PlaymoFriends
Creative => Story-Telling => Kingdoms Map => Topic started by: Martin Milner on February 02, 2011, 22:29:48
-
Do we have an agreed technology level for this world, or is each kingdom allowed to choose their own?
e.g. is gunpowder permitted? Also, is magic part of this world?
-
Do we have an agreed technology level for this world, or is each kingdom allowed to choose their own?
Medieval. :)
-
Medieval. :)
That covers a wide time period, can we pin it down yet more?
-
That covers a wide time period, can we pin it down yet more?
I think we should make it to encompass the playmobil time period,
1300s, to Mid 1400s.
My own Kingdom tends to be a little earlier,
But that shouldn't matter too much.
-
I think we should make it to encompass the playmobil time period,
1300s, to Mid 1400s.
My own Kingdom tends to be a little earlier,
But that shouldn't matter too much.
OK, so early cannons as in the Knights theme, but not muskets, pistols and blunderbusses from the Pirates? Pirates are permitted to have cannon but not personal firearms?
-
OK, so early cannons as in the Knights theme, but not muskets, pistols and blunderbusses from the Pirates? Pirates are permitted to have cannon but not personal firearms?
Yup. :)
Or at least that is the time period I prefer,
Would anyone like to go later? ???
-
I think we should be more open to match everyone's collections. :) I need to mix medieval with pirates and vikings and some magic palace stuff and so on...
-
I think we should be more open to match everyone's collections. :) I need to mix medieval with pirates and vikings and some magic palace stuff and so on...
I am open to magic,
and pirates are ok,
But I would still prefer to keep this Medieval.
There were after all, Medieval pirates. ;)
-
I suggest we keep cannons off the guns arsenal. Actually that would suit King Iseroth fine with about 30 Berthas and about 50 otehr cannons that would make a formittable artilery but i think cannons and dragons should be off the weapons list ... I wouldnt mind if they were but then any wars against King Iseroth would finish in 30 sec
35 catapults is the artillery King Iseroth will have and any opponent will have to withstand a rain of 35 boulders simultaneously... now you know why cannons i suggest are off the menu ... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Once again let me say this is great base for mediaval wars , allies etc etc , once the tournament is completed as far as the battle between me and grangel is concerned we shall agree the rules of engagement and also have Sir Wolf as a referree. Perhaps these rules can be expanded somehow so a battle can take place between kingdoms over the net, I think it has to be compulsory that each opponent army is photographed so its a proof what army each king puts on the battlefield and use this a reference when using the rules of engagement etc
This is all so exciting ;D ;D ;D
-
Tim your map is beautiful, I wonder what it will look like if you don't feel it's badly done.
i think cannons and dragons should be off the weapons list
I agree, I am not a fan of cannons myself, but if we decide to include them I am fine with it. However Dragons should not be used as weapons. They are highly intelligent beings and will not let themselves be used. They are also quite rare. There will be a couple of Dragons roaming my area of the map but you will not easily find them, and after you did getting out a live might be even harder. (It sounds like I have been talking to Ronastoo to much *grin*)
I would also like to ask for a small extension of my lands, the top North East corner would be perfect as I would then also be connected to that body of water. Hope it's still possible and sorry for making this all more complex for you WoT!
-
Perhaps these rules can be expanded somehow so a battle can take place between kingdoms over the net, I think it has to be compulsory that each opponent army is photographed so its a proof what army each king puts on the battlefield and use this a reference when using the rules of engagement etc
Well to be honest I didn't know this was the pourpose of this idea.
First, I think there are some 100% kigdoms that wouldn't want to be engaged in battles and wars, nor having to deal with possible invasions. I thought this was a great idea to have a fisical map of our kingdoms for future community events and photostories etc.
Second, if we have to prove with photographs the extension of our armies, then we all know who is gonna win everything. george's army is the biggest and most impressive here (green with envy I say this :lol:) :love:
I must have around 24 soldiers. Not 24 dozens nor 24 hundred.... just 24, so if battles and wars are all this is about I must retire for I have no chance. NO HARD FEELINGS, HONESTLY. I would give away my land to whoever wants it. :love:
So before that.... can someone post a few guidelines about waht this is all about?? It would be good for all members envolved. :wave:
-
Second, if we have to prove with photographs the extension of our armies, then we all know who is gonna win everything. george's army is the biggest and most impressive here (green with envy I say this :lol:) :love:
I must have around 24 soldiers. Not 24 dozens nor 24 hundred.... just 24, so if battles and wars are all this is about I must retire for I have no chance. NO HARD FEELINGS, HONESTLY. I would give away my land to whoever wants it. :love:
I doubt i have the biggest army but i think with possible allies between nations we can have some exciting battles and of course only those that wish to participate will do this, see for example my King Iseroth and Grangel's King who will go into war as i sure everyone is tired of reading about by now , probably not virtualy by physically in my playmoden with a referree also, i think the result of this battle and possibly other battles should be reflected on this map to make it more live and interesting. And i woudl liekto stress that for example i wouldnt provoke in this virtual world anotehr kingdom unless they are up for it ( so for example King Grangel and King Iseroth war is now inevitable...) . Let not some other photostory / battle distract anyone from participating in this map.
I wonder who my neighbour will be .... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Gaston I think Giorginetto got it right but I would like to expand on it a little.
I think the options are endless. And for me as well it is mainly about a communcal way of making the background for photo stories so much richer.
Your Garden of Heroes story would have been great if it would have been traveling through other peoples lands and would make the whole community feel much more involved.
When you used the names of Winterhaven and the person there in your photo story it really made my day and IMO this map could make that possible on a much grander scale.
Specifically if we are all traveling to the next Jousting Tournament.
However it is possible that political tension exists between regions/kingdoms whatever. Like what happened between King Iseroth and King Darnald and King Leopold. If for some reason King Iseroth's man need to travel through Belathre they will not be permitted entry. It would be up to Giorginetto and myself to solve this political struggle.
I want to stress that it might become very important that people seperate IN CHARACHTER and OUT OF CHARACHTER. Honestly I don't care much about the in charachter feelings, but we need to make sure that there are no hard feelings OUT OF CHARACHTER.
Hope this clarifies things a little bit :-)
Well to be honest I didn't know this was the pourpose of this idea.
First, I think there are some 100% kigdoms that wouldn't want to be engaged in battles and wars, nor having to deal with possible invasions. I thought this was a great idea to have a fisical map of our kingdoms for future community events and photostories etc.
Second, if we have to prove with photographs the extension of our armies, then we all know who is gonna win everything. george's army is the biggest and most impressive here (green with envy I say this :lol:) :love:
I must have around 24 soldiers. Not 24 dozens nor 24 hundred.... just 24, so if battles and wars are all this is about I must retire for I have no chance. NO HARD FEELINGS, HONESTLY. I would give away my land to whoever wants it. :love:
So before that.... can someone post a few guidelines about waht this is all about?? It would be good for all members envolved. :wave:
-
And about waring, nothing against a good battle once and a while, that would be GREAT fun! I just wouldn't want it to be a true war game (just and only war), because the smaller nations would be easily crushed and very quickly less people would be playing.
What if there was no conquering through war?
-
Smaller nations make allies, many allies can stand up to a larger invasion. I think nobody wants to be on the losing side of a war. If two people decide to play out a war and are fine with conquering then let them go at it.
I think the following rule could be a good rule. Areas that are owned by a player can only go to another player with the consent of the player.
I think everyone knows about the upcoming conflict between Grangel and Giorginetto and hence all the squares in the H and I columns have not been taken yet, as they don't want to be overrun by Giorginetto's army :-)
And about waring, nothing against a good battle once and a while, that would be GREAT fun! I just wouldn't want it to be a true war game (just and only war), because the smaller nations would be easily crushed and very quickly less people would be playing.
What if there was no conquering through war?
-
I agree with Gis George, and WoT; you can use this map however you want. If you just want a picturesque kingdom by the sea for photostories, fine. If you and another member want to have a battle and try to fight for each other's land, that's fine too. It seems to me battles should only occur if both members involved want to have a battle, not one member without warning laying seige on another unsuspecting member to steal their land away from them, when it's not a fair fight, and that member would rather stay peacefully on their land.
-
I agree with Bonnie :yup:
I don't have many knights, my klickies live in a very peaceful land really. :)
Elaine (http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/mgqueen.gif)
-
I agree with Gis George, and WoT; you can use this map however you want. If you just want a picturesque kingdom by the sea for photostories, fine. If you and another member want to have a battle and try to fight for each other's land, that's fine too. It seems to me battles should only occur if both members involved want to have a battle, not one member without warning laying seige on another unsuspecting member to steal their land away from them, when it's not a fair fight, and that member would rather stay peacefully on their land.
Well said :)9
We could have a "master map" that we all agree on then in another, separate thread, those who want to compete in battles can participate and change it however they want, however, it wont affect the "master map" or other peaceful kingdoms :)
-
I agree with Gis George, and WoT; you can use this map however you want. If you just want a picturesque kingdom by the sea for photostories, fine. If you and another member want to have a battle and try to fight for each other's land, that's fine too. It seems to me battles should only occur if both members involved want to have a battle, not one member without warning laying seige on another unsuspecting member to steal their land away from them, when it's not a fair fight, and that member would rather stay peacefully on their land.
*Cough* Not period either... in period they would announce War between the two Kingdoms. :P
That is if you were chivalrous.
I play a computer game (basically an advanced form of Risk)
And it is based in a Medieval period.
Very fun game, but you declare war on other Kingdoms and such.
However, there is one Kingdom near me... :hmm:
They will just show up at a castle and lay siege,
No declaration, nada!
Luckily, they only ever choose to besiege one castle,
which just so happens to be my strongest! :P
Well said :)9
We could have a "master map" that we all agree on then in another, separate thread, those who want to compete in battles can participate and change it however they want, however, it wont affect the "master map" or other peaceful kingdoms :)
That is think is taking it a step further then is needed.
There are plenty ways for those who want to fight battles
to do so on this map without disturbing other peaceful countries. :)
-
I agree in principle with has has been said after my last long post , i think as we are talking about mediaval times and pretty much all playmobil mediaval klickies are battle oriented epsecially today , the war and allies and sieges etc needes to be a key part to this mediaval map set up. As there are forum members that wish to simply have a kingdom and exist probabvly without even an army, i think there are two maps that need to be developed , based on teh same landscape , one where are no wars where there are all kingdoms living in peace and another one where all can attack all at any time , allies and sieges can take place and basically al is open to confict and playmo mediaval battles , pretty much all of playmobil mediaval sets are made for this! Having two maps one called maybe MAP OF PEACE and the otehr MAP of WAR will make everyone happy .
King Iseroth is happy to exist as a peaceful nuremberg kingdom in the Map of Peace and establish trade routes by land and sea and even happier to be part in the MAp of War where all war breaks loose, he cant wait to use his 5 siege towers, catapults and armies to attack and conquer !!!! ;D ;D ;D
Of course we can always have one map and run at the same time trade and any wars making it all more realistic etc etc , but i prsonally prefer the two maps as that would make all happy me things
-
As for the question of cannons,
I don't think they should be used.
Or maybe there should be a limit to how many you can use?
Ok, how about for every 300 men, you can have 1 cannon. :)
Since the time period allows cannons,
but they would have been expensive and fairly uncommon.
Clong, Your Egyptians could still fit in with these Medieval troops. :)
Egyptians were using basically the same type of armor as they Playmobil have,
in Roman times, until maybe the 14, 15th century? ???
...
Of course we can always have one map and run at the same time trade and any wars making it all more realistic etc etc , but i prsonally prefer the two maps as that would make all happy me things
I think one map is all we really need.
There is no reason to have two, and I think a more realistic setting
(aka, having to establish certain alliances to move from place to place)
Could be much more fun then 2 maps. :)
-
WoT, honestly, H-1 or G-1 is fine, whatever suits you best (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/luwerner/gif/clapping.gif).
And maybe this could be the 1st rule of war:
- War or battles will ONLY happen if all parties involved agree upon going to war, and spoils of war (territory in the map) will also only be earned among previous agreement among all parties involved.
That way there will be bloodshed but in a controlled manner :viking:. And we could also make things a bit more interesting to everybody (and harder for the waring nations). If you want to attack a nation, you can only move over free or allied territory or from the see (if, of course, you have a navy). So if someone wants to attack a neighbor of mine but does not share borders with them (if the only access is through my territory), then they first have to ask my permission (= make a treaty with me). That will spike the politics throughout the map :cham:.
And a question: are we going to make banners and choose names for the countries?
-
WoT, honestly, H-1 or G-1 is fine, whatever suits you best (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/luwerner/gif/clapping.gif).
And maybe this could be the 1st rule of war:
- War or battles will ONLY happen if all parties involved agree upon going to war, and spoils of war (territory in the map) will also only be earned among previous agreement among all parties involved.
That way there will be bloodshed but in a controlled manner :viking:. And we could also make things a bit more interesting to everybody (and harder for the waring nations). If you want to attack a nation, you can only move over free or allied territory or from the see (if, of course, you have a navy). So if someone wants to attack a neighbor of mine but does not share borders with them (if the only access is through my territory), then they first have to ask my permission (= make a treaty with me). That will spike the politics throughout the map :cham:.
And a question: are we going to make banners and choose names for the countries?
That is what I feel, yes. :)
And I hope everyone creates a name for their Country.
I already have, the name of my Kingdom is Rutileo.
I think it would also be fun if everyone expanded on that,
like, Rutileo's government is a Monarchy,
their main trade resource is Wheat,
although they are a large trading country so they also trade numerous other products.
