Kingdoms Map: Rules of engagement

[Giorginetto]

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

[Giorginetto]

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

[bonniebeth]

I would really like to see one map, with an option of war when both parties agree.

I agree completely.

[WarriorOfToys]

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.

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. )

... Put cheng's samurai in there, too.

Speaking of Cheng, I would be ecstatic if he joined!
Just cus it is Medieval doesn't mean it has to be Medieval Europe.

[WarriorOfToys]

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.

[PrimusPilus]

Nice rules!

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.

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.

[WarriorOfToys]

Nice rules!
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.

[Gis]

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.

[WarriorOfToys]

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.

[Gis]

I am not so sure about option 4...
Disallowing entry for no apparent reason doesn't seem very fair.

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?