How often do you want to see states of war between players?

[econ21]

This is just an informal poll to gauge people's views about PvP play in KotF. How often would you like to see players in a "state of war" with other players?

Explaining the categories:

Endemic - multiple wars, almost all the time
The norm - at least one war to be "on" during a session (10 turns)
Common - around one out of two sessions to experience PvP wars
Uncommon - around one in three or more sessions to experience PvP wars
Rare - only a few per game, to be major "events"
Terminal only - one to end the game where fitting

Edit: the motivation for the poll is with a view to the design of PvP rules. If they are going to be common, I think the rules need to be good. If they are rare, we can wing it.

[Cecil XIX]

econ, I think this poll would work better if we could select multiple options. I'd probably be happy with every option except the two extremes.

[econ21]

econ, I think this poll would work better if we could select multiple options. I'd probably be happy with every option except the two extremes.

Um, good point - I don't think I can change the type of poll now, so people can post if they are indifferent between a range of responses.

[Cecil XIX]

Thinking about it some more, I think I would prefer common/uncommon, although I wouldn't mind if they were rare/the norm either.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I think it all depends on how people play their characters. Once the game starts then it sort this thing out it self.

I went for common, although, uncommon seems good as well.

[econ21]

Anyone want to provide a potted version of PvP wars in LotR for reference? How common were they?

I gather from TC that the game ended with Ignoramus/Zim kicking *** and that there was an unsatisfactory "war of words". What others were there? Roughly what proportion of sessions (10 turns slots) had a PvP war going on at some point within them?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Well, I at least fought in two of those so.. to me they were pretty common!

The reason, why there were so few PvP battles, have been posted before. It was the distance between armies. If this would be removed(battle will be fought just after declaration of war or the armies have to be at least in the same province etc) then I think there will be more PvP battles.

[TheFlax]

Here's a breakdown of the PvP action in LotR per session.

1081-1095: None

1095-1110: None

1110-1025: None

1125-1140: None

1140-1155: None

1155-1170: The Komneni Troubles (Also know as the War of the Princess and War of Words.) A misunderstanding between the Basileus and the Ceasar sparked a war which never saw any battles. A few people took the opportunity to declare their own wars.

1170-1185: Treason of the Heart in which Helarionas Anargiros attempts to abscond with one of the daughters of the Ceasar. Leads to the Battle of Apulia.

The Ceasar, Methodios Tagaris, attempts to secede from the Empire, taking most of Egypt with him. This results in no battles and ends when he dies soon after.

1185-1200: Ioannis Tagaris becomes emperor which leads to the War of the Four Basileis. Resulting battles are: The Battle of Edessa (Pre-event), the Battle of the Iron Bridge and the Battle of the Basileis (Which was actually three separate battles)

[Cecil XIX]

It's worth noting that with the exception of the Battle of Edessa, all those battles ocurred during wars where Tincow specifically changed the rules in order to get us to see some action.

[TheFlax]

What lead to the battle of Apulia had no special movement rules/event implemented. I was just lucky to be close enough with ships when the event happened.

[ULC]

LTC at least has higher movement rates, although I am wondring where we could change that - increasing the movement rate of ingame stacks could go along way into simplifying civil war rules.

[TinCow]

Selected 'common' but none of the options really reflect my feelings. I simply want a system where I can engage in PvP warfare if I choose to at any time of my choosing. As long as that is the case, I'm not particularly concerned with how often other people engage in it.

[ULC]

Selected 'common' but none of the options really reflect my feelings. I simply want a system where I can engage in PvP warfare if I choose to at any time of my choosing. As long as that is the case, I'm not particularly concerned with how often other people engage in it.

I agree as well, but I selected uncommon for better pacing. As far as I am concerned, the system works as now, but I really want someway (or someone to explain to me) how to prevent the "massed coup" the system seems prone to if abused.

[Cecil XIX]

What lead to the battle of Apulia had no special movement rules/event implemented. I was just lucky to be close enough with ships when the event happened.

That's true, I should have been more clear. In that case the whole thing was a result of an event which Tincow thankfully created.

[Zim]

I voted uncommon (although uncommon-common are both in the range I'd like to see). To be honest I can see a great game with few to no Civil Wars and a great game where the country is racked by one after another. The main thing I'm concerned with is giving ambitious players a chance to give them a try.

[econ21]

Here's a breakdown of the PvP action in LotR per session.

Thanks, TheFlax. So what you basically had was 75 years of peace, then 45 years of various civil wars - somewhere around the uncommon to common range. That also seems to be what the poll is saying.

I don't know about anyone else, but if there is going to be so much conflict, I think we need better rules for PvP mechanics. Anyone interested in the PvP mechanics brainstorming thread? Can't we at least consider moving some powers - to do with recruitment of warring parties - from the Chancellor to the GM in a time of civil war? We have a non-player GM, it seems strange not to use him to help resolve with player vs player wars. Please post any responses in:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=119116

[AussieGiant]

I voted rare.

It should be in the game as a potential option but I'm more of a coop gamer myself.

The option to go nuclear has to be there, however it's the cut and thrust of running a kingdom with competing factions, resources and agenda's that I like.

"Nearly civil war" is what I like.

[Rowan]

AG pretty much summed up my position in this.

I'd rather see more meaningful fights in the council than continuous civil wars.

[Cecil XIX]

Hmm... If they were rare 'events' Zim could give the results long-lasting consequences...

Still, I think I agree with Tincow. It's probably fine as long as people can fight each other when they want to.