do that in the CoK, giving only general instructions and objectives for the different contingents, dropping characters' clauses altogether. It'll make the strat shorter, the discussions more interesting and having generals from the manga more rewarding, since if we go by what you say there's little difference between Seikai and Riboku once they have a clause and the enemy's move doesn't match it.

  15. #15
    Knight of Elegance Aliasniamor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    4,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Dai Don Dedede View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm against the clause being absolute. The clauses are here to give precise objectives, not to restrain all the possible moves to only three, getting rid of the generals' ability to adapt. Otherwise there's really no reason anyone would even give out clauses instead of just saying "yeah he goes around there and sees what's best".

    Though I think we might as well do that in the CoK, giving only general instructions and objectives for the different contingents, dropping characters' clauses altogether. It'll make the strat shorter, the discussions more interesting and having generals from the manga more rewarding, since if we go by what you say there's little difference between Seikai and Riboku once they have a clause and the enemy's move doesn't match it.
    You can try and think of a clause to take care of that But yeah I'm ambiguous about it

    - - - Updated - - -

    What about the prep rule ?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Dai Don Dedede View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm against the clause being absolute. The clauses are here to give precise objectives, not to restrain all the possible moves to only three, getting rid of the generals' ability to adapt. Otherwise there's really no reason anyone would even give out clauses instead of just saying "yeah he goes around there and sees what's best".

    Though I think we might as well do that in the CoK, giving only general instructions and objectives for the different contingents, dropping characters' clauses altogether. It'll make the strat shorter, the discussions more interesting and having generals from the manga more rewarding, since if we go by what you say there's little difference between Seikai and Riboku once they have a clause and the enemy's move doesn't match it.
    Pretty much this if you make a poor decision and your general is competent enough to realize that would be a bad move they don't have to follow that clause. On the other hand if you are commanding someone like Shin to do something he wouldn't be smart enough to realize it might be a dumb thing to do.

    Thats the benefit of having a smarter general. Also it would make things too luck dependent. If you make moves that would be smart most of the time and the enemy uses a gimmick strat.

  17. #17
    Knight of Elegance Aliasniamor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    4,094
    Quote Originally Posted by felixng2015 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Pretty much this if you make a poor decision and your general is competent enough to realize that would be a bad move they don't have to follow that clause. On the other hand if you are commanding someone like Shin to do something he wouldn't be smart enough to realize it might be a dumb thing to do.

    Thats the benefit of having a smarter general. Also it would make things too luck dependent. If you make moves that would be smart most of the time and the enemy uses a gimmick strat.
    The point of writing a strat is partly to take into account what the opponent might do though.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Vassili Hamonic View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The point of writing a strat is partly to take into account what the opponent might do though.
    It is and predicting a strat would still matter but if lets say you command Kanki to waste time setting up a base on a mountain when there are no enemies nearby like Crispi did he will realize thats a dumb move and its something that is really against his character to begin with. Of course Crispi would still get hurt by that silly clause but it shouldn't gut him.

    And a lot of it isn't even predicting but flat out guessing what an opponent would do. If you have someone set up a base somewhere that the enemy never bothers approaching they shouldn't be glued there unless they are a doofus/dull commander who isn't all that competent. Maybe they get delayed but they would realize that clause wouldn't be smart.

  19. #19
    Dai Don Dedede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    4,882
    Let's try getting the next gen of Chiefs of Military to give their opinion:

    @HiShin @CodeZero @Accelerator @JamesKurde @Guoan @Luckyrish; @Saki @Shin Dono @Slayer

    We'd be glad if you guys felt like joining in the games, be it CyK (with biddings to get generals and then battle between the different teams formed) or CoK (supposed to work as a short version) whether as a full time player or just a judge (the winner of the matches are decided by votes).

    What are you guys' thoughts on the strats? I think Slayer looked at it once and found them too long, what if in CoK we only had paragraphs telling where the armies are going to go and what are their objectives without including too much detail and getting very precise on the moves of each characters like we tend to do?

    Gonna add @Xyros though word is you might be a dupe and @Whookie


    And you @say-and-sing What's your opinion on this and when are you free to play? (I won't accept never as an anwer )

  20. #20
    Church of Maki fanatic Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Vassili Hamonic View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I understand why you'd want that (The example is referring to your match against felix right ?), but here's how I saw it : let's say Riboku tells one of his generals "on the first day you'll climb that hill" without adding anymore information, of course the general is gonna take into account the ennemies going to him and not let his army being wiped out because he'd be stubborn. Not saying I am against the "Clause > common sense" rule, rather explaining my reasoning before this rule was brought into the game
    That's the difference, your general would probably be under the clause of "will listen to whatever Riboku commands" or what not, but actions that make a general go out of their way to handle shouldn't be given more priority than clauses. If he meets an enemy army head on while climbing the hill, he's still heading to the hill to I expect him to take care of them. If an enemy attacks him from the back or side, unless you have clauses like "will intercept enemies" or what not, I expect the general to continue climbing the hill, since he's not in immediate danger and his goal/clause is not obstructed yet. Securing a strategic point first is more important than a rushed engagement correct?


    On another note : you tried the prep rule in this game : what do you guys think about it ? @felixng2015; @DoflaMihawk; @Heart; iirc there was a discussion of a possibility to buy prep days with the 300 points given at the start of the game with the format used for the 2 first sessions. Do you think it's a good idea given how the prep have been used ?

    And also : when's the finale taking place and who's in it ?

    - - - Updated - - -
    @Crispinianus;
    Prep clauses should be more specific imo.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •