Officers,

I've updated each of the thread with the latest ruleset I've completed.
WARNING: There is alot of information in each area and not everything is confirmed. I have a word document with these saved and have underlined the questions and concepts we need to address.

If it's easier to read I can send this to you on email - just let me know you address.
Mine is [email protected].

PLEASE read over the rules at your earliest opportunity as there is alot to discuss.
Jammin

Well, officers, I've been working heavily on the ruleset and I came across the point of army movements and battle resolution and came to a realization.
I don't think a turn based campaign will work well for us: For many reasons.

Turn based campaigns will not allow allies to aid in an attack because everything is resolved in a turn by turn basis, so only one faction is ever attacking. Defenders could still have allies as factions could inhabit lands lands together that you're attacking, which could imbalance the campaign. How I tried to resolve this in past MP campaigns I ran was allow adjacent territories to a conflicted province 'aid' battles so that defenders and attacks could get reinforcements and allies. HOWEVER, with that, you must realize that if aiding is done, the aiding armies lost their turn movement for the next turn (which can be a pain for tracking) since they are moving 'out of turn'. Also, if adjacent provinces we also under attack, aiding forces could not be set. There is alot of rules to clarify for this.

Thinking this through, I honestly think a simultaneous turn campaign will work out much better. It will be easier to reveal peoples turns at once, there is no waiting around for factions before you to resolve their conflicts. Turns can go much quicker, and turn order really doesn't matter! Simultaneous turns resolves alot of issues. It allows aiding armies to aid in defense or attacks as all armies move at the same time. It's perfect.
The ONLY thing that we need to resolve is how we handle armies that cross paths, or pass each other, or land in the same zone unintentionally.
I have some ideas for those that we could use.
For istance, if armies cross paths during the turn, and actually intersect each other, they are stopped and must do battle (and lose their turn). This could delay armies from reaching their destinations, but hey, how many times has that happened in history???? lol.
For armies that pass each other we could do a few things. The larger army could push the smaller army back to it's province to force a battle. Or if, the forces are equal, the armies stop at the border and fight a battle (not over territory as neither has moved in) and after battle both go back to their province of origin, or an alternate outcome could be the winner pushes the defender back into his territory and further (but that gives the defenders an extra move potetially).
We'd need to think of the same thing with navies.

Anyway, it's a critical topic I think we need to discuss because it will have a big impact on the campaign.

Jammin (Ben)

Hey, I wanted to create this separate group that will outline where I am at with the rules design for our campaign. This way, it's not a matter of me solely working on the rules and getting feedbck only during short online meetings. I'll post my most recent rule designs here so that officers can comment and make sugggestions, agree/disagree and discuss what direction we'd like to go.
I'll make a thread for each section and I'll edit the first post with discussion points I would like to hear feedback on.

I think providing this group will allow faster response/input from officers so that we can get decisions made and rules ironed out.

Jammin