Hammer of the North v2 PBEM

[Patient English]

Either way would be good for me...I do think we need a human Norse player. I would love to play this scenario some more, either this version of the new one (which sounds very interesting..)

I am enjoying it much more than I thought I would, even.

 

[Gary J. Durham]

I am enjoying it much more than I thought I would, even.

Yes, suprising how much more enjoyment there is to be derived from holding a winning hand, what?

CONFESSION TIME: this scenario makes a fun solo game, but it has never 'grabbed' me via PBEM. As Morten well knows, I was first voicing the thought of quitting on about turn 5,6, something like that (well before the Franks taught me the lesson about bribery in this scenario). I've never devoted any marked interest in the game, nor focused on it even in the least. Good scenario, just not my 'thing'. Hell, I can't even stay focuses from one turn to the next. Can't ever even remember what it was that I was doing/thinking just the turn before.

So, if Bo does end up gone... I'll probably do the same. I've stayed this long simply so as to not 'ruin' the 'in-game' progress.
So, I'm awaiting to hear what's up. I may stick with it, I may not. However, don't like the idea of anyone quiting during a play test of a scenario. I mean, Christ, that means it's actually never been playtested!

I'll let you guys know if I'm going to continue. Will await the developments. Probably stick it out. Might be interesting for a moment if it's a free-for-all 'get those dirty Danes' type of thing... of course... I think I'm joking???

 

[Patient English]

Yes, suprising how much more enjoyment there is to be derived from holding a winning hand, what?

Well, it hardly seemed like a winning hand at the beginning, when my cities were falling one after the other!

My point is, if this playtest dies, and Morten wants to do another (with the latest version) I am up for it....

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

@ Scots: Your statement doesn't mean anything, mostly because you're not neutral at all.

Because the Scots would get pulled into this war is why my question means even more. It was meant to try and make people think about what they were doing before the war escilated into something 'more'. Too late for that now.

The Scots can do little but sit and wait.

 

[Arthedain]

My point is, if this playtest dies, and Morten wants to do another (with the latest version) I am up for it....

Actually, since the recent events (not including mine and John's conflict) I'm even more for a restart with the newest version. I for one wants to try a new civ (might work if more than me wants to change or if all of us doesn't wanna restart so we have to get another player.)

 

[Patient English]

I'll play anyone except the Friesans!

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Nice to hear you enjoyed playing, guys

You too Gary - I know you enjoyed yourself while at it - it was fun getting your spirits up, and even more fun reading your posts...!

I spoke with Bo today, and he has calmed down a bit, it seemed... - He said he would post again in a few days, but I'm not sure if he wants to continue. Apparently, his fleet was a peaceful trading expedition, and he was so pissed off, seeing his fleet lost, since he thought he had come to a peaceful agreement with John.

Personally I'm all for sneaky attacks. Especially since they fit this time period in history so well. No strong alliances existed, and noone could be trusted. So should noone in this scenario. Thats why I threw in a couple of makeaggression events.

IMO the Norse and the Danes have brought it on themselves, by playing way to civilized and expecting others to do the same

----
If we start a new game with the new version, I'd like to have a go with the Danes, if possible

 

[Gary J. Durham]

Especially, quitting something that is not a drawn out conclusion (such as AWAW1.2, MORTEN!!!!

I have not looked at the newest version. I will, however. If it seems interesting, I might be up for another try. However, and as I've told you before, Morten, it almost seems like there needs to be TWO versions of this scenario: one for 'solo' play, one for PBEM play. As ststed before, I find this current scenario a BLAST in solo play, but it loses a lot of 'flavor' in PBEM (and IMHO).

If we DID have another 'go' at it... I think that I would kind of like us all to start with the same civs. You know, we've just used this first try to 'learn' the flavor of the game, now lets do the actual, honest to goodness PLAYTEST with what we've learned. At least with myself, it has only been the last couple of turns (as noted in previous posts) that I've actually caught on to what Morten's 'designs' are/were for the playing of this scenario.

Course... I'd kind of like another go at AWAW, too. That one made for great PBEM times! Partnered with Morten, Bo and once with Duke... Christ, what an enjoyment playing with you guys!

Let's hope that this HAMMER scenario is not yet lost.

1.) And yes, I read at least a couple of posts from Bo about this shipping being loaded with 'trade'.
2.) My belief is that Anglo's FORCED Danes to sink that ship, especially after being SPECIFICALLY instructed it was not wanted, that trade with Hedeby. <<<Personally, had it been me playing the Danes, the sinking of the (only one) ship would have been way to 'not enough' for me.>>>
3.) Bribery WAS prevalent throughout this period. But not as 'easy' as this scenario makes it in PBEM mode. The bribery of MERCENARY forces... the occassional bribery of city leaders.... but not the wholesale ability reflected in this game when controlled by human players.
4.) In any event, whatever occurs, thanks to all you gentlemen (gentlewoman?) for an enjoyable experience.

I still kind of miss the ranting 'Otto' rages, however...

 

[Patient English]

Gary,

I'm very happy to replay as the Anglo-Saxons, too. I agree that bribery makes it too easy, but maybe the Hammers counterbalance this in the long run. All I know is that I have never made a scenario work with Diplomats and Nukes (except Seize the Crown had Diplomats, but only a few events-raised ones). So if Morten has...respect!

As for the Danes in this playtest, the idea of being forced to sink an unarmed and empty merchant ship, returning from a peaceful trade, is ludicrous. An act of War is what it was, no less.

As for the Norse ships being full of traders, well. There must have been at least 4 trade units, all concentrated in a Fleet occupying three grouped squares, with two warships along, all un-announced and within less than one move of Anglo cities, all belonging to a nation allied to the one that had just sneak-attacked me.

And another "trading fleet" of similar size just off Devon.

Go figure. What was I supposed to think...?

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

I think we should go for different civs, although you may, if you wish, Gary, stick to the Germans. I think different players have different takes on strategy, and it'll make for a more interesting game with a different setup. I for one would like to play on the opposing side to John or DoM and see where that will bring the game....

As previously stated, bribery is vastly overrated - my guess is that it is the huge psychological impact of bribing which is the cause of this. Once one gets used to the idea, it is still sneaky, but part of the game. One cannot possibly bribe one's way through the scenario, IMO, without phenomenal economical and tactical skills, in research, trade, war and diplomacy. And as stated, there are lots of ways to counter bribery. - In fact, in the new version bribing barbarian cities and warlords is an important way to gather additional strong forces for sieges or defenses.

Unfortunately, I still haven't found an attractive way of making the AI refuse baptism and christian techs in favor of the Hammers. Once they do get them, they use them well, but in SP at least, they are likely not to be part of the game unless used by a human viking player. I still like the tech-by-conquest concept, though.

 

[Gary J. Durham]

And another "trading fleet" of similar size just off Devon.

Go figure. What was I supposed to think...?

No, I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I made no judgement about the assualt against the Norse shipping. I wasn't involved. Didn't see the pictures, maps, units, etc. Frankly, a 'pre-emptive' assualt against them MAY well have been conducted my me, also, had I been playing the Anglo's, for same/similar concerns. I mean, sure, I read the "trading/peaceful" posts too but, who knows for real? You know what I mean... er, by the way, what the hell is your name? Anyway, no 'judgement' on that.

Also no 'judgement' on your violation (deliberate/insensitive) of Danish stated intents that they did NOT want Anglo trade route into Hedeby. I understand that you, and everyone else, can and will interpret it in whatever manner you wish. You did what you did, and I'm not passing judgement on it. However... and this is MY interpretation of the sequence of events... it was YOU who started the hostilities. Had I 'found' an Anglo (or Scot, Norse, Dane) trade caravan in German territory, (any but Franks, as I'd an agreement in place with Morten)...I would have instantly stated that this caravan WILL be removed until a trade 'agreement' is reached, then would have destroyed it if it continued on in my territory. You effectively declared war intentions by refusing to turn that caravan around and, in my opinion, effectively 'stole' 384 gold in-game against the Danes specific wishes. Frankly, it's a flaw, and loophole, that I was dismayed to see you do. In real life you could not have done this, but in the game, you did. Ergo, you LITERALLY stole gold that was not your due. While I admire your audacity... it has been hilarious for me to read YOUR starting the hostilities being tried to be verbally twisted into the DANES fault.

And it IS a flaw in a PBEM game. It should not even be allowed to take place, as it's unrealistic as hell. Against an 'AI'? Sure. Human PBEM? No. As such, I have personal views on what it should be called in MY 'ethics', but am not about to mention that word here, as it is a game. Suffice: it's a flaw that should not be allowed.

But your (and others) attempting to 'point the finger' at the Danes as the Belligerant... is pure bullsh*t. Suffice to say, had the conflict spilled over into German territory, military units that is... while I attempted to kill BOTH Dane and Anglo forces in my territory, I may have been slightly more happy killing yours for forcing this conflict into 'my domain'.

And if you truly do not GRASP that it is YOU who are/were the true belligerent... well, that'd be... something to remember...

However, I suspect that you did this intentionally, simply because you were ready to strike, and wanted to get started. If so, I commend you on good play tactics (seriously, good move!) but... now that it worked, you can feel free to drop the 'pretense' that this all came about because of the Danes aggression. It was yours, violating his sovreignty.

Me? I'm a more direct sort of guy. When my turn comes, I assure everyone that I shall assess the situation in Friesland and... should I think there is ample opportunity... I shall pounce, just as any of you would. Someone (true to this era) may be delivering to me a large bag of gold to stay out of it (I just love extortion money! In fact, if two people's are battering the hell out of each other... there's potential for twice the 'neutrality profits'...

 

[Patient English]

Gary,

1) The name is John Ellis
2) I don't see trade as an act of aggression, or "stealing" gold from another player.

You can trade, if you want to, while at war. Why not while at peace?

No harm done to the recipient. What is the problem?

But yes. I saw the Danes and Norse as a threat (they had been in the past too) and acted on that. I wasn't bullsh*ting about the threat to me though....

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

But yes. I saw the Danes and Norse as a threat (they had been in the past too) and acted on that. I wasn't bullsh*ting about the threat to me though....

Understandably. That's the kind of threat I really wanted to create concerning the vikings, in this scenario. The terrifying feeling of spotting a fleet of Drakkars near one's coasts - and trying to beat them at their own game. In this case, you did successfully .

The Norse shouldn't trust Anglo-Saxon waters to be safe, any less than the Anglo-Saxons should trust viking waters to be safe (why would they?). I would be just as nervous seeing the kind of buildup of fleets near my coasts, as displayed by the Norse. And I would be just as nervous playing the Danes, knowing to be lagging behind, seeing the steady buildup of trade and cash flow on the Anglo-Saxon side.

After the early onslaught, the vikings retreated and left the initiative to the christian powers - a tactical mistake, because it gave all of us - the Anglo-Saxons, the Scots and the Franks - ample opportunity to develop trade routes, a decent economy and a war fleet of our own. All very dangerous to the viking players, if unchecked.

 

[Arthedain]

IMO the Norse and the Danes have brought it on themselves, by playing way to civilized and expecting others to do the same

----
If we start a new game with the new version, I'd like to have a go with the Danes, if possible

True, I noticed this as soon as I stopped attacking, but then it was almost too late. My enemies had equal units to me (except at sea) and suddenly they had war ships too. A bad mistake was when we stopped the pillaging. BUT, the reason for this was that I didn't want baptism (why oh why didn't I think of contunuing without occupying cities?, and when I realised my mistake, I thought I might as well get baptism anyways.

I could take right about any civ, preferably not the Danes or the Norse (I can even take Frisland, even though they're not meant to be played, if another player wants to join).

 

[Patient English]

I would be more than happy to play the Norse....I'm tired of being civilised...

 

[Gary J. Durham]

2) I don't see trade as an act of aggression, or "stealing" gold from another player.

No harm done to the recipient. What is the problem?

Hey, John! Nice meeting you! By the bye, you played the Anglo's VERY well.

Anyway, it was aggression. Danes said "No", but you basically stated "Kiss my arse", doing so anyway. Right. Real life, an entire fleet sails into Hedeby in DEFIANCE of the Dane Kings explicit wishes... and every ship would have been seized and under new ownership of the Danish Crown.
But in the GAME... you could do what was not real, setting up a trade route, against explicit sovereign commands.

And you say above "No harm done to the recipient." Come on, man, I wasn't born yesterday. Symbolic logic (if you've ever taken this college course) more than proves the INvalidity of this statement. You saw the Danes as a threat in the past, present and in the future (as would I as Anglo's... hell, even as Germany!). We all know this, and you truthfully state it. So, you specifically USED the Danes, USED a 'loophole', to make a substantial PROFIT off of your in-game DIRECT ENEMY.

Of course you HURT the Danes by using them. You garnered SERIOUS cash flow into YOUR warchest to be used AGAINST Danes, at Danes expense. With the in-game known enmity(sp?) between your two nations, you absolutely cannot justify that your use of Denmark against his wishes to increase your military might against Denmark, does not "harm" Denmark (talk about a screwed up rationalization)!

Put it this way: you and I are hostile, and you KNOW that I am eventually, when ready, going to attack you. So what's the harm of my dropping off, AGAINST YOUR INTELLIGENT THOUGHT on this subject, 1, 3 or 5 caravans which then give me 1,500 gold to wage WAR against you?

It's so obviously apparent, that it's not worth my time to try to have to 'draw it out'.

On a personal level, here's how I 'saw' the whole thing unfold: first, german/danes have this on-going 'pressure' since turn one. I rapidly expanded, where I could, along HIS expansion route. Thus, making him realize that if he targeted me... it would NOT be limited to the Hedeby strait area, but must be waged along the entire 'frontier', stretching from Friesland, to Kiev, to Novgorod. My 'keeping him in check' balance was that I could strike him back instantly, in a way none of the other Christian kingdoms could (i.e. by land borders, as I had no ships). Morten suprised me with his assualt, as I explained to him, I had thought he understood I was just talking 'game' war chatter, not real war chatter (although I think he used this as an excuse to 'snatch and grab' against me, playing 'true' to this era, the big, mean bully!

Of all the Christian kingdoms, it was the Anglo's, specifically/only, that alienated me from joining with you. I know that Duke thinks otherwise, but at the time, I specifically GAVE what I thought was the greatest thing I could to 'you guys' for free, believing us to be an obvious loose alliance against the non-christian kingdoms. I freely gave the seige tower, instructing him to deceminate it freely among you guys. Base defence of '8' (veteran '12'), then fortified in your coastal cities... the pagans then couldn't even hope to muster enough to take the single city from you, effectively 'killing' any hope the had early on in the game. John... you turned right around and publicly stated that since I was NOT an ally, that if I wanted any tech, I would have to 'buy it' from you.
So, I gave the most important (IMHO) tech free, you 'guys' then let me know this would not be reciprocated. At which point I told Duke fine, I didn't mind playing the 'crazy loner'.

With the current conflict, in which the Danes rightfully destroyed ONE trading ship (justified by your undeclared assualt against 4? 5? 6? trading ships of another nation... hey, Germany loved it! I love it! Playing the loner, hey, I hoped (hope) that you guys beat each other into small, mouth sized bites for me!

And of course I understand the spotting of a Norse fleet a threat. Hell, every time I'd spot more than one Dane or Norse ship along my coast, you bet there was a constant 'shuffling' back and forth of military units, while I wondered "Is it THIS turn!?"

All in all a good scenario! Just wish I'd thought of playing the 'rouge' nation much more earlier than now! Morten's staed interest is that the game get played in a more 'true to the age' way. In many ways, I think it is, in PBEM, with the exceptions noted yesterday. Should this game continue, I think I'm going to try to spice some things up, because Morten is right: it IS moving along rather 'lame' for this era. Besides, might be fun for one (or more) of you guys to get to batter Germany into submission, and at least I won't be SO FRIGGING BORED!!!

Wow, I write to damned much. Sorry, guys.

 

[Gary J. Durham]

BUT, the reason for this was that I didn't want baptism (why oh why didn't I think of contunuing without occupying cities?

Another (as I see it) in-game flaw. Playing solo, Danes or Norse, you actually can NOT 'take' a city in order to sack it for gold, as with each one, you take the risk of (against your desire), accidently being 'nailed' with the baptism tech via conquering.
So where's the pay off in destroying your own and enemy defensize units, clearing out a city's garrison, if you then can't 'sack' it?
Morten, you're the game designer. Why can't these players have the ability to NOT garner baptism, if they don't want it?
I mean, you don't have to really research 'chase' the abbey ale to prevent the nukes... all you have to do it 'allow' them to 'take' enough cities,, and the hammers are obsolete, anyway, correct??
Of course, I'm not sure I understand, actually, the scenario. Again, never put much effort into doing so.
Norse or Danes might be fun. Clear a city of defenders, then state "Pay me 'X' gold, or city destoyed/sacked". Of course, after only a couple of times, the belligerent then loses the ability to pursue Hammers, anyway.

??

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

@Gary,

Basically the 'tech by conquest' idea was to make it profitable and necessary to raid in many places for the vikings, and not just let them be able to build an empire, by pounding one player at a time. If they want to keep their pagan powers that is. Personally when I play the vikings, I continuously patrol all enemy coasts for monks, which pays off well in gold (especially for the Norse, who sells them to slavery - the Danes 'only' receives ransoms). Before attacking cities, I establish an embassy to see which techs a civ has. And then I go for the techs I need, and the key cities I want to make bases for my fleets - and not the least, those I am able to protect from recapture or bribes.

If the vikings do not want baptism, they need to pound at the player with the tech lead, and they can pick the most advanced techs. Eventually, they have to go down the christian road, as this is where the tech tree leads them eventually.

The tech by conquest makes it possible for the vikings to keep up their technology level, while their own research rates suck - until they get control of some abbeys and better governments. In other words, they have to play an aggressive game to keep up and win. If they get too absorbed into the lands they conquer, they begin to accept local customs, i.e. christianity. If they do not attack at all, they fall behind and lose.

So the vikings face a dillemma. Either go for the hammers, hold back on empire-building, but still raid enough to keep up in gold and science. Or embrace new winds and build an empire, but lose their pagan powers.

In history, the vikings raided where it was profitable, striking one year at one coast in England, and at another the next year, along Frankish coasts. Eventually they did absorb christian culture, even quite early on for the Danes, while som persisted on pagan beliefs for a long time. According to one historian I know, both religions mixed in many places and lived alongside the other for quite a long time.

My take on making the scenario was to make these changes and challenges as clearcut as possible, so that these historical challenges were made clear to the players during the game, in the choices they have to make. I've written a lot about it in the readme.txt

BTW, Abbey Ale doesn't cancel the nukes. But it allows building monastic breweries, which protects a city against the wrath of Thor - he wouldn't miss a good pint of mead

In v.2.8 I've given the vikings some additional leeway, in the form of more available techs they can take, if they want to avoid baptism. This makes the pagan path more feasible, while keeping the challenge for the vikings, yet allowing them to play more aggressively.

 

[Arthedain]

As much as I love the idea that vikings gets christianity sooner or later, I don't see how this tactic works as good in PBEMs:

Personally when I play the vikings, I continuously patrol all enemy coasts for monks, which pays off well in gold (especially for the Norse, who sells them to slavery - the Danes 'only' receives ransoms).

The only monks the vikings will be able to kill are the ones that are spawned by events. Otherwise, I guess that the human player aren't that dumb to use them near coastlines (unless he's taking a chance). And btw, how did you establish embassies? I didn't start with no emissaries or anything. Did I miss something?

Oh btw, I forgot to mention over at CDG. When I downloaded the newest version and killed a king, the sword unit never appeared. As far as I remember, when I lost my king, a new one was spawned right away. I will download it again and try again.

 

[Arthedain]

Because the Scots would get pulled into this war is why my question means even more.

How could you get involved in a conflict between me and the Anglo-Saxons. I guess your mouth slipped and your alliance is now a fact.

Or else I've missed that you stated it open before.