Everyone can go as far as they want,
I myself am going to search through some old folders
until I find the one with a 4 page long worksheet
on how to create your own imaginary country...
And all the questions that need answered. :P ;D[/list]
-
As for the question of cannons, I don't think they should be used.
Or maybe there should be a limit to how many you can use?
Ok, how about for every 300 men, you can have 1 cannon. :)
From a historical stand point they should be used, but the only thing that worries me about them are the rules. Unless you guys already have some base rules for PM warfare, I think their use would be a huge complicator in battles. And also from a historical perspective, they were very expensive back then, so a cannon to klicky ratio would be an interesting feature. I think the same should apply to catapults and balistas.
Clong, Your Egyptians could still fit in with these Medieval troops. :)
Egyptians were using basically the same type of armor as they Playmobil have,
in Roman times, until maybe the 14, 15th century? ???
Citing history (again), more then probably a Roman legion would clean the clocks of most Medieval armies in equivalent size, up until the widespread use of gunpowder. I'm not so sure about the Egyptians, but the discipline and strategy of Roman troops would be more then a match to more "modern" armies, even with the heavier use of armor and specially, cavalry.
-
Clong, Your Egyptians could still fit in with these Medieval troops. :)
Egyptians were using basically the same type of armor as they Playmobil have,
in Roman times, until maybe the 14, 15th century? ???
In that case I may as well ad my eguptioan troop and roman troop together add another 1000 klickies . Yellow Dragons I am on me way to your Kingdom with more troops !!!! ;D ;D ;D
Actually i think we should limit to the mediaval playmobil klickies . and we cant pose limits to cannons / armies etc , whats the point of building an army then.... i think cannons and dragons should be excluded and keep the engagement rules simple and realistic, each Kings actual army in klickies should reflect his strengh in battlefield ( strategy on top of that of course ) , this way its only fair for those who have been preparing for playmobil wars
Or the other alternative is have all battles outside this map but things will be a bit boring here surely... ??? ??? ??? ???
-
ok all points taken. ;D ;D ;D
-
I think that our villages, armies , infrastructure should be for each nation based on what we have pictured and our photostories , otherwise its all going tobe too virtual, i think all that will be on that map shoudl be based actual real set ups and klickies ... :wave:
-
Oh come on, no Romans??? :prays: :'(
-
Oh come on, no Romans??? :prays: :'(
I have no probs personally with this at all, i dont see though how they match , romans and egyptians verus vikings and knights ... :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
Suits me fine though , it means i will have a 2500 klicky army to invade Yellow Dragons and a much much bigger navy with over 10 ships in total , much bigger cavalrty and even more catapults neraly 50 ...... ;D
-
I have no probs personally with this at all, i dont see though how they match , romans and egyptians verus vikings and knights ... :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
It could be kind of like Deadliest Warrior. ;D Put cheng's samurai in there, too.
-
if both members involved want to have a battle, not one member without warning laying seige on another unsuspecting member to steal their land away from them, when it's not a fair fight, and that member would rather stay peacefully on their land.
I agree 100% but in between nations shouldnt prevent a war / battle from happening when both parties agree to resolve their differences by war.....so the virtual ' right of passage ' should apply to all armies I suppose ... this way things wil be much more exciting I am sure
-
King Darnald was the host for the Winter haven Jousting Tournament. King Darnald has nothing to do with Grangel.
Got the names wrong :-[ :-[ !! , I mean Grangel's Kingdom :).
Apologies
-
I would really like to see one map, with an option of war when both parties agree.
I agree completely.
-
From a historical stand point they should be used, but the only thing that worries me about them are the rules. Unless you guys already have some base rules for PM warfare, I think their use would be a huge complicator in battles. And also from a historical perspective, they were very expensive back then, so a cannon to klicky ratio would be an interesting feature. I think the same should apply to catapults and balistas.
...
I have made a set of rules for pre-warfare fighting.
Here they are: http://gardenwargaming.playclicks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1370.0
The newest most updated version of the rules are below,
You just need to scroll down a bit. :)
And I didn't say we could add Romans, maybe the Egyptians,
but only if they fit in with your country.
I am saying the Egyptian armor of the time of the Romans, (like the armor in Playmobil)
Would have still been used in Medieval times.
Roman armor would not. :no:
I also never said to put a limit on the number of Klickies,
I only said that there should be a ratio to how many cannons per how many Klickies.
I dont believe there should be a ratio to how many klickies
can control how many catapults, or ballistas.
As these did not require as much skill to make as a cannon,
and were much less expensive.
I believe that to have a catapult of ballista,
you only need as many people as it takes to operate it.
(Which according to the rules I made (should anyone use them) is 4 people. ;) )
... ;D Put cheng's samurai in there, too.
Speaking of Cheng, I would be ecstatic if he joined! :D
Just cus it is Medieval doesn't mean it has to be Medieval Europe.
-
I agree 100% but in between nations shouldnt prevent a war / battle from happening when both parties agree to resolve their differences by war.....so the virtual ' right of passage ' should apply to all armies I suppose ... this way things wil be much more exciting I am sure
That is what I was saying before.
In between people should not attempt to stop people from crossing their lands,
unless there is a real reason.
Like if you are part of the war,
and you are the enemy of the person trying to cross.
Maybe it would be better if we split this topic,
One thread for -Reasons for the Map
And a second one, (this one) for- Claiming Land.
-
Nice rules! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/luwerner/gif/thumbs-up.gif)
I am saying the Egyptian armor of the time of the Romans, (like the armor in Playmobil)
Would have still been used in Medieval times.
Roman armor would not. :no:
Medieval armor was just used more extensively, both in terms of body area coverage and number of troops wearing (*), but basically it was the same type Romans used: plate mail and chain mail.
*: In reality, Medieval armies were usually not professional armies like the Romans were, so you would never see so many troops wearing armor as the Romans, where basically every soldier wore armor provided by the army and not by his own purse, as was the way with Medieval armies.
As these did not require as much skill to make as a cannon,
and were much less expensive.
On the contrary, cannons were not easy to make, requiring metallurgy skills (and resources!) that were not easily found.
And about the map(s), I say only one map, let everybody decide to go to war or not.
-
Nice rules! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/luwerner/gif/thumbs-up.gif)
Medieval armor was just used more extensively, both in terms of body area coverage and number of troops wearing (*), but basically it was the same type Romans used: plate mail and chain mail.
*: In reality, Medieval armies were usually not professional armies like the Romans were, so you would never see so many troops wearing armor as the Romans, where basically every soldier wore armor provided by the army and not by his own purse, as was the way with Medieval armies.
On the contrary, cannons were not easy to make, requiring metallurgy skills (and resources!) that were not easily found.
And about the map(s), I say only one map, let everybody decide to go to war or not.
A different sort of plate though, and it is that type of plate I don't want to see in Medieval people. ;)
Chainmailed Romans? Maybe, if you can make them look Medieval. :)
-
A couple of people that were in the "european" map have not yet responded since then. WoT best contact them through PM to make sure they are aware that there is a new map. Other then that I think most people are happy with their current lands.
On right of passage:
Kingdom A wants to attack Kingdom C, but Kingdom B is between them (This apparently is a recurring thing in the relationship of A and C) Kingdom A asks right of passage of Kingdom B.
B, now has 4 options:
!) Allow right of passage, Ally with A
2) Allow right of passage, stay neutral
3) Disallow right of passage, Ally with C
4) Disallow right of passage, stay neutral
If it is option 3/4, A needs to look for an alternative route. Of all reasonable alternative routes have been researched and disallowed a virtual corridor opens.
-
A couple of people that were in the "european" map have not yet responded since then. WoT best contact them through PM to make sure they are aware that there is a new map. Other then that I think most people are happy with their current lands.
On right of passage:
Kingdom A wants to attack Kingdom C, but Kingdom B is between them (This apparently is a recurring thing in the relationship of A and C) Kingdom A asks right of passage of Kingdom B.
B, now has 4 options:
!) Allow right of passage, Ally with A
2) Allow right of passage, stay neutral
3) Disallow right of passage, Ally with C
4) Disallow right of passage, stay neutral
If it is option 3/4, A needs to look for an alternative route. Of all reasonable alternative routes have been researched and disallowed a virtual corridor opens.
I am not so sure about option 4...
Disallowing entry for no apparent reason doesn't seem very fair. :eh?:
-
I am not so sure about option 4...
Disallowing entry for no apparent reason doesn't seem very fair. :eh?:
Allying means joining the war, staying neutral means I won't join a war
You might have reason, Like king Darnald currently has with King Iseroth to not allow entry into your country, but do not want to beat war. that is when you revoke 4)
does that make more sense?
-
Allying means joining the war, staying neutral means I won't join a war
You might have reason, Like king Darnald currently has with King Iseroth to not allow entry into your country, but do not want to beat war. that is when you revoke 4)
does that make more sense?
I see now, thank you. :)
-
Sorry to stick my oar in here, :-[ but I have a quick suggestion. It might make it easier if you always used italics when speaking in character, and normal print when out of character. That way it might be easier to keep it straight.
:wow: