PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[Vladimir]

Mercs are almost always better than your standard troops. However, eventually the player will amass enough wealth to build better barracks to create better troops but that is with a single player. Recruitment also works by region which means you could deny others soldiers but, hey, that's war! A go to war with what you have plan will limit the size of armies and reduce the drawback of only having a limited number of mercs per recruitment zone. (Don't let any one player have to much power)

Simple is fun. It's clear which units are mercs and which are regular. I suggest a simple, in-game solution instead of counting turns and trusting (but verifying, which takes time) that the proper amount of troops are disbanded.

Have these simple rules been tried? What is wrong with them? I have plenty of laws and rules I must follow at work. When at home it's time to get dirty and have some fun!

[ULC]

Mercs are indeed better then their equivalent counterparts, usually by a full valor bar if not more. They also tend to be cheaper, but have a higher upkeep, IIRC.

Mercenary availability can be changed easily enough - a high pool size coupled with a slow pool regrowth would most likely fit what we are after. This means there will be enough for everyone, even if it is only one Merc, but they cannot be farmed.

I'll even change the parts of the file that deal with this if everyone wants me too - should be in desc_strat.txt

[Cecil XIX]

Perhaps this has already been settled, but I don't like the idea of Civil Wars affecting the ability of neurtral parties to prioritize. Historically, warfare between vassals wasn't uncommon, and wouldn't necessarily affect people elsewhere. I suppose it's to encourage neutrals to put pressure on combatants? If so, that sounds like a bad thing to me.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

You can change mercenary spawn rates in descr_mercenaries.txt file.

And I like TC's proposal for using Merc units as Civil War "units". It's simple.

Also, if there are no mercenary units available in your region then you just can't recruit them. You just have to wait until a new unit appears in game. Mercenaries don't grow on trees you know!

So yeah.. No mercs=No recruitment.. You don't like it? Deal with it IC then..

[Vladimir]

For clarification: It might seem like I'm discounting Econ's work. I'm not. I appreciate the time, effort, and thought put into his proposals. However, when I look at some of these rules it just seems like work. Therefore, I'd like to use what's already available in the game. Especially if merc recruitment is easily modified.

I think of it as the Gordon Ramsay approach to Total War.

[econ21]

I agree with Cecil - I'd think we should leave the neutrals to go about their business. As a notable and long lasting neutral in KotR, I appreciate his perspective on that. So I want to propose the following, as a slight refinement of the draft based mechanic:

-----

1) Every other turn, civil war participants (combatants) can prioritize (draft) one unit in each settlement they own or have conquered during the war, regardless of their normal prioritizations.

2) Civil war prioritizations take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are done by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders.

3) When a combatant is no longer at war, he must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war.

-----

The main differences from TCs earlier proposal are (a) making drafting alternating turns rather than 5 out of 10 turns (less book keeping); (b) tieing drafting to settlements - this will make capturing settlements of some strategic importance in the war; (c) letting neutrals get their prioritisations in civil war.

I honestly can't see how anyone can criticise the above for being complex. There is no book-keeping, except when a war ends, when the GM needs to know how many units you drafted. However, since you have publicly posted your prioritisations, so verification is not a problem.

In terms of how to come to a decision, what I suggest is that players who want an alternative set of rules for recruitment in the civil war come up with a formal proposal, laying out the rules. I wonder if this could be done within the next 24 hours? We can then put the alternatives to Zim to either choose or let us vote on it. Staying with the current draft rules - where civil war recruitment is just as in peace time - will be one alternative in any vote.

[econ21]

To respond to the mercenaries ideas, I really think this is a blind alley for lots of reasons.

[rant mode on - apologies in advance]

You can change mercenary spawn rates in descr_mercenaries.txt file.

First off, I am very leery of us modding more than we need to. If a modder had helped Tristan to do our KotF mod so that we were ready to play, I might think more kindly of the proposal. As it is, we haven't yet been able to mod a few names, let alone mod a new system for mercenary spawn. Modding mercenary spawn is actually a complex issue - what about in periods of peace? Are we to enjoy ample mercs? to foreswear any mercs? will the AI foreswear? what mercs do we want? how often for each type? where do merc zones of recruitment lie in relation to our provinces? It just sounds a nightmare. In what way is that simpler than rules 1-3 above? CA has done a great job with the mercenary pool - if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

By contrast, allowing to combatants to recruit their own men from their own settlements is so easy and feels so right: these are the men the game is saying are available to recruit in your settlement. They are the men whose training buildings you have queued over time, whose quality reflects the development of the settlement; who differ depending on whether you are in city type or a castle type settlement; a keep or a fortress etc. All the things we might have to worry about with mercs are not a problem with recruiting from our own settlements. Again, CA have done all that for us - the men are in the recruitment pools, we just need some OOC rules over whether and how much we can access them in civil war if the Chancellor hates us.

Also, if there are no mercenary units available in your region then you just can't recruit them. You just have to wait until a new unit appears in game. Mercenaries don't grow on trees you know!

So yeah.. No mercs=No recruitment.. You don't like it? Deal with it IC then..

Next time someone tells me to deal with a matter of "physics" IC, I will scream. By "physics" I mean the reality we are supposed to be simulating. Whether there are men on your land who will join you does not depend on whether your neighbouring lord has recruited them first. They are your vassals, not his. The whole reason we are discussing recruitment during civil war is because of the fear that an unscrupulous Seneschal will pump up his pals, starve you and set his pals on you. If he is going to those lengths, don't you think he would take care to empty the merc pool in your area before declaring war?

And BTW how exactly can you deal with anything IC in a civil war? IC relations are being determined by military power which is being determined by the OOC rules for recruitment during civil war. It's circular reasoning. Merc pools are empty, which I don't like so I have to deal with that IC? How exactly? By dying at the enemy merc's blade?

I don't get what is the problem that mercenaries are supposed to solve? To identify which units where drafted so that you know what to disband? But is that really a good thing? If you know you are going to lose your draftees in game, you will make them the first to die in battle. Makes sense in game. In real life, it would be a recipe for mass desertion, draft dodging, low morale, internal dissension and revolt etc. Its just gamey. Better when the war ends just disband a number of men about equal to the number you drafted. In real life, a smart commander would probably try to integrate the draftees into existing more veteran formations, rather than keep a bunch of noobs together as deadmeat.

[rant mode off - sorry I had to vent]

Anyhow... as I said, if someone really thinks basing civil war recruitment around mercenaries is a good idea, I suggest they write up proper rules for it (and ideally test out or at least distribute a modded file) so we can come to a decision. I don't think it will be easy.

[Vladimir]

There's no need to react so strongly to the mercenary option. That simple aspect of the game doesn't have to change if it's too complex. I proposed them as one aspect of a clear, straightforward system. Limiting their recruitment to one per turn is like the settlement recruitment you're suggesting.

Is this about approximating reality? If so then we should also add the supply script and a few other add-ons. I though this was about developing an effective way to handle player vs. player combat. Attempting to approximate strategic reality with a tactical game isn't wise.

[AussieGiant]

I see you points econ, but I'm not sure why we are coming up with a subset of recruitment rules when we can simply base it on the game itself.

Using as much of what is already there is imperative. The mercenary idea is great, use that, it's in the game, you don't need to write as many rules, use the availability in the game and make sure they are all removed as soon as the war is over. If we isolate them to mercs then they are easily identifiable. The GM just needs to do a head count of mercs already in existence at the beginning.

I've tried to stay out of this discussion but I'm slowly heading in.

i.e. What Ibn-Khaldun said.

P.S. @ econ, Certainly the physics you are designing are what I would describe as the creating the sand pit and basic characteristics I outlined above. In the Civil War rules, "Movement" needs to be addressed clearly, recruitment...I'm not so sure it needs to be so detailed. If we go back to the orginal start point that began this. "A strong Chancellor shafting you as the civil war protagonist he doesn't like". Fundamentally you should be disadvantaged, that seems very real and deserving of staying in the game. However total domination seems too much, hence the discussion.

But lets be clear. If you want to start a civil war then you should probably not be starting with no units. You should need to be in a strong military situation to pull it off or at least call it. This means you are building up troops prior to starting the civil war using the current recruitment and in game system.

Once the civil war begins then honestly, I would simply leave recruitment as it is in the game and provide a minimum cap on how many troops must be recruited by the chancellor by each civil war character based on their rank (easy to track an implement). The quality is where the distinction can be held in favour of the chancellor. It first must be based on what is available in the game by the provinces the civil war characters control. Given there is already a rule governing the chancellors "order" to build and recruitment all this should happen AFTER the neutrals have their stuff built and recruited. If the neutrals are large in number then there is not way in hell I’m sitting on the sidelines watching the nations resource pooled into them having a barny over something I’m not interested in. Likewise if the neutrals are small in number then their requirements will be small and the bulk of the nations resources even after they get their stuff built and recruited pours into the civil war.

Working out a the troop type is the trick.

Am I smoking crack or getting somewhere with some people?

[Andres]

The whole reason we are discussing recruitment during civil war is because of the fear that an unscrupulous Seneschal will pump up his pals, starve you and set his pals on you. If he is going to those lengths, don't you think he would take care to empty the merc pool in your area before declaring war?

Well, I think the problem of the mercenary pool being depleted before the civil war starts can be easily resolved by not allowing the Seneschal to recruit mercenaries, except a) for civil war purposes b) when the Senate votes legislation that allows it.

As for a Seneschal pumping up his pals, well that's IC, I think. It'll make the position of Seneschal even more important; Houses will have to take into account who they are supporting and very often, the Seneschal will be somebody neutral.

And a backstabbing Seneschal, helping one House to prepare for Civil War will only add more to the drama

In short: recruitment of mercenaries is not allowed, except when a) authorised through an Edict; b) for Civil War purposes.

As for "regular" troops: IC, as in: make sure the right Seneschalk gets elected

[AussieGiant]

Well, I think the problem of the mercenary pool being depleted before the civil war starts can be easily resolved by not allowing the Seneschal to recruit mercenaries, except a) for civil war purposes b) when the Senate votes legislation that allows it.

As for a Seneschal pumping up his pals, well that's IC, I think. It'll make the position of Seneschal even more important; Houses will have to take into account who they are supporting and very often, the Seneschal will be somebody neutral.

And a backstabbing Seneschal, helping one House to prepare for Civil War will only add more to the drama

In short: recruitment of mercenaries is not allowed, except when a) authorised through an Edict; b) for Civil War purposes.

As for "regular" troops: IC, as in: make sure the right Seneschalk gets elected

Also very plasible. Then the only civil war rules are based mostly around movement.

[Rowan]

I like econs latest rules. Clean, require minimal bookkeeping and there isn't too much to abuse. Depending on mercs sounds like a good idea at first but quickly needs additional modding or rules to prevent Seneschal from recruiting them all. And then there's the whole first-come-first-serve aspect I don't like.

And I think we really need a decision here, either by poll or Zim.

[econ21]

Is this about approximating reality? If so then we should also add the supply script and a few other add-ons. I though this was about developing an effective way to handle player vs. player combat. Attempting to approximate strategic reality with a tactical game isn't wise.

Well, my perspective is that realism considerations are relevant to developing rules for PvP combat. Otherwise we are anchorless and can just make arbitrary decisions like CAs latest ETW update "frigates are more accurate/longer ranged than ships of the line". I will wager who wins the civil war will be determined by military power - I agree largely inherited, not recruited during war - not strategy or tactics. So we do need to think about recruitment in wartime. Personally, when thinking about the "sand-box" as AG says, I do think we need an eye to reality.

Essentially, I view rules design for a historical wargame as an exercise in "modelling". You are trying to come up with an abstract, simplified model that can give you key outcomes that roughly correspond to what would happen in reality. CA has done that for combat, movement (although not to the satisfaction of players, hence the Risk stuff), recruitment etc. It does not have supply, but we can abstract from that here as it is not crucial to the determination of civil war. Some rules for how to "share out the cake" when the faction fights itself are crucial to the determination of civil war and do need to be considered as there is nothing in CAs programming that covers a faction fighting itself.

I see you points econ, but I'm not sure why we are coming up with a subset of recruitment rules when we can simply base it on the game itself.

...The mercenary idea is great, use that, it's in the game, you don't need to write as many rules ...

...
Then the only civil war rules are based mostly around movement.

I think advocates of the mercenary option do need to post some proposed rules for what they suggest. It can't be right that the only civil war rules we need are based about movement - we do need some rules for the mercenaries themselves. They need to clarify:

(a) spawn rates - modded or not?
(b) IGO-UGO or WEGO?
(c) no recruitment outside of civil war except for ...
(d) recruitment once per turn (Per settlement? Per avatar? Affected by rank?)
(e) paid for before or after Seneschal blows the budget buys regular troops
(f) disbanded on peace? GM keeps tab on pre-war mercs
etc etc

I am sure it can be done, but I can't see them being simpler than those I have proposed for drafting. I feel I am being shot down for proposing something that is complex when it is in fact just three sentences:

-------

1) Every other turn, civil war participants (combatants) can prioritize (draft) one unit in each settlement they own or have conquered during the war, regardless of their normal prioritizations.

2) Civil war prioritizations take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are done by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders.

3) When a combatant is no longer at war, he must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war.

-------

What I propose is that people think about specific changes to the above or alternative rules (e.g. based on mercs) and then we put them to Zim with a view to asking for a poll. If someone posts draft rules in this thread, I will include them in what I raise with Zim. Staying with the current draft rules where the Seneschal recruits everything will always be an option. However, personally, I would think this is one area where the current game can try to innovate on its predecessors. Our rulesets for WotS type games have "evolved" and civil war recruitment strikes me as an area where we can afford to try something new without worrying about rules overload.

To bring some closure, I suggest that we allow 48 hours for further brainstorming and firming up proposed rules. Then approach Zim with a view to a 2 day poll starting Sunday or Monday. Is that timetable acceptable or would people like more time?

Potentially we do have lots of time, as PvP stuff won't happen for a month or maybe half a year, but I feel it would be best to stop rules discussion for a (long) while once we get our avatars, so we can put our energies into IC stuff.

[AussieGiant]

Timing is good econ. We need a deadline or we will be at this forever.

The sand box needs to model reality, but it will still be abstract to a degree.

Movement I think is set as "Risk style",

your points c, d, e and f all need to be captured and addressed in essence.

I think your three rule sentences cover that. My only issue with them is that they state that in a civil war all money is spent FIRST on the civil war requirements.

I think it should be AFTER non civil war requirements are met.

The clear point you make and that I see as vital is this;

"It does not have supply, but we can abstract from that here as it is not crucial to the determination of civil war. Some rules for how to "share out the cake" when the faction fights itself are crucial to the determination of civil war and do need to be considered as there is nothing in CAs programming that covers a faction fighting itself."

That's what we need to address is a KISS format. Once distilled your three rules get very close to dealing with the above issue.

That should be the focus.

[econ21]

My only issue with them is that they state that in a civil war all money is spent FIRST on the civil war requirements.

I think it should be AFTER non civil war requirements are met.

I was thinking of conceding that point, but the problem is I am sure a Seneschal can manage to expend the budget on non civil war requirements BEFORE drafting, so that drafting becomes impossible. As I recall, some late stage buildings are very expensive in M2TW and if push comes to shove, the Seneschal could even give away money to foreign factions to make sure the cupboard is bare.

If you are worred about the drafting being unfair to non-participants, then we could just let them draft too, so everyone benefits equally. Bear in mind that TC wanted neutrals not to get any prioritisation at all. Personally, I could live with everyone being able to draft - if your neighbours are raising armies to attack each other, even a neutral might want a precautionary draft. I read that a large proportion of English counties - a third? - in the ECW, raised troops explicitly to keep the warring sides out of their lands (to avoid pillage etc). The war was actually a minority affair between King and Parliament - most people did not want to take sides.

I think we still need some disbandment or other penalty to drafting, so we don't see phony wars called just to allow nobles to get some more precious troops.

So we could have:

----

ECON's PROPOSAL (revised):

1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment of (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are done by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders.

3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).

----

[TinCow]

Bear in mind that TC wanted neutrals not to get any prioritisation at all.

The arguments presented over the past few days have steered my away from that point. My current preference is that prioritizations are treated as normal, except that Civil War recruitment (of whatever kind is decided upon) always comes first.

[AussieGiant]

Hmm,

so two lords call a civil war, and then the whole country has to give them resources first before the rest of the empire builds or recruits.

[econ21]

so two lords call a civil war, and then the whole country has to give them resources first before the rest of the empire builds or recruits.

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

[AussieGiant]

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

Ok then. That would be bloody inconvenient for those not interested in the civil war.

I LIKE IT.

[TinCow]

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

The whole point of giving preferred recruitment to Civil War combatants was to reduce the Chancellor's ability to prejudice one side over the other. By treating everyone equally, we are faced with the almost guaranteed situation where there will not be enough money to meet all recruiting requests. Thus, someone will have to decide who gets their units and who does not and we're right back to the Chancellor (or some other random person) being able to support one side of the civil war and starve the other. This is fine with me, since I never saw that as a problem in the first place, but I recall this being a major complaint not too long ago so you should be aware of the implications of what you are now proposing.

[Vladimir]

It makes sense if the intent is for civil wars to add a level of excitement to the game. I don't see how encouraging civil wars is better than having players control different factions. I'd rather have a total ban on recruitment. Free settlement upkeep troops would be generated and remain in settlements for siege defense.

Vladimir’s simple rules for destroying the fleur de lis:

1. Players warring against each other are only allowed to utilize funds for the upkeep of the standing army under their direct control when hostilities begin.

2. A number of the most advanced troops available to the settlement that are eligible for and equal to the maximum allowable for free upkeep shall be generated by console command. These troops are for siege defense alone, are considered to have zero movement points, and are disbanded immediately after the cessation of hostilities.

These lines are fairly long but their effects are small. The number of lines doesn’t matter much, it’s the content of those lines. For example: E=MC^2 only involves three letters but its effect is complex.

Number 2 isn’t worded well but I hope you get the point. It could use some TinCow refining. You get the maximum amount your best, free upkeep troops for siege defense and nothing else. I don’t like malcontents taking away from (or especially having priority over) other players looking to expand the empire but that’s my personal opinion.

These two rules express my thoughts on this issue. Please take what you will from them. And I’ll accept whatever the group approves.

[econ21]

The whole point of giving preferred recruitment to Civil War combatants was to reduce the Chancellor's ability to prejudice one side over the other. By treating everyone equally, we are faced with the almost guaranteed situation where there will not be enough money to meet all recruiting requests. Thus, someone will have to decide who gets their units and who does not and we're right back to the Chancellor (or some other random person) being able to support one side of the civil war and starve the other. This is fine with me, since I never saw that as a problem in the first place, but I recall this being a major complaint not too long ago so you should be aware of the implications of what you are now proposing.

Good point. The reason for going through this brainstorming rather than jumping to a decision is for people to be able to identify unintended implications of proposed rule changes.

So we need a system for rationing out drafts? Drafting will be done by the GM, so let's just make it by rotation. No one gets a second drafted unit in the war (whatever turn it is) until everyone has had one; no one gets a third until everyone has a second etc. The order of rotation is not that important, but since drafting will be per settlement, I suggest the GM draft in order of the "seniority" of the settlement (Paris first, then the 4 other starter settlements in order of starting population, then other provinces by date of conquest).

----

ECON's PROPOSAL (v1.02):

1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed in rotation by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders (using settlement seniority to determine initial order of rotation).

3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).

(Changes over previous version in italics)

[TinCow]

Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.

I am also slightly concerned by the idea of allowing recruitment every turn in every province a person owns simultaneously. In LotR, it was not uncommon for a single person to own 4-5 provinces, and I think one person owned about 7 at one point. This means that even a massive budget surplus could quickly be drained into nothing by a single person's participation in a minor Civil War. While I do think financial issues are best left to IC discussions, the idea of someone who is not the Chancellor ruining the economy single-handedly unsettles me somewhat. I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.

[Vladimir]

Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.

Agreed.

I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.

I am not, however, I believe that is clear.

[econ21]

I am also slightly concerned by the idea of allowing recruitment every turn in every province a person owns simultaneously. In LotR, it was not uncommon for a single person to own 4-5 provinces, and I think one person owned about 7 at one point. This means that even a massive budget surplus could quickly be drained into nothing by a single person's participation in a minor Civil War. While I do think financial issues are best left to IC discussions, the idea of someone who is not the Chancellor ruining the economy single-handedly unsettles me somewhat. I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.

I am ok with land being the basis of power - I thought that was the premise of the game?

I am less comfortable with one malcontent ruining the Kingdom's economy, but this is one case where I would say we deal with it IC. In that setting, why don't the non-malcontents agree not to bother recruiting any men and take what men they have to beat some sense into the malcontent? People who free ride and draft despite a collective agreement can be punished IC, if need be (denied recruits when the malcontent is brought to heel.)

I think the civil war = economic disaster feature is realistic and will create real political pressure for an end to hostilities.

Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.

Don't worry, it is easy to maintain a simple list of settlements in the order they were conquered. I did this in kotr, although it was by House:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...81&postcount=1

I am happy to do so again, adding dates of conquest. We are going to need a listing of which province is owned by who anyway, so adding a date column is trivial.

Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.

I am not quite following this - I can see players can list which settlement they want to have recruitment first, but the GM still needs some ranking to determine which player to recruit for first. I think your proposal might lead to a more complicated sequencing than province seniority.

However, I am very flexible on this. As long as it is by settlement by rotation, it does not really matter what the sequencing of settlements is. It could be purely random sequencing - Zim could generate a random number next to every settlement - and I doubt it would change much.

If we make it by player by rotation (so player A gets all his draftees before player C gets any) then the order will be more important - whether the player with 7 settlements gets them all on the first turn or on the last turn could be matter.

On that distinction, I should rephrase:

No one gets a second drafted unit in the war (whatever turn it is) until everyone has had one; no one gets a third until everyone has a second etc.

to

No settlement gets a second drafted unit in the war (whatever turn it is) until every settlement has had one; no settlement gets a third until every settlement has a second etc.

[TinCow]

I am not quite following this - I can see players can list which settlement they want to have recruitment first, but the GM still needs some ranking to determine which player to recruit for first. I think your proposal might lead to a more complicated sequencing than province seniority.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood a bit. Under you system I assumed that if an entire 'round' of recruitment could not be completed due to lack of money, none of it would be completed. For instance, if there is enough money for everyone to get their first settlement recruitment, but only for half to get their second settlement recruitment, no one gets a second settlement recruitment. I thought that was what you meant, and it strikes me as both the simplest and most fair method.

[econ21]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood a bit. Under you system I assumed that if an entire 'round' of recruitment could not be completed due to lack of money, none of it would be completed. For instance, if there is enough money for everyone to get their first settlement recruitment, but only for half to get their second settlement recruitment, no one gets a second settlement recruitment. I thought that was what you meant, and it strikes me as both the simplest and most fair method.

My apologies - I need to be more explicit. I have rephrased to clarify the rotation by settlement idea.

I would not want to prevent a single unit being drafted just because we can't afford to draft one unit for each player, as that could mean there was never any drafting at all. I think it will be simpler for the GM, too, as he does not need to work out how many units he can draft before deciding whether to draft any - he just keep drafting till he's done or out of florins.

----

ECON's PROPOSAL (v1.03):

1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders.

3) Drafting is done by rotation of settlements: settlements are initially listed by seniority and the rotation extends across turns; any settlements that receive a draft in one turn, are moved to the bottom of the list next turn.

4) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).

(Changes over previous version in italics)

----

An example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Game turn 1:

Priority of settlements for drafting = settlement seniority (could be random, I don't mind)

Let's say it is Paris, settlement A, B, C, D

GM gets draft orders for all settlements.

Recruits first in Paris, then in A, then in B, then runs out money. C and D are out of luck this turn, but jump to the top of the queue for next.


Game turn 2:

Paris, A and B got drafts last turn so they move to the end of the queue for drafts this turn:

Priority of settlements for drafting: C, D, Paris, A, B

GM drafts a unit in C but runs out of money.


Game turn 3:

Priority of settlements: D, Paris, A, B, C

GM drafts unit in D and now a second unit for Paris. Runs out of money etc

[TinCow]

It seems like we're just replacing an potentially partisan Chancellor with an arbitrary and capricious rule. What basis in RP or reality is for the 'age' of the settlement to determine its recruitment order? You could easily have a war in which one side owned 5 settlements that were 'old' and the other side owned 5 settlements that were 'new.' This rule could end up giving 5 units to the first side and none to the second, even if the RP circumstances dictated that the people living in the 'new' settlements would be more likely to support their Lords.

If we're going to have the system prejudice one side over another, at least make that decision subject to the political game. Both sides have a chance at wooing the Chancellor over to their side or putting their own man in office, but your proposal will simply prejudice one side in favor of another without any method for the prejudiced side to improve their situation, no matter how well they politic and prepare in advance.

[AussieGiant]

I don't want to be a Senchal in a civil war.


-EDIT-

I'm increasingly inclined to simply leave this recruitment issue in the hands of the Chancellor and leave him being a very powerful figure in determining if you wage a civil war or not.

The original solution seems like the best approach.

[ULC]

I still say we should go with Mercenaries, and it would only require a few changes -

1. Mercenaries can only be recruited during a civil war, or by an edict
2. At the end of a civil war, all Mercenaries not recruited through edicts (that have not expired) are disbanded
3. A player involved in a civil war may only recruit 1 mercenary per turn, and only up to a total number of their prioritizations per term.
4. The recruitment is based upon first come, first serve.

I know this is very basic, and I wouldn't mind some feedback to see where this can go.