View Full Version : KotF PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
I would like to explore putting a little more structure on PvP mechanics. I think what we have for PvP battles is as good as we are going to get, but I am not a fan of mechanics for PvP on the strategic map.
Some of my concerns:
- We may get too many "frivolous" civil wars that are confusing, slow the game down and break immersion. I would like to narrow down the number of reasons for war and limit things to one war at a time.
- The Chancellor recruiting units as if in peace time feels unrealistic and may overly bias wars to his side. They will become coups rather than genuine civil wars. And the whole idea of a Chancellor organising a coup seems silly - he is the Chancellor, he is in power already. It just feels contrived.
- Voting on four movement mechanisms at the start of the war means that players will not know the mechanics for the war until it happens. This means planning for the war becomes something of a crap shoot. And the voting when it happens is likely to be swayed by players voting for the system that will favour their side. I much prefer rules to be transparent and fixed by impartial discussion (ie set now). I understand there is an issue about accelerating movement to avoid bloodless wars, so I would keep that as an option - but one for the GM to exercise at his discretion if the wars are bloodless.
- I am worried that the game will become primarily competitive rather than cooperative. If the focus is on crushing other players, killing their avatars and taking their lands, then we should not be playing as a single faction in M2TW. Hence, I would restrict wars into a few more legitimate types - I suggest full blooded civil wars involving the King and more minor intra-House conflicts over oath-breaking. Houses should not war on other Houses, nobles on other nobles, in other ways.
-It is very tempting to avoid the hard work of setting detailed rules for PvP and put all the onus on the GM by treating it as an event. I myself proposed that cop-out in the draft rules thread. But on reflection, I think absence or lack of clarity of rules may put too much pressure on the GM. I know from experience that some players can be very good at trying to persuade a GM to do things their way (or at least reveal what is the GMs way), while others are more laid back and consequently get very disadvantaged. Conversely, setting some basic ground rules may steer us more to playing the game rather than playing the GM.
- I don't think that developing a more structured ruleset for PvP will necessarily over-complicate the game. The rules are likely to come into play only at specific times and so will not be a constant headache. Moreover, I think PvP action is a very important area and deserves at least as much attention as, say, feudal structure or Senate procedure.
Players versus player conflict can only occur in one of two ways - civil war or oath-breaking war.
Possible rules for a Civil war
1. A civil war can only begin when a Duke declares war on the King. This can only be done if there is no pre-existing civil war.
2. All nobles must then declare their allegiance - to the King or to the rebellion. There can only be two sides to the conflict. These nobles are now at war. Nobles who do not declare are neutral. They may declare or switch an allegiance at any time.
3. Civil war ends when one side has the allegiance of no nobles - they are dead, neutral or declared for the other side (surrendered/defected etc).
4. The Chancellor is removed from office. He has failed his country. When the war ends, fresh elections are called to fill a new full term of office. The previous Chancellor may stand again.
5. Taxes are all raised to VH.
6. During a civil war no foreign wars may be started by anyone (not even the King).
7. All available money is used to recruit troops. No buildings may be constructed or even repaired.
8. The GM recruits one unit of his choice per settlement of a player at war until there is no more money or no more troops, going in order of settlement seniority. (Seniority is determined by starting population for the 5 starter settlements, then by the time at which the settlement joined the Kingdom). Neutrals can never recruit troops.
9. Units of a noble who changes allegiance from one side to another during a war must take a loyalty test. The GM will roll a D6 - on a 1 or 2, the unit disbands.
10. Only nobles and accompanying stacks may be moved on the map - ships without nobles must be returned to the nearest port. No noble may attack another on the first turn of war.
11. If the war drags on too long, at his discretion, the GM may seek permission to “accelerate” the war using console commands, phased movement or instant battle. (consulting players first if he wishes). This may be particularly relevant if only one or two nobles remain on a side and are being hunted down.
Possible rules for an Oath-breaking war
1. An oath-breaking war can only start if there is no on-going civil war or oath-breaking war. A noble may not break his oath if another House is already engaged in an oath-breaking war.
2. An oath-breaking war can only occur if a vassal breaks his oath of fealty and his liege decides to declare war on him. Such a declaration of war can only be made on the same turn as the oath is declared broken.
3. All nobles in the vassal chain below the liege must then declare their allegiance - to liege or to the cause of the oath breaker. These are the two sides - the liege and the oath-breaker. Only nobles in the same House may declare - any nobles above the liege (in the same House) may also declare, in which case all their vassals must declare. Nobles may be neutral, but failure to declare in support of ones liege can be regarded by the liege as oath-breaking, in which case the “neutral” counts as siding with the oathbreaker.
4. Oath- breaking wars end when one side has the allegiance of no nobles - they are dead, neutral or declared for the other side (surrendered/defected etc).
5. The Chancellor may perform no actions in Houses affected by oath-breaking wars. He does not recruit, build or move units in their provinces.
6. Taxes in the House are all raised to VH.
7. No buildings in the affected House may be constructed or repaired.
9. At the start of each turn, before the Chancellor performs any action, the GM recruits one unit of his choice per settlement of a player at war provided France has the money. Neutrals in a warring House can never recruit troops.
10. Units of a noble who changes allegiance from one side to another during a war must take a loyalty test. The GM will roll a D6 - on a 1 or 2, the unit disbands.
11. Players in warring Houses can move only their own avatars and accompanying units. Captain led stacks in the territory of the House are moved by the GM to the capital. No noble may attack another on the first turn of war.
12. Players cannot participate in oath-breaking wars of another House. They can transfer troops to a combatant in oath-breaking war. These troops then change ownership - there is no requirement they be returned. Such troops take a loyalty test - disbanding on a 1 or 2 of a D6.
13. If the war drags on too long, at his discretion, the GM may “accelerate” the war using console commands, phased movement or instant battle (consulting players first if he wishes).
I know there will inevitably be gaps in the above rules and we would be reliant on GM to fill those gaps. But I think it would be better to build some structure and then fill the gaps, than just sit back and expect the GM to construct the whole thing.
I should also say that I am quite prepared to play under the existing PvP mechanics. I gather they worked ok in LotR and I suspect I would enjoy a game played under them well enough (although I confess I would be predisposed to neutrality throughout any PvP wars fought under them). However, I think we should consider if we can improve them before they are finalised. What I propose is that Zim has the final say on the starting rules, but if people are interested, we discuss possibilities until he calls time.
_Tristan_
07-05-2009, 13:36
I rather like your rules, Econ... but for the sake of the game I don't think we should restrict wars to one instance only at a time.
I can imagine times when a full civil war will be raging and it will be a perfect time for changing allegiances and Houses thus breaking oath (say from a neutral House).
Moreso, I can imagine times when several low-ranking nobles will want to make a stand to their betters, breaking their oaths each from their Houses and siding together against whatever will be thrown at them.
Your rules just prevent this from happening. I fear we may be sorry for the loss.
Your rules as they are worded prevent any opportunistic wars such as we've seen in LotR, and which were rather fun in IMO.
We're playing in a feudal system, which means that all nobles have their own loyal retainers, no matter what rank they are. If a 'Count' level wants to attack/rebel against a 'Duke' level, he would realistically be able to do so. For these reasons, I would prefer no restrictions on when someone can declare war on another player.
However, I am very much open to changes in the way that recruitment is done. If we can find a method that is fair and easy to implement while not being reliant upon the Chancellor, I would support it.
OK, let's keep declarations of war wholly unconstrained - it does simplify the number of rules (at the cost of making keeping track of who is at war with whom potentially complex).
How about the following rules? These would replace all the rules in section 6 of the current rules, except the last one about battles.
Proposed rules
(a) Declarations of War: A noble may only declare war on another noble at any time. The declaration must be noted in the Chancellor’s report and no noble can attack another noble until the subsequent turn (ie both sides have a full turn of movement before hostilities). A list of who is at war with whom will be maintained for clarity. A noble may only attack another noble if a state of war exists between them.
(b) Ending a war: A state of war between two nobles ends when both make a public declaration of ceasefire (or one dies, is captured etc).
(c)PvP flagging: a noble at war may declare they are PvP flagged. The settlements of PvP flagged nobles:
(1) must set taxes to VH where possible
(2) cannot construct or repair buildings
(3) cannot recruit any units except via drafting
(Edit:) A noble automatically stops being PvP flagged when at peace - once switched on, the flag cannot be switched off while the noble is still at war.
(d)Drafting: PvP flagged characters may request the recruitment of one available unit - players pick - from each settlement they control. This will be done by the GM at the start of each turn before the Chancellor takes the save, provided the Kingdom has the funds. Where funds are scarce, the GM will recruit from settlements in order of seniority (Seniority is determined by intiial population for the 5 starter settlements, then by the time at which the settlement joined the Kingdom).
(e) War weariness: each noble has a war weariness score, which starts at 0 but increases by one each turn they are PvP flagged. When the PvP flag is switched off, the war weariness score remains frozen for 10 turns. Thereafter, every turn they are not PvP flagged reduces war weariness by 1 (0 being the minimum). Once war weariness reaches 5 or more, no more units may be drafted from any of the player's settlements.
(f) Desertion: once war weariness reaches 10 or higher, the PvP flagged character must disband one of their units each turn. The unit must be full strength (merge units if necessary) or, if this not possible, the GM picks. Bodyguards and fleets are not considered units for the purposes of desertion. Disbandment orders are to be communicated to the GM and implemented at the same time as drafting (ie before any other actions that turn). Failure to communicate will led to the GM picking the unit to disband.
(g) movement on the campaign map: normal rules apply, but if the GM thinks it best, he may propose alternative mechanics (e.g. phased movement; risk style movement; instant battle) which will be adopted if passed on an OOC vote (unweighted).
Commentary
(a) and (b) declaring and ending war are written mainly to simplify what we already have and implement TCs idea that declarations of war be totally unconstrained. What we currently have about feudal chains and oath breaking just seems unnecessary. Your vassals should join you in the war - unless they also want to break their oaths, in which case you can declare war on them. I don't think we need rules to automatically place them at war - if they and the oath breaker don't want to be at war, what is served by saying they must be?
PvP flagging: this is a mechanic that allows you to opt out of the peacetime system of the Chancellor ruling everything. If you are at war, you don't have to be PvP flagged - you can still allow the Chancellor to build and recruit etc.
The rules are intended to balance PvP flagging so that it is not overpowered (if it were, people would always want to be in a state of war, most likely phoney).
The benefit of PvP flagging is that you can recruit 1 "free" unit per settlement, up to 5 per settlement.
Some of the disadvantages of PvP flagging are:
- taxes at VH - to simulate unrest (and because your drafting is costing the Kingdom florins).
- no buildings or even repairs (guns or butter)
- no normal recruitment by the Chancellor at your cities
Typically, I would imagine a player who has the Chancellor on side would not want to PvP flag - it is mainly for the "rebel" side.
However, 5 units per settlement is potentially still an important benefit, so the concepts of war weariness and desertion are to further balance things. War weariness first stops you getting more than 5 drafted units per settlement, then exposes you to desertion. Desertion means your army gradually dwindles the longer the war drags on. As a player will tend to disband low quality units (drafting better ones), so desertion will be less of an issue to a powerful player with many units and/or settlements.
Note that since drafting imposes a financial cost on the Kingdom, there will be a pressure from non-combatants for civil wars to end. This seems fitting.
OK, let's keep declarations of war wholly unconstrained - it does simplify the number of rules (at the cost of making keeping track of who is at war with whom potentially complex).
How about the following rules? These would replace all the rules in section 6 of the current rules, except the last one about battles.
Proposed rules
(a) Declarations of War: A noble may only declare war on another noble at any time. The declaration must be noted in the Chancellor’s report and no noble can attack another noble until the subsequent turn (ie both sides have a full turn of movement before hostilities). A list of who is at war with whom will be maintained for clarity. A noble may only attack another noble if a state of war exists between them.
(b) Ending a war: A state of war between two nobles ends when both make a public declaration of ceasefire (or one dies, is captured etc).
(c)PvP flagging: a noble at war may declare they are PvP flagged. The settlements of PvP flagged nobles:
(1) must set taxes to VH where possible
(2) cannot construct or repair buildings
(3) cannot recruit any units except via drafting
(d)Drafting: PvP flagged characters may request the recruitment of one available unit - players pick - from each settlement they control. This will be done by the GM at the start of each turn before the Chancellor takes the save, provided the Kingdom has the funds. Where funds are scarce, the GM will recruit from settlements in order of seniority (Seniority is determined by intiial population for the 5 starter settlements, then by the time at which the settlement joined the Kingdom).
(e) War weariness: each noble has a war weariness score, which starts at 0 but increases by one each turn they are PvP flagged. When the PvP flag is switched off, the war weariness score remains frozen for 10 turns. Thereafter, every turn they are not PvP flagged reduces war weariness by 1 (0 being the minimum). Once war weariness reaches 5 or more, no more units may be drafted from any of the player's settlements.
(f) Desertion: once war weariness reaches 10 or higher, the PvP flagged character must disband one of their units each turn. The unit must be full strength (merge units if necessary) or, if this not possible, the GM picks. RBGs and fleets are not considered units for the purposes of desertion. Disbandment orders are to be communicated to the GM and implemented at the same time as drafting (ie before any other actions that turn). Failure to communicate will led to the GM picking the unit to disband.
(g) movement on the campaign map: normal rules apply, but if the GM thinks it best, he may propose alternative mechanics (e.g. phased movement; risk style movement; instant battle) which will be adopted if passed on an OOC vote (unweighted).
Commentary
(a) and (b) declaring and ending war are written mainly to simplify what we already have. What we currently have about feudal chains and oath breaking just seems unnecessary. Your vassals should join you in the war - unless they also want to break their oaths, in which case you can declare war on them.
PvP flagging: this is a mechanic that allows you to opt out of the peacetime system of the Chancellor ruling everything. If you are at war, you don't have to be PvP flagged - you can still allow the Chancellor to build and recruit etc.
The rules are intended to balance PvP flagging so that it is not overpowered (if it were, people would always want to be in a state of war, most likely phoney).
The benefit of PvP flagging is that you can recruit 1 "free" unit per settlement, up to 5 per settlement.
Some of the disadvantages of PvP flagging are:
- taxes at VH - to simulate unrest (and because your drafting is costing the Kingdom florins).
- no buildings or even repairs (guns or butter)
- no normal recruitment by the Chancellor at your cities
Typically, I would imagine a player who has the Chancellor on side would not want to PvP flag - it is mainly for the "rebel" side.
However, 5 units per settlement is potentially still an important benefit, so the concepts of war weariness and desertion are to further balance things. War weariness first stops you getting more than 5 drafted units per settlement, then exposes you to desertion. Desertion means your army gradually dwindles the longer the war drags on. As a player will tend to disband low quality units (drafting better ones), so desertion will be less of an issue to a powerful player with many units and/or settlements.
Note that since drafting imposes a financial cost on the Kingdom, there will be a pressure from non-combatants for civil wars to end. This seems fitting.
Ugh, far to complex - however, their are a few gems in there. I was thinking of not a draft, but a militia that could be automatically generated, without cost to the treasury, by the GM, for each settlement under the declared and/or the declaree's settlements on turn one. No further units are generated by the GM afterward.
OR
Each participant in a civil war may recruit a a unit(s) based on their rank each turn or hire mercenaries. This overrides unit prioritization, as it would be done by the GM once each term. However, using this ability forgoes your ability to use unit prioritization.
_Tristan_
07-05-2009, 17:30
I really like this new set of rules, Econ. Under those rules, I think that Methodios' rebellion would have stood a better chance than it did.
The whole PvP flagging concept is revolutionary and would work for me.
EDIT : @ YLC : I don't see why you find this too complex... I don't think yours would be simpler or would be as much tied to the situation in-game.
Ugh, far to complex
What exactly is complex about it? The proposed rules are 400 words, replacing the current 1000. I think PvP is such a big part of the game it deserves some rules. Feudal ranks have 1500 words in the rules.
Yes, I know word count is not exactly a proper measure of complexity, but still... What is complicated? The new elements over what we have are:
Declare you are PvP flagged or not
Keeping a tally of war weariness (counting 1, 2, 3, ...)
The GM recruiting one unit per settlement at turn
The GM disbanding on unit per PvP avatar
I don't really see this as complex. The main thing, about from very trivial book keeping, is that it requires the GM takes possession of the save each turn but I am not convinced this is a biggie.
- however, their are a few gems in there. I was thinking of not a draft, but a militia that could be automatically generated, without cost to the treasury, by the GM, for each settlement under the declared and/or the declaree's settlements on turn one. No further units are generated by the GM afterward.
OR
Each participant in a civil war may recruit a a unit(s) based on their rank each turn or hire mercenaries. This overrides unit prioritization, as it would be done by the GM once each term. However, using this ability forgoes your ability to use unit prioritization.
The problem with these ideas is balancing - who does not want extra troops? The war weariness, desertion and other rules are to introduce a downside.
I really like this new set of rules, Econ. Under those rules, I think that Methodios' rebellion would have stood a better chance than it did.
The whole PvP flagging concept is revolutionary and would work for me.
EDIT : @ YLC : I don't see why you find this too complex... I don't think yours would be simpler or would be as much tied to the situation in-game.
To many variables to keep track of. The GM would be forced to pause the game each turn, recruit, tally the war weariness, reduce if necessary, check units to see if they desert (all involved in the war).
Mine simply requires forwarding each players prioritizations at the start of the term to the GM, who then recruits them, impartial to the current war. This is a once check thing, that does not require any tally checking beyond what we are already asking to be kept.
What exactly is complex about it? The proposed rules are 400 words, replacing the current 1000. I think PvP is such a big part of the game it deserves some rules. Feudal ranks have 1500 words in the rules.
Yes, I know word count is not exactly a proper measure of complexity, but still... What is complicated? The new elements over what we have are:
Declare you are PvP flagged or not
Keeping a tally of war weariness (counting 1, 2, 3, ...)
The GM recruiting one unit per settlement at turn
The GM disbanding on unit per PvP avatar
I don't really see this as complex. The main thing, about from very trivial book keeping, is that it requires the GM takes possession of the save each turn but I am not convinced this is a biggie.
The problem with these ideas is balancing - who does not want extra troops? The war weariness, desertion and other rules are to introduce a downside.
The issue is that each unit is checked to see if it deserts, and we have another tally that must be kept separately per player. PvP already has significant risk, and the extra troops are not extra troops - just simply what you receive form your unit prioritizations, the recruit done once at the start of each term by the GM who is impartial.
_Tristan_
07-05-2009, 17:42
The problem with your set of rules is that I can already see some people declaring states of "phoney wars", to gain the benefit of the extra recruitment and then concluding an equally phoney ceasefire.
With Econ ruleset, we at least have a downside to being at war. And a not too complex set at that... Both make me want to play under those rules. Proof that they are not too complex is that even a dummy like me can understand them...
The issue is that each unit is checked to see if it deserts, and we have another tally that must be kept separately per player.
Each unit does not need to be checked - the PvP flagged players tell the GM units which units are to be drafted and which units to be disbanded (deserted).
PvP already has significant risk, and the extra troops are not extra troops - just simply what you receive form your unit prioritizations, the recruit done once at the start of each term by the GM who is impartial.
The regular prioritisations seem rather small in the context of a civil war. I think they are 1-5 units per 10 turns depending on rank? Under the current rules, you get your prioritisations anyway but is not enough to not stop the "Chancellor backed coup" issue we've been concerned with.
The draft/desert mechanic is an attempt to give the side without the Chancellor more recruitment power without giving them a big advantage over others in the long term.
Yet, why on earth would the side that has prepared this entire time bother having themselves be PvP flagged when they have the chancellor on their side?
In either case, I just simply disagree with the war wearniness, as it's simply compounding the reasons not to go to war with another, and our objective is to bring PvP to the forefront. A Compromise would be to have a unit or two units desert every chancellor term per settlement under the control of those involved in the war, coupled with getting one unit every term.
The fewer numbers we have to keep track of, the better.
and our objective is to bring PvP to the forefront.
That's highly subjective, not everyone wants a lot of PvP.
Now about Econ's ruleset, I have a question. How exactly do you unflag yourself from PvP? Unless I read something wrong, it seems to me people would flag themselves from 5 turns, get the extra units and then unflag themselves to avoid desertions.
Yet, why on earth would the side that has prepared this entire time bother having themselves be PvP flagged when they have the chancellor on their side?
As I said in the commentary, I don't think they would. PvP flagging is for the folk who haven't had the Chancellor on side, so need to recruit but won't be able to under the current rules.
How exactly do you unflag yourself from PvP? Unless I read something wrong, it seems to me people would flag themselves from 5 turns, get the extra units and then unflag themselves to avoid desertions.
Good point. Let's say you can only switch the PvP flag off when you are no longer at war. I've now inserted:
(Edit:) A noble automatically stops being PvP flagged when at peace - once switched on, the flag cannot be switched off while the noble is still at war.
On the war weariness - it is partly intended to stop PvP wars dragging on endlessly. Fans of Civ4 may see some inspiration for the concepts of war weariness and drafting units.
As I said in the commentary, I don't think they would. PvP flagging is for the folk who haven't had the Chancellor on side, so need to recruit but won't be able to under the current rules.
On the war weariness - it is partly intended to stop PvP wars dragging on endlessly.
But only those who do not have the chancellor on their side grow weary of war? It seems heavily in favor of those who plot first to have the chancellor on their side first and simply exaggerates the issues we already have.
I still think all involved in the civil war lose 1 unit per settlement that their opponents control to desertion at the beginning of the session, and those involved can acquire one unit from each of their settlements.
But only those who do not have the chancellor on their side grow weary of war?
Yes, it's the trade off for getting those five extra units.
It seems heavily in favor of those who plot first to have the chancellor on their side first and simply exaggerates the issues we already have.
You are right that having the Chancellor on side is still likely to be a big help (although not so much if many settlements are against him, leaving him with no florins after they have drafted their men). And it is true that the advantage from the Chancellor will grow over time due to war weariness of the rebels. However, it surely does not exaggerate the issues? At least, not exaggerate it compared to the current rules (maybe you are comparing it to some other proposed rules?).
Suppose you don't have the Chancellor on your side, would you rather:
(a) be able to pick 5 units per settlement
(b) have the Chancellor give your quota of prioritised units (typically 1-3 per noble), no doubt after he has give the quota to your enemies and no doubt the worst units of their type available, and perhaps never if he has been smart enough to build up an army in advance so he does not need to recruit more than the quotas of his allies.
I still think all involved in the civil war lose 1 unit per settlement that their opponents control to desertion at the beginning of the session, and those involved can acquire one unit from each of their settlements.
That's an interesting idea - why don't you formalise your proposed rules? Then other people can comment. Are you thinking of one unit per settlement as a once and for all? If so, I'd still much rather have the five I am suggesting. Or one unit per turn? In which case, we will all be at (phoney) war all the time.
I am open to discussion on all this. It is true that my system works against a long lasting rebellion and may favour short term phoney wars for recruitment. I am not that bothered about the former problem - five units per settlement is quite a lot and we do want civil wars to be decided without too much delay. On the latter, more thought may be required. Regardless of whiich rules we use, if we do allow some non-Chancellor recruitment in a civil war, it might be prudent to give the GM the power to declare nobles at peace, remove PvP flags etc if he thinks it is being exploited (as a phoney war to raise men).
Ugh, I am tired, but I shall try.
The issue is I tend to think in examples, or in metaphors.
Say we have to opposing sides, each with 5 settlements, and with my rules in place. So long as neither side does anything, no recruitment effectively takes place - what is gained is lost.
If side A where to obtain a settlement, then they would hold advantage, and gain 6 units, and lose only 4. Side B would gain 4 and lose 6. a losing side would suffer more, preventing unit farming, since this would utterly cripple a faction, and force combat before the one at a disadvantage falls completely under the mercy of it's opponent.
The issue is I tend to think in examples, or in metaphors.
It's a good metaphor. :2thumbsup:
So the recruitment and desertion would be annual.
I think it goes a long way to solving the existing "Chancellor organises coup" problem, but perhaps not the "phoney war to recruit" danger of changing the current rules. Let's sleep on it.
Ugh, I am tired, but I shall try.
This can keep - get some rest. Sleep well. :bow:
I'm fine either way. You won't find me declaring war unless I think I can win with what I already have in my possession anyway. My concern is which of the PvP movement systems we're using. Has that been decided somewhere that I've missed?
I guess the issue of recruitment and movement are linked. If movement is normal (slow), then there is more time to recruit and recruitment issues become more important. Instant battle from the outset would of course make the issue of recruitment in war time irrelevant.
My concern is which of the PvP movement systems we're using. Has that been decided somewhere that I've missed?
I'm suggesting what I understand to be the basic LotR system, but with the ability to switch systems if it is too slow:
(g) movement on the campaign map: normal rules apply, but if the GM thinks it best, he may propose alternative mechanics (e.g. phased movement; risk style movement; instant battle) which will be adopted if passed on an OOC vote (unweighted).
If we are going to have civil war about one third or more of the game, then I think just moving as far as the computer allows will be the easiest to implement. Players can do it directly without going via the GM. I also have a strong preference for this system on the grounds of transparency - everyone will know what they can do, how at risk they are etc. If it proves too slow and inconclusive, the GM can speed things up using the console etc.
However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?
One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.
However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?
We didn't :laugh4:
One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.
I'd much prefer the WEGO system, if only because there are players from multiple timezones. Otherwise the run-up to successful rebellion becomes "find a sympathetic seneschal from about the same timezone" or "find a sympathetic seneschal and be ready to stay up until 6am to check if new turn has been openend" .
_Tristan_
07-06-2009, 13:28
I'd much prefer the WEGO system.
Same here... mostly because I'm in the GMT+1 timezone which means that most times the save had been opened for a few hours whenever I managed to get my hands on it, only to discover that what I had planned was no longer doable.
I'm suggesting what I understand to be the basic LotR system, but with the ability to switch systems if it is too slow:
(g) movement on the campaign map: normal rules apply, but if the GM thinks it best, he may propose alternative mechanics (e.g. phased movement; risk style movement; instant battle) which will be adopted if passed on an OOC vote (unweighted).
If we are going to have civil war about one third or more of the game, then I think just moving as far as the computer allows will be the easiest to implement. Players can do it directly without going via the GM. I also have a strong preference for this system on the grounds of transparency - everyone will know what they can do, how at risk they are etc. If it proves too slow and inconclusive, the GM can speed things up using the console etc.
However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?
One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.
Ug... well, IMO using the LotR system is a very bad idea. The LotR system was immensely aggravating and resulted in multiple wars with no fighting simply due to the distances involved. It was unrealistic, took all excitement out of civil wars, and frustrated a lot of players. As I noted, having the GM speed it up with the console is fine, but what do you do with neutral players? Do they also get bonus movement? Does the game keep advancing during the war? This stuff needs to be ironed out now. We have more than enough experience with PvP at this point to create a final system that works properly. Putting it off until it becomes a problem will just shift the frustration into the game instead of disposing of it right now.
As for movement priority, in the LotR system movement was first come, first served. If you took the save first and moved into contact with an opponent who had not yet moved, then a battle occurred. This was intentional, and it worked fine. If you're in a civil war and an enemy is nearby, pay attention to the game time. This never caused any problems in LotR, even when it resulted in a battle. However, as I noted, I think the entire LotR movement system should be scrapped.
_Tristan_
07-06-2009, 13:37
Why don't we just double the movement rates of armies involved in a civil war (like crusading armies) ? This would require the GM to use the console to reset the movements of said armies.
One would think that the commanders are eager to get to blows with their enemies or are busy running away/running to confront their challengers.
This would prevent any delay for the neutral characters and would somewhat remedy situations such as what we had to face in the war of words and subsequent "battles" (or lack of).
This stuff needs to be ironed out now. We have more than enough experience with PvP at this point to create a final system that works properly. Putting it off until it becomes a problem will just shift the frustration into the game instead of disposing of it right now.
Well, we can agree on that. These are the current draft rules for campaign movement in a civil war:
(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map: At the beginning of any Civil War the GM will decide how the war will play out on the campaign map. There are four methods by which the Civil War can be fought.
1 - Basic LotR system: as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.
2 - Phased Movement System: as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.
3 - MTW/Risk-style system: Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).
4 - Instant battle system: As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.
I totally agree with TC that it would be better to settle on a system now. Putting it off until it happens saves us a headache in the short term, but:
(a) we have time now to brainstorm
(b) sorting it out in advance means no one is arguing for a particular system because it is best for their "side", as we don't know our sides
(c) it takes some of the pressure of Zim: leaving it to the GM would mean a lot of people would be asking him how is going to play it and trying to persuade him etc.
I'd much prefer the WEGO system, ...
I agree, so what does that imply in terms of rules? Should WEGO be on all the time for those at war or just for those who could give battle that turn?
ie should opt for:
(a) WEGO all the time: players in a state of war cannot directly make moves on the map. They must submit orders to the GM who will execute them.
or:
(b) WEGO when a battle is possible: at the start of each turn, the GM will check if players have sufficient movement to attack an enemy. If they do, the GM will post the name of the affected players in the Chancellor's report. Named players cannot directly make moves on the map. They must submit orders to the GM who will execute them.
Having written the rules, WEGO all the time sounds the more straightforward system. What do other people think?
Why don't we just double the movement rates of armies involved in a civil war (like crusading armies) ? This would require the GM to use the console to reset the movements of said armies.
I think this is a brilliant idea. And it would work well coupled with a WEGO system for warring players mediated via the GM. Submit orders to the GM and he can implement them at double speed.
Do you think it is enough, TC, to remove your worries about the LotR system?
I don't think there is an issue of disadvantaging neutral parties - think of double speed as a "force march". And personally, I would not like to see too many meddling neutrals, turning coat at the last minute.
Well, in the list of possible movement systems you just posted, all but (1) use WEGO. Since (1) is the system I think should never be used anyway, WEGO would be the result, regardless of which one is finally chosen. As an aside, I prefer (3). If it was good enough for MTW, it should be good enough for us.
So double speed WEGO - I guess a variant of (2) - would not work, in your opinion?
As an aside, I prefer (3). If it was good enough for MTW, it should be good enough for us.
Could we combine risk-style movement for civil warriors with normal or even risk-style movement for neutrals? If the civil war were just a localised border dispute involving few, we surely can't make everyone else tread water?
PS: Sorry, I don't want to turn this into an interrogation, TC, it's just you've had the most experience handling PvP campaign mechanics so your view is very important.
(2) would work... in fact it did work in the final civil war of the game. We got sick of the problems with the basic LotR system, so I used my 'event' power (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114733) to make the final game-ending war into (2). As for making (2) double speed, (2) already is double speed. More than double actually because the War of the Four Basileis was done at 2.5 times normal movement ranges. That said, I honestly think (3) would be faster than (2). (2) requires that everyone submit orders that then have to be processed and implemented by the GM. So does (3), but it involves far fewer orders and easier calculations. If you're worried about neutrals getting bored, you can allow the game to keep moving and treat neutrals according to the normal rules while the PvP movement only applies to combatants. Perhaps just add in some rule that PvP combatants cannot take advantage of the movement bonuses if they are going after the AI.
OOOOOOORR...
We could go into descr_character, and double all the action points for all campaign models, basically negating the need to bother with having the GM do it. This means the whole of France could be traverse by a general in 2 turns however - but the AI can do that as well.
_Tristan_
07-06-2009, 14:39
OOOOOOORR...
We could go into descr_character, and double all the action points for all campaign models, basically negating the need to bother with having the GM do it. This means the whole of France could be traverse by a general in 2 turns however - but the AI can do that as well.
I'd prefer we didn't and that comes from someone who played a character whose traits could make him cross the Sinai in a single turn...
Allowing our characters and anyone else to move faster will do nothing to curb our expansionism, which seems to be one of the main concerns.
I'd prefer we didn't and that comes from someone who played a character whose traits could make him cross the Sinai in a single turn...
Allowing our characters and anyone else to move faster will do nothing to curb our expansionism, which seems to be one of the main concerns.
Actually, it will - the AI will be able to respond faster and in greater force, while we bicker amongst ourselves. We already have limitations on expansion by insuring that any captured settlement will stagnate and rebel if not heavily garrisoned, basically causing us to hold off on jumping to the next settlement until the next council session.
Increasing the speed won't change much except allow us to get to each others throats better.
_Tristan_
07-06-2009, 14:58
I'm not convinced... I prefer we do not change too much of the original game files except for some "pruning" because we do not know the long-term effects on the game.
And I know that if I can move twice faster there will be no limits to my greed...
(2) would work... in fact it did work in the final civil war of the game. We got sick of the problems with the basic LotR system, so I used my 'event' power (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114733) to make the final game-ending war into (2).
Good link, tx - personally, for the reasons I gave before, I would like to see use adopt something concrete like that before the game starts rather than work it all out as an event at the time.
Reading the thread, my impression was that it was not so much the strategic movement that slowed things down (I think you gave people only a day or so to submit orders), but resolution of the battles? We may need to think a bit more about battle mechanics.
That said, I honestly think (3) would be faster than (2).
I think the wars would be resolved faster, but I am not sure that is a virtue. I guess this is partly if we want to model a war or a Lothar/Trent style "execution".
If we are designing rules for a climactic civil war when people are losing interest, then yes, cutting to the chase is good.
But if we are allowing for minor borderwars and expect PvP wars to be ongoing for around one third of the time, then my preference would be to come up with some relatively unobtrusive rules that let unaffected parties go about their normal business and allow combatants to maneouvre and recruit.
I am wondering if a good way to proceed is incrementally and try to get agreement on some parts of the package of PvP rules, then bundle it all together. I can see at least four broad areas:
(1) rules for who can war on who
(2) rules for strategic movement
(3) rules for PvP battles
(4) rules for recruitment
At the moment, I think we are coalescing around:
(1) laissez-faire - anyone can attack anyone, any time
(2) either option [2], accelerated WEGO, or [3] risk style WEGO
(3) MP or put it to a vote - but may need to rethink that given issue of speed and GHs point about quantity of GM involvement required
(4) no agreement yet (various options - Chancellor recruits; no recruitment; econ21 drafting/desertion; YLC militia/desertion etc)
I'm not convinced... I prefer we do not change too much of the original game files except for some "pruning" because we do not know the long-term effects on the game.
And I know that if I can move twice faster there will be no limits to my greed...
I believe you have played BC, correct? Tell me, is the AI able to capitalize on the fast movement rates?
Good link, tx - personally, for the reasons I gave before, I would like to see use adopt something concrete like that before the game starts rather than work it all out as an event at the time.
Reading the thread, my impression was that it was not so much the strategic movement that slowed things down (I think you gave people only a day or so to submit orders), but resolution of the battles? We may need to think a bit more about battle mechanics.
That's true, but it only applies to Tabletop battles. The two MP battles were very quick. Abbreviated Tabletop is (IMHO) a brilliant compromise between strategy and speed, but it was never used in LotR. Honestly, if PvP battles are rare (which was the case in every game we've ever played so far, even LotR), then sitting around for a couple weeks while one is resolved isn't a big deal. It's only if they start coming fast and furious that the time on the actual battles becomes an issue. MP is its own thing, removed from all issues, because it is not only the fastest method, it's also the most accurate way of representing the actual battle.
I think the wars would be resolved faster, but I am not sure that is a virtue. I guess this is partly if we want to model a war or a Lothar/Trent style "execution".
If we are designing rules for a climactic civil war when people are losing interest, then yes, cutting to the chase is good.
But if we are allowing for minor borderwars and expect PvP wars to be ongoing for around one third of the time, then my preference would be to come up with some relatively unobtrusive rules that let unaffected parties go about their normal business and allow combatants to maneouvre and recruit.
I am wondering if a good way to proceed is incrementally and try to get agreement on some parts of the package of PvP rules, then bundle it all together. I can see at least four broad areas:
(1) rules for who can war on who
(2) rules for strategic movement
(3) rules for PvP battles
(4) rules for recruitment
At the moment, I think we are coalescing around:
(1) laissez-faire - anyone can attack anyone, any time
(2) either option [2], accelerated WEGO, or [3] risk style WEGO
(3) MP or put it to a vote - but may need to rethink that given issue of speed and GHs point about quantity of GM involvement required
(4) no agreement yet (various options - Chancellor recruits; no recruitment; econ21 drafting/desertion; YLC militia/desertion etc)
The point isn't that wars should be faster, but that they need to result in actual fighting. The problem in LotR was simply that war would be declared and then people would sit around doing nothing. I don't have any problems with wars taking a while to play out, but it seems to me like the mechanisms that allow wars to last a long time are the same mechanisms that tend to make them Phony Wars. We just need to make sure that civil wars eventually result in a battle, or they become toothless like they were for a large part of LotR. If that can be accomplished while still allowing for a leisurely pace, it's fine with me, though I remain skeptical that we can find that happy medium.
_Tristan_
07-06-2009, 15:34
Being one of the main participants in the War of Words, I think I'm entitled to my say about why it ended up like that. That may shed some light on what needs to be done to make things happen.
First of all was the distance that either Ioannis or Methodios had to cross to get to the opposition. Doubling the movement rates might have lessened that problem.
Second, I saw the rebellion at the time as a direct and potentblow against the power of the Komnenoi, one that I thought would bring swift retaliation, the more so when I witnessed almost every character flogging to the Imperial banner. Hence I prepared for a siege situation that never came. The PvP flagging or desertion mechanism could have forced one or both parties to get a move on.
Last, the way recruitment worked in LotR, Methodios had to make do with what he could in terms of unit (and that was not much), having the Chancellor fully against him and afterwards the treasury in the red. I must admit that if Econ's rules of recruitment had been implemented at the time, the bonus units would certainly have pushed me to bring the fight to Igno. As it was, I didn't even have a fleet to cross the sea to Greece and Asia Minor.
I don't know if any of this makes sense but at least these are some of the remedies that may prevent another war of words.
One thing to consider also is the fact that France and its neighbours are much more tightly packed than Byzantium with a lot of mountains and the sea as the main way of exapnsion.
Here, the conquests will either go towards Spain, the HRE or maybe Italy and the British Isles but the distances involved are much shorter unless we have the Duke of Rennes declaring war on the Count of Hamburg (and still...)
Cecil XIX
07-06-2009, 15:39
I would still prefer to pick rules systems for PVP on a case-by-case basis, which econ quoted as the current draft rules. There seems to be a trade off between the speed with which the war is resolved the and the control players have over the armies. LotR rules should work fine for wars between adjacent provinces, and we can move toward faster rulesets as distances warrant. If we work out what these rulesets are before hand I don't think it will be a big deal to decide which to use on a case-by-case basis. Finally, this would allow us to test a variety of rule sets, and I think more testing is something our PVP could really use.
One thing to consider also is the fact that France and its neighbours are much more tightly packed than Byzantium with a lot of mountains and the sea as the main way of exapnsion.
Here, the conquests will either go towards Spain, the HRE or maybe Italy and the British Isles but the distances involved are much shorter unless we have the Duke of Rennes declaring war on the Count of Hamburg (and still...)
I do completely agree that a game in which everyone was much closer geographically would solve lots of the problems. However, if KotR and LotR have shown us anything, it's that players like expanding to distant and hard-to-reach places. It's very likely that eventually the KotF players will reach spots that are pretty remote or otherwise hard to get to from France. Britain is an obvious and easy avenue of expansion, and Scotland would certainly be a pain to get to at normal movement rates for anyone not in middle or northern France. While Spain is relatively easily accessible, conquering Spain inevitably leads to conquests in North Africa. Getting to North Africa from France is just as hard as getting to Egypt from Constantinople. This is what we need to be concerned with: wars that begin after the game has been going for several months, not wars that begin while we're all still close to one another.
Perhaps multiple systems is the way to go then. The basic system works in the beginning, and the faster system only needs to be imposed after we expand. We just need to make sure the faster systems really are used later on when they're needed.
Ibn-Khaldun
07-06-2009, 22:19
I suggest that whenever two hostile armies are in the same province a battle will occur. This means that armies don't have to be next to each other and PvP battles will be fought. If going with the LotR system(armies have to be next to each other) then there will be situations where there could be 1 tile between hostile armies but there will be no fighting. I think this is how battles were fought in MTW?
From the poll, it looks like the Risk style system will be implemented for the first civil war. I wonder if the following rules would do for what we want. They are a little long, but we can regard them as separate from the core rules - sort of like the tournament rules or rules for an event.
Rules for Risk style PvP campaign movement
A. Land movement:
1. PvP land movement is by province. Any turn players who are in a state of war with another player (combatants), they may use PvP movement. Alternatively, they may move normally subject to the constraint that they do not enter an enemy province. Non-combatants (neutrals) move normally.
2. Combatants on opposing sides may not occupy the same province at the end of a turn unless one is under siege by the other. If units happen to find themselves in enemy provinces other than by PvP movement – e.g. at the start of the war – then the GM will “teleport” them to the nearest friendly province.
3. Each turn, a combatant may move each unit to an adjacent province. This is done by submitting written orders in secret to the GM. The GM will then simultaneously execute all orders.
4. On the campaign map, the GM will place units moving by PvP movement in or adjacent to the settlement of the province they enter or reside (it is possible to use PvP movement to stay within a province, but group up at or adjacent to the settlement). Combatants wishing their units to be placed at alternative locations in a province (e.g. to hold a bridge against the AI) should use normal movement.
5. Should orders result in enemy units occupying the same province, a PvP battle may be fought. The GM will inform all sides of the units occupying the province and then both sides should secretly give the GM their pre-battle option: (a) fight; (b) retreat; (c) retreat behind settlement walls (if the player controls the settlement)
6. All battles that take place in a given turn are resolved before any retreats are executed – even pre-battle ones. If there are multiple battles in a turn, they are resolved sequentially in a random sequence.
7. Retreats are executed by units retreating to the province they came from or, if they were stationary, to an adjacent province not occupied by an enemy unit (their choice). If there are no such provinces, the army cannot retreat.
8. Only 20 units can retreat behind settlement walls (whether damaged or not) – any excess are disbanded. Units can be merged prior to retreat. If there are any disagreements between allies on which units retreat, the owner of the settlement decides.
B. Implications of PvP movement for land battles
1. If units from one player enter a province occupied by units of his enemy, then the entrant is regarded as the attacker. In a PvP battle, the GM will give the defender some suitable advantage in terms of choice of terrain (e.g. first pick of map side in Multiplayer). After a battle, the attacker must retreat unless he defeats the defender (draws and standoffs are treated as victories for the defender).
2. If neither side began the turn with a unit in a province, then the battle is regarded as a meeting engagement. Neither side will have an advantage of terrain
3. Bridge battles: if on the strategic map, all attacking units side could only have entered a province via a bridge, the battle will be modelled as a bridge battle.
4. The losing side of a battle can retreat any surviving units according to A7 (but the GM implements this only after all battles are resolved)
C. Implications for siege battles
1. If one side has retreated behind settlement walls, then the attacker may assault the settlement that turn or besiege the settlement.
2. Besieged armies can only exit the settlement if all enemy units leave the province, if they win a sally battle or if a relieving army attacks the province and wins. The GM will specify how besieged armies can hold out before automatically surrendering and may model attrition, guided by how the game engine models sieges involving the player vs the AI.
3. If a relieving army enters a province, there is a field battle with the besieger’s positioned between the relief army and the besieged garrison. For simplicity, the settlement (and the garrisons need to exit through the settlement gates) need not be represented in the battle.
4. If a garrison loses a sally or relief battle, survivors may retreat behind the settlement walls at the GMs discretion. They cannot retreat anywhere else. If garrison is in good order after the battle (it sallied only to impose some losses on the attacker), a retreat is appropriate. If it is utterly crushed, the GM may just declare the siege won.
D. Naval movement
1. While PvP land army movement is by province, PvP sea movement is by port. Unlike land movement, combatant ships may NOT move normally. All combatant owned ships must start each turn either (a) in a friendly port; (b) blockading an enemy port; or (c) a transit area (represented on the campaign map by being placed somewhere in the relevant zone at sea).
2. Each turn, players can give the GM secret orders to move their ships to any other port in the same sea zone or to the transit area for an adjacent sea zone. There three sea zones: the Black Sea; the Mediterranean; and the Atlantic – Gibraltar and Constantinople demarcate those zones.
3. Each sea zone has an associated transit area. No sea battles between combatants can take place in transit areas. Enemy ships may share the same transit area. Ships may stay indefinitely in a transit area. (These are all abstractions made for simplicity).
4. If orders lead to enemy fleets being at the same port, then a naval battle may result. The parties communicate their orders: (a) fight; (b) retreat; (c) retreat inside port – if the port is friendly.
5. If opposing combatants both fight, then the GM will resolve the sea battle. All sea battles are resolved before retreat options are executed.
6. Retreat orders are executed by returning ships to the port they originated to, provided it remains friendly and not subject to blockade. If the ships did not move, or their port of origin is no longer eligible to receive them (e.g. it is captured or blockaded), they may move to any non-blockaded friendly or neutral port (note: in the latter case, they would become owned by the neutral!). Ships may not retreat to transit areas. If no ports are eligible to receive a ship, that ship may not retreat before battle and is disbanded after battle if required to retreat.
7. If one side retreats inside the port, it is blockaded. Blockaded ships cannot leave a port except to fight a sea battle against the ships blockading them. Such a battle expends their movement for that turn.
E. Naval movement of land units
1. Land units that begin a turn in province that has a unblockaded port with friendly ships may be transported by those ships (2 units per ship). The GM will disband land units travelling with ships if losses from sea battles mean there are no longer enough ships to carry them (which units are lost is randomised).
2. Land units transported by ship end the turn in the destination province provided only if any of the following conditions apply: (a) it has a friendly or neutral port that is not blockaded by enemy ships; (b) it has an enemy port unoccupied by enemy ships; (c) it has an enemy port under blockade by friendly ships. (This implies, as in Shogun, that an enemy province can only be subject to naval landings if it has port infrastructure – this is rationalised by supply issues. It also implies that the blockading side effectively controls the surrounding waters, facilitating or obstructing landings.)
3. Land units transported by sea to a province held by enemy land units are treated just as if they entered by land. They may retreat before battle (effectively a feint or threatened landing), but not after battle (think Bay of Pigs).
Here is a revision of the earlier rules for unit recruitment during PvP combat:
(a)PvP flagging: a noble at war with another may declare they are PvP flagged. The settlements of PvP flagged nobles:
(1) must set taxes to VH where possible
(2) cannot construct or repair buildings (including walls!)
(3) cannot recruit any units except via drafting
noble automatically stops being PvP flagged when at peace with all - once switched on, the flag cannot be switched off while the noble is still at war.
(d)Drafting: PvP flagged characters may request the recruitment of one available unit (including ships) - players pick - from each settlement they own for the first five turns they are at war. The PvP flagged player must keep a record of the accumulated purchase cost of their own recruitment. Recruitment will be done by the GM at the start of each turn before the Chancellor takes the save. If the Kingdom lacks the funds to draft, the console will be used to generate the extra funds. The GM will keep a record of extra funds provided by the console.
(e) Demobilisation: starting on the 6th turn at which the noble is at war, the PvP flagged character must disband one unit per turn. This is done by giving orders to disband a full strength drafted unit or, if this not possible, non-mercenary units of equal or greater purchase price. Units may be merged to help with this process, but the console cannot be used to artificially split units. If the unit has insufficient units to disband, buildings may be destroyed to generate the required funds. The noble’s avatars are not considered units for the purposes of desertion. Disbandment orders are to be communicated to the GM and implemented at the same time as drafting (ie before any other actions that turn). Failure to communicate will lead to the GM picking the unit(s) to disband. When a player ceases to be PvP flagged, any drafted units in their army that have not been disbanded, are disbanded if at full strength (or, if not possible, non-mercenary units of at least equal purchase cost).
(f) Long wars: if a PvP character stays at war longer than 10 turns, the process of drafting and disbanding resets. On turns 11 to 15, one new unit per settlement may be drafted per turn; on turns 16-20, one new unit disbanded etc. Resets continue every 10 turns.
(g) National debt: when the Kingdom returns to peace, the GM will use the console to subtract from the console any extra funds that were added to help pay for the drafts.
Commentary:
- The main purpose of these rules – specifically drafting - is to allow combatants who do not have or who have not had the support of the Seneschal to still recruit some forces in a civil war by becoming “PvP flagged”. Other combatants may prefer to get their prioritsed units and maybe more by the normal rules.
- The concept of demobilisation is introduced to try to balance drafting. Over a 10 year period, the PvP flagged player will average an extra 3 units by these rules. This is only one more than the 2 prioritised units they would get as Barons under normal recruitment rules. The additional one unit is balanced by the prohibition on building and the fact that all drafted units are disbanded when war ends.
- The main changes in these rules from the previous ones I proposed are (a) allowing for “long wars”; (b) quicker (and complete peacetime) disbandment to make it unattractive to go PvP flagged in a phoney war to accumulate extra troops; (c) national debt to allow recruitment even when the Seneschal has (perhaps deliberately) driven the country into the red.
Any thoughts?
This is all starting to get very complicated. I know there's a lot to say for making the civil war as "real" as possible, but the complexity is starting to get scary to a degree that I, for one, will probably avoid civil war at all costs just because of this.
We should remember that this is a game and the main purpose is fun. I remember that in LoTR there were some phases where we were only discussing rules and rule changes and nothing else. I, for one, am participating for the role playing aspect. Discussing rules and nitpicking about rules is like... work :laugh4:
The more rules, the more discussions about rules, the more risk for conflicts between players.
Risk style sounded very nice and shiny, but in retropsect, I'm more and more starting to lean to the instant battle solution, maybe with some rolling of dice to decide terrain advantage and weather conditions (e.g.: for every command star, you get one die; there are rolled risk style, the one who "wins" gets terrain advantage; the more dice left, the greater the terrain advantage) and the size of your army to fight the unique battle being related to the number of vassals and provinces you have. The civil war army only being created for the civil war and being non existant on the campaign map.
Advantages: simple and quick and no risks of an accidental breach of rules.
Just my :2cents:
I think can come up with some simpler rules for a Risk-style system. I'll draft up something later this afternoon/evening for discussion. I think one of the keys is to concentrate for the moment on only setting out rules for movement on the campaign map. Battle Umpires already have complete control over how the actual battles are fought and what the results are. If we continue that tradition, we can skip almost all rules about how the actual battles themselves are to be handled.
Ramses II CP
07-08-2009, 15:10
Okay, do we need specific mechanics for forts? Consider Adana; if the passes are held by forts then it would make little sense for a field battle to occur just because two armies were present in the province on different sides of a fort. What if the fort is held by a neutral party?
Also is the intent that forces can only move a *single* province per 1.5 years? This could still end up making for a very slow war once we expand. Or is a 'turn' a set of moves within the game's 1.5 years, such that, for example, each force gets 5 turns to move (Across five provinces) per that 1.5 years, resulting in some ability to maneuver?
I like it, but I want civil wars to really move and not drag on. :yes:
:egypt:
I think we should start thinking out of the box.
The Total War game engine is not made for a civil war from players vs. players. What we are now trying to do is making insanely complex rules to make it work within the TW engine.
If a civil war is declared, we should lift that conflict outside the Total War game, so to speak and have it fought out in a simple format.
Yes, I know, it would be more fun to have a civil war going on for two or three years, with niceties as blocking mountain passes, shipping troops to do a quick attack on an unprotected province, but all of that candy cannot be done in an easy, convenient way.
I'm all for lifting out the civil war of the game and playing it on a different level.
In short:
1) Freeze the game for 5 days maximum when civil war is declared.
2) a) OR: peace treaty;
b) OR: One decisive battle; size of army determined by provinces and number of vassals; terrain advantage determined by rolling dice, taking into account command stars of leading generals; weather decided by fate. Once the circumstances are fixed proceed to table top battle or MP battle using TW engine. After the battle is over, the winner decides on the fate of the loser (release him, keep him captive and release later in return for whatever price, kill him). Winner can also do as he pleases with possessions of the loser.
3) Make changes through console if necessary because the decisions made in step 2).
4) Unfreeze the game.
Simple and quick and no need to bother with complicated rules.
EDIT: look at the tournament and duel thing. It's great fun, mainly because of its' simplicity.
_Tristan_
07-08-2009, 15:41
Simple and quick and no need to bother with complicated rules.
EDIT: look at the tournament and duel thing. It's great fun, mainly because of its' simplicity.
I would love it if we could accomplish something of the kind but I don't think it's possible.
Why ?
Simply because the tourney/duel minigame is in itself totally out of the game. It has simply no existence in game, even if we tried to create some basis out of the avatar game-stats.
However, Civil Wars are just that : Wars. And that's the whole point of M2TW, fighting wars, be it against the AI or against others players (think MP or PBeM Hostseat campaigns).
And we have already everything we need : units, terrain, etc and I think it would be shame not to make use of that basis in our PvP system.
Now, we may need to simplify but not too much. If I could, I would prefer to fight those PvP wars in MP (though I'm totaly inexperienced there) but I can't seem to make it work...:shame:
Why should we be able to use the strategic map to devise attack plans against the reportedly dumb and toothless AI and not be able to do that against capable players who are able to bite back...
I would love it if we could accomplish something of the kind but I don't think it's possible.
Why ?
Simply because the tourney/duel minigame is in himself totally out of the game. It has simply no existence in game, even we tried to create some basis out of the avatar game stats.
However, Civil Wars are just that : Wars. And that's the whole point of M2TW, fighting wars, be it against the AI or against others players (think MP or PBeM Hostseat campaigns).
And we have already everything we need : units, terrain, etc and I think it would be shame not to make use of that basis in our PvP system.
Now, we may need to simplify but not too much. If I could, I would prefer to fight those PvP wars in MP (though I'm totaly inexperienced there) but I can't seem to make it work...:shame:
Why should we be able to use the strategic map to devise attack plans against the reportedly dumb and toothless AI and not be able to do that against capable players who are able to bite back...
Because of the amount of rules required to make it work... The more rules, the more discussions/nitpicking about rules in the OOC threads = less fun.
Less complexity would make the game more accessable and, imo, more fun.
Maybe it's just because for me, personally, the bickering during the Senate sessions, gaining influence in the Senate, the behind the scenes plotting and intrigues to get votes in the Senate for a certain edict or a certain candidate are the fun part of the game.
Civil war is just another way to achieve something but it shouldn't go on endlessly or be emphasized too much. It's also a burden for the Chancellor and, imo, will inevitably slow down the game.
I'd prefer Civil wars to be decided quickly so that the rest of the game can move on asap.
But that's just my opinion, coloured by my personal preferences.
_Tristan_
07-08-2009, 16:09
I agree with you Andres that CW are just another tool to have fun in this game but by oversimplifying that part, we may lose some of that fun factor...
I would also like to see a quick resolution to CW but not to the detriment of the fun that can be had by out-thinking your opponent on the strategic map. That was one of the most fun part of hotseat campaings as some here can attest (Zim, Ramses :wink:).
We must not forget that how much we want it to be otherwise this is a wargame (with an element of RPG) and not the other way round... If Iwanted to play a RPG with a touch of wargame, I'd go play D&D or WoW or whatever would suit the definition...
So let us stick to the maximum to the original game, enacting rules (as simple as possible, if need be) that makes the most of the system at hand.
I know this is just my point of view but I think some may share it.
AussieGiant
07-08-2009, 17:14
This is a little like discussing van Gough in an art class.
I'm all for discussion but there needs to be decisions and some leadership on this as to what the best overall solution is.
This is all starting to get very complicated.
I should have started my proposed rules for the Risk system like the opening of the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy. "Don't panic!"
While I was waiting at a squash court, I happened to look on the rules for squash posted on the wall and they were very long, seemingly complex. It was not light reading. But once you start playing squash it is pretty straightforward.
Personally, I think the phased movement system would be simpler to write rules for because it is constrained by the M2TW game engine - all you do is give your orders to the GM to make it WEGO and he uses the reset command on the console to double your movement.
If, as the poll suggests, we go for the Risk system, it will inevitably be a little more tricky to operationalise because we are trying to mimic a first generation TW engine (STW/MTW) with a second generation one (M2TW). However, I do think it will be simple in practice.
I suggest we start off just letting combatant units move to an adjacent province each turn. [We could allow faster movement, but I think that will just make things complex.] And that is the system. The rest is just commentary. To make it work, I think only one side's units should be allowed to end the turn in a province (unless besieged). Let neutrals move normally. That's it.
I think half my rules are about naval movement, which we will need - especially given TCs plausible scenario about us taking Britain. However, that again can be simple to a Shoggie/MTW vet. You move by ports. If enemy ships block yours, you have to beat em or beat it.
It's not complicated really, except to document.
Also is the intent that forces can only move a *single* province per 1.5 years? This could still end up making for a very slow war once we expand. Or is a 'turn' a set of moves within the game's 1.5 years, such that, for example, each force gets 5 turns to move (Across five provinces) per that 1.5 years, resulting in some ability to maneuver?
In the draft rules, TC suggested moving 2, 1, 3, provinces per turn whatever. I think it will make life a lot easier to start with one. Then it is just like the Shogun/MTW we know. I don't think you would gain anything by allowing 5 movements each of one province in 1.5 years. It would take about the same player time as just playing out five game turns. But it would weight the odds heavily in favour of the larger starting armies in the civil war, which personally I am not keen on (going back to the coups vs wars argument). One province per game turn would also sync well with allowing recruitment of one unit per settlement per turn (as in STW/MTW).
Okay, do we need specific mechanics for forts? Consider Adana; if the passes are held by forts then it would make little sense for a field battle to occur just because two armies were present in the province on different sides of a fort. What if the fort is held by a neutral party?
We could do. My principle in writing draft rules for the Risk system was to mimic STW/MTW which had no forts. Overlooking some terrain features seems part of the price for choosing the Risk system over the phased one. However, if people really want it modelled, it might be the kind of detail we could leave the GM to iron out when we see the actual war front.
I'm all for discussion but there needs to be decisions and some leadership on this as to what the best overall solution is.
Please bear with us a little longer - we are getting there. The poll is deciding what people think is the best movement - it's still looking like Risk. After that, the only thing left is recruitment during a civil war, which I don't think we have discussed enough to identify a best solution.
Ramses II CP
07-08-2009, 21:05
Mmm, let me suggest this: Allow armies to move 3-5 provinces 'Risk' style per year but make the commanders issue all the movement orders at the start. For example Party A orders a move from Paris to Marsellies while Party B wants to go from Toulouse to Metz. The parties send the list of provinces they want to move through to the GM and the GM implements each province hop simultaneously. If they run into each other in the middle there's a battle.
If we stick to the one province rule wars are still going to be extremely slow and almost absurdly predictable. The two sides will essentially have to agree, OOC, on where they want to meet up to prevent wandering all over chasing each other one step at a time. I don't mind slanting things towards the larger standing army because, well, they have the larger standing army. Isn't that supposed to be an advantage?
If I had realized the Risk system was tied to single province movement I might well not have voted for it, although I suppose I should've figured that out from the Shogun/MTW comparison. :laugh4:
:egypt:
Alright, here's my attempt at a simpler rule set for the Risk-style system. I'm writing this to slot into Zim's current rule draft under sections 6(d) and 6(e). Other tweaks will likely be needed to 6(a), (b), and (c) to fix any references in those bits to campaign map movement, but those would be minor.
-----
(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map: While a Civil War is in progress, all players involved in the Civil War will lose their ability to make any moves on the campaign map. On every game turn, all players involved in the Civil War will submit a PM to Zim, or anyone he chooses, giving movement orders for that turn. These movement orders can include up to a maximum of two of the following orders:
(1) - Gather: The player may gather units he owns that are located in the same province as his avatar, but which are not currently located in his avatar's army. All units specified in this manner will be teleported into the avatar's army.
(2) - Move: The player may move his avatar's army into any adjacent province.
(3) - Defend: The player fortifies his army in a specific province, providing a terrain advantage if a battle occurs in that province before the player moves again.
After the turn ends, Zim will implement all moves for players involved in the Civil War, utilizing the console. The orders will be executed simultaneously for all players, but in the sequence they were listed in the PMs (i.e. Order 1 will be implement for all players, followed by Order 2 for all players). If this movement results in a player entering a province with a hostile AI-controlled army, Zim will determine whether a battle against the AI will occur. Movement will continue in this manner until two hostile player-controlled armies enter the same province. When this occurs, a PvP Battle will begin. All PvP Battles will be considered Meeting Engagements, in which neither side has a terrain advantage, unless one of the armies was Defending the province where the battle occurred. If this happens, the defending army will get a terrain advantage in the following manner: (1) If the province is owned by the Defender, the battle will be a siege assault of the settlement. (2) If the province is not owned by the Defender, the battle map will be chosen such that a terrain advantage, such as a high mountain, fort, or bridge is given to the Defender. The Umpire of the battle will determine the precise nature of the terrain advantage.
(e) - PvP Battles: Whenever a PvP Battle occurs, if both players agree, the battle... (the rest is all the same.)
------------
Using the above system, people can use a combination of Gather, Move, and Defend orders. You could Gather and then Move, Move and then Gather, Move twice, Move and Defend, Gather and Defend, etc. That provides for a decent amount of strategy, given that you can move into any province. It is also easy to tweak the pace of the war on the fly by changing the word "two" in the first paragraphs to whatever number is deemed appropriate. Issues of conflicts with AI armies are handled by Zim, which avoids having to deal with it now. These rules only apply to civil war participants, so no pausing of the game is necessary and turns will continue as normal for all neutrals until a PvP Battle occurs.
[edit] Just realized this doesn't provide a way for crossing water. I would suggest for simplicity and speed that we ignore the need to get a fleet and sail, etc. Instead, Zim can just determine that certain bodies of water take a certain number of turns to cross. For instance, if you're standing in Normandy and want to cross the English Channel, only 1 move order will be required to make this crossing. However, if you're standing in Provence and want to cross to Sicily, 2 move orders will be required to make this crossing, which might require the person to end the turn at sea.
TinCow, I don’t think we need gather or defend as options. Gathering can be covered by regarding all units in a province as already gathered to the owning player. Defending can be covered by regarding any player stationary in a province as the defender against an enemy that enters the province.
Also, I don’t see the point of allowing two moves per turn. It over complicates things - your second move order has to be made before you know the outcome of your first. Hence it is likely to be contingent (if I conquer province A, attack province B; if I am defeated at province A, defend province C). It just seems an unnecessary headache.
Here’s a simplified version of your simple rules:
--------
(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map:
While a Civil War is in progress, all players involved in the Civil War will lose their ability to make any moves on the campaign map. On every game turn, all players involved in the Civil War will submit a PM to Zim, or anyone he chooses, giving movement orders for that turn.
A player can order any unit he owns to move to an adjacent province. After the turn ends, Zim will implement all moves for players involved in the Civil War, utilizing the console. The orders will be executed simultaneously for all players. If this movement results in a unit being in a province with a hostile unit, a PvP battle will begin. All PvP Battles will be considered Meeting Engagements, in which neither side has a terrain advantage, unless one of the armies was stationary in a province and the other entered the province. If this happens, the defending army will get a terrain advantage in the following manner: (1) If the province is owned by the Defender, the battle will be a siege assault of the settlement. (2) If the province is not owned by the Defender, the battle map will be chosen such that a terrain advantage, such as a high mountain, fort, or bridge is given to the Defender. The Umpire of the battle will determine the precise nature of the terrain advantage.
(e) - PvP Battles: Whenever a PvP Battle occurs, if only one side has a noble present, the battle is fought against the AI. If both sides have players, if both sides agree, the battle... (the rest is all the same.)
-------
If I had realized the Risk system was tied to single province movement I might well not have voted for it, although I suppose I should've figured that out from the Shogun/MTW comparison.
Don’t worry, it was not tied - we are debating that now. You want 3-5 moves per turn; TC suggests 2; I'm suggesting one.
If we stick to the one province rule wars are still going to be extremely slow and almost absurdly predictable. The two sides will essentially have to agree, OOC, on where they want to meet up to prevent wandering all over chasing each other one step at a time.
I don’t see that - if you retreat from your settlements, you lose them. If we allow recruitment during war time, which I really think we should, that’s a pretty strong incentive not to let yourself wander or be chased around.
I don't mind slanting things towards the larger standing army because, well, they have the larger standing army. Isn't that supposed to be an advantage?
They will have an advantage in any system, the question is whether we want to amplify that advantage. I don’t because I don’t think players who attack other players should have an amplified advantage (I’m assuming the stronger army will tend to be the aggressor). If anything, I’d rather give the edge to the victim. Plus historically, my hunch is that in every civil war worthy of the name, the starting armies were small compared to the forces levied in the war. I’m thinking here of the English Civil War, the American Civil War, the Chinese Civil War. In all those cases, the decisive factor was the ability to raise troops during the war, not the starting armies.
TinCow, I don’t think we need gather or defend as options. Gathering can be covered by regarding all units in a province as already gathered to the owning player.
If you do this automatically, you cause several problems. First, you're stripping all garrisons, many of which the owner might want to leave behind to defend against the AI or to provide defenses against his PvP foes so that they can't just walk into his settlements without at least some kind of fight if his main army is in a different province. Second, you have to deal with the issue of a player going over a full stack (which isn't allowed by the rules) just by moving into a province they own. Since this happens automatically, you're going to be having lots of PM conversations that would otherwise be avoided unless a person specifically desired to grab the units.
While I allowed people to go over a full stack army in the final war in LotR, I think for normal PvP we should stick to the normal rules which prevent anyone from being in direct control of anything over a full stack at any one time. If you want to bring more than one stack to a PvP battle, find an ally join your war and lead that army.
Defending can be covered by regarding any player stationary in a province as the defender against an enemy that enters the province.
This is necessary if Gathering is an option, because Gathering requires a person to ride all over the province assembling their army, just like they would have to do if they were doing it by normal movement. Thus, a person attacked while Gathering would not have time to fortify and it would be a normal Meeting Engagement. Plus, it penalizes people who fail to submit orders by removing an automatic defender terrain advantage from them just because they were being lazy.
Also, I don’t see the point of allowing two moves per turn. It over complicates things - your second move order has to be made before you know the outcome of your first. Hence it is likely to be contingent (if I conquer province A, attack province B; if I am defeated at province A, defend province C). It just seems an unnecessary headache.
Ramses already discussed this. Without two moves per turn, the wars will go very slowly. Moving from one province to another in a single turn isn't much of a boost in movement over normal LTC movement rates, and it's certainly under 2x or 2.5x as proposed in the phased movement option. The point of this system was to be even faster than that, thus larger distances have to be crossable in a single turn. I also disagree about it being contingent... despite describing this as Risk, it's not Risk. You don't have to conquer every province you enter. Many will probably belong to allies or neutrals and you'll just be passing through. You can easily move multiple provinces in a single turn without any battles occurring. If a battle occurs on the first round a move, but the civil war isn't ended there, the Umpire can always use his powers to give the victory an extra post-battle order if he feels it appropriate.
In addition, multiple movements helps compensate for people submitting non-move orders, such as Gather or Defend (or any other orders which are inserted into the rules later on). Without multiple orders, Gather and Defend simply have to be eliminated because many turns would result in no movement whatsoever. In fact, I put in two orders per turn to be conservative, I actually think three would be better to keep the speed up.
woad&fangs
07-08-2009, 23:58
I like TinCow's system as it is.
I like TinCow's system as it is.
OK, I am happy to go with TinCow's system if - as seems likely - the Risk sytem wins the poll.
Anyone want to offer any opinions on the issue of recruitment during war?
I think the basic idea I presented a while back about allowing players to opt out of Seneschal recruitment and instead train their own men at their own settlement is solid, but the details need more thought.
In the spirit of trying to keep things simple, how about:
Recruitment in Civil War
(a) Nobles in civil war cannot prioritise recruitment. They can train (draft) one unit per turn at each settlement they own. This is done by giving the GM their recruitment order at the same time as they submit their movement orders. The GM recruits drafted units before the Seneschal takes the save, using the console to generate more funds if required.
(b) On turns in which a unit is drafted, the drafting settlement cannot train other units that turn or start new buildings (they can repair), and must set taxes to VH if possible
(c) Every unit drafted raises the combatant's war weariness by 1. Every full strength unit disbanded lowers a combatant's war weariness by 1. War weariness can never be allowed to rise above 5. As soon as the player stops being a combatant or every 10 turns of being at war, sufficient units must be disbanded so as to return war weariness to 0. If this is not possible, any units that come into the player's possession must be disbanded until war weariness is zero. To avoid exploits, players with positive war weariness cannot transfer units to others (or have their units seized by others).
I like your abbreviated recruitment system, as it is simple and clean. My only concern is the war weariness, as that requires us to keep track of precise numbers of recruits and disbandings for every player. Keeping track of stats like this is one of the things that resulted in some of the worst rules nightmares in LotR. Can you think of a method of doing (c) that doesn't require quite as much number crunching?
Apologies for the continued push for short, simple rules, but the excessively complex rule system was one of LotR's biggest flaws. I think a lot of Throne Room players shrink back in horror now when they see a wall of rule text. If it's not short and punchy, people tend to run screaming for the hills.
Ramses II CP
07-09-2009, 02:07
Okay, so I just took a look at the LTC map and crunched some numbers on what I consider to be our likely first term expansion, taking for granted that there won't be a civil war until after the first term at least, when we have something worth fighting over. Five provinces is definitely too much movement, I over-estimated there, but I'd say 2-3 is absolutely necessary. For the first term I think two is enough, but later if we expand through Germany, Italy, or into Africa we may want to consider revising the number upwards.
The idea that you have to defend your settlements only makes sense if one side has overwhelming force at their disposal, if both are relatively equal then strategically the aggressor can't afford to tie himself to a siege with a mobile opponent in the area.
:egypt:
Vladimir
07-09-2009, 02:34
OK, I am happy to go with TinCow's system if - as seems likely - the Risk sytem wins the poll.
Anyone want to offer any opinions on the issue of recruitment during war?
I just want to know how the money works. If the civil war is against the sovereign he should loose all revenue from those settlements. Any corruption from those settlements could be reduced or limited because it's based on distance to capital. The rebel leader would receive all money from the settlements but also be responsible for all the upkeep; but, what were his starting funds?
Then, once the war ends, how are the remaining funds calculated? What is done with the money? What about agents in the service of the rebel leader? I hope the king keeps a stable of good assassins because I see civil wars are a pain in the arse.
Okay, so I just took a look at the LTC map and crunched some numbers on what I consider to be our likely first term expansion, taking for granted that there won't be a civil war until after the first term at least, when we have something worth fighting over. Five provinces is definitely too much movement, I over-estimated there, but I'd say 2-3 is absolutely necessary. For the first term I think two is enough, but later if we expand through Germany, Italy, or into Africa we may want to consider revising the number upwards.
There are three that need to be taken straight away, and I have a plan for that. The fourth is also necessary and the fifth is a bonus. Watch out for Milan/Genoa.
What about a draft cap? Number of Settlements controlled by Noble X Number of Prioritizations they can use per term. This draft cap is limited, and does not reset after each council session.
Simple, no?
Can you think of a method of doing (c) that doesn't require quite as much number crunching?
I think this should do the trick (and answer Vladimir's query about money):
-----
Recruitment in Civil War
(a) Drafting: Nobles at war with other nobles cannot receive or order prioritised recruitment. They can train (draft) one unit per turn at each settlement they own. This is done by giving the GM their recruitment order at the same time as they submit their movement orders. The GM recruits drafted units before the Seneschal takes the save, using the console to generate extra funds if the Kingdom’s balance at the start of the turn is insufficient to draft all requested units.
(b) Draft penalties: On turns in which a unit is drafted, the drafting settlement cannot train any other units nor start new buildings (they can repair), and must set taxes to VH if possible.
(c) Demobilisation: The GM will keep a record of all units drafted by each noble. When a noble ceases to be at war, or if the noble has been at war for a full Council term (10 turns), the GM will carry out a process of demobilisation. Demobilisation will be done by the GM disbanding units that collectively are of equivalent combat power to those drafted. Disband decisions are entirely at the discretion of the GM, who may merge units where it helps the process and who can use purchasing costs to guide assessment of combat power. To avoid exploits designed to avoid demobilisation, players who have drafted units cannot transfer units to others nor have their units seized by others.
(d) National debt: The GM will keep a record of any funds created by the console - the national debt - and use the console to repay it as soon as possible.
-----
There is still some book keeping, but only for the GM. Since the GM will have written orders for any drafted units, it should not be too hard him to keep a tally of them, and of any extra funds he has given to the Kingdom by the console in order to afford the drafts.
Err...demobilization should be handled IC, methinks, instead of by the GM.
Again, I think my solution is quite simple, and only requires that the GM keeps a tally of the number recruited, not where, when, and what type as well. It would simply be a larger prioritization number, that would bypass the Chancellor. Things such as demobilization should be something we fight about IC - it's known that wars leave the victor with a larger army then before he went to war, and if everyone else is going to be that lazy and let them keep those units without restriction or outright disbandment, then they deserve to be crushed under his heel - in this era, you did not keep what you were not willing to spill blood for.
Err...demobilization should be handled IC, methinks, instead of by the GM..
My concern is that we have a mechanism that prevents players declaring war just to get more troops. Forcing them to disband any additional recruits on peace, or after a long interval (turn 10), achieves that quite simply.
One of the things I don't like about the proposed system is that they units are 'free' from cost in that the money is given back to the treasury with the console at the end. That is complex and it also isn't realistic. Feudal lords may have raised larger armies during times of war, but they still had to pay them. No money meant no army. If civil war drafting bankrupts the nation, then that's an added incentive for the neutrals to intervene and end it before it ruins the country. I find this realistic.
I do like the idea of 'drafting' or some form of special Civil War recruitment, but I would prefer if it meshed better with the existing rules rather than using a completely new system. My ideas aren't solid enough to start modifying your proposed text just yet, but here's a general sketch of the outline I currently have in my head (with commentary in parens):
-----
1) All Civil War participants can prioritize a maximum of one unit per turn, regardless of their normal prioritizations, to a maximum total of 5 units every 10 turns. (Utilizing the existing prioritization system will keep the system closer to the existing rule base and will reduce confusion. The numbers chosen above are just picked out of thin air and can be freely adjusted to suit whatever balance is deemed appropriate.)
2) These units can only be recruited in settlements owned by the Civil War participants or settlements they have conquered during the war. (Same as in the draft proposal.)
3) Neutrals who are not involved in the Civil War cannot prioritize any units while the Civil War is in progress. (If there's a Civil War going on in a country, most manpower is going to be drawn towards that conflict. Other people are going to have a tough time recruiting, because active fighting was historically more attractive to potential soldiers because of the increased opportunities for looting. This also ups the stakes of a Civil War, and encourages neutrals to get involved in some manner. Civil Wars that drag on for a long time may start weakening the armies of the neutrals, which could make them vulnerable to the AI or otherwise ruin plans that they were working on. This will result in political pressure on everyone to make Civil Wars quick affairs. Those that stall and drag out a Civil War for their own benefit may find the neutrals turning against them, and possibly joining in on the opposite side, just to end the war faster.)
4) Civil War prioritizations take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game, and they MUST be done by the GM/Chancellor/Whoever if the treasury has sufficient sums to fulfill the recruitment requests. (This mimics the 'draft' aspect of the proposed rules, as it makes the recruitment guaranteed to occur as long as there is money in the bank to pay for it. Unless the faction is broke, you will get your units.)
5) At the end of the Civil War, there is no automatic disbanding of units or recouping of expenses. (Players can voluntarily disband some of their units just like they would during normal play. One of the terms of a Peace Treaty could require both sides to do mutual disarmament of some sort, or if it was a lopsided victory, the loser could be forced to disband much of his surviving army. It makes sense that someone who won big during a Civil War would want, and be able, to retain a good portion of his army afterwards. In addition, by depriving the neutrals of prioritization during the Civil War, the risk of a budget over-run is reduced. In any case, I think budget shortfalls and other economic situations are wonderful issues for IC resolution. If a Civil War bankrupts the nation, then it bankrupts the nation. Civil Wars should not be painless for the country, they are massive internal upheavals that result in great loss of life and wealth.)
I agree, and like TC's rules.
Simple, to the point, and they create more IC interaction by their very nature and can make the game more prone to diplomatic conflict, giving one more thing to argue about in the Council sessions.
Sorry Econ :sweatdrop::shame::laugh4:
One of the things I don't like about the proposed system is that they units are 'free' from cost in that the money is given back to the treasury with the console at the end. That is complex and it also isn't realistic. ... If civil war drafting bankrupts the nation, then that's an added incentive for the neutrals to intervene and end it before it ruins the country. I find this realistic.
There may be some misunderstanding here. There's no "recouping of expenses" in my proposals. The units aren't free - they come from the Kingdom's coffers. The console is only used to give the kingdom money if the Kingdom is so bankrupt that not all units ordered can be drafted. As soon as possible, this money is "repaid" - subtracted from the Kingdom using the console. Drafting does risk bankrupting the nation and does give neutrals an incentive to intervene to stop it.
Feudal lords may have raised larger armies during times of war, but they still had to pay them. No money meant no army.
The reason why I think we should allow drafting even if the country is broke is to stop the "Seneschal bankrupts the country prior to civil war" exploit. That may have been fine for LotR, but now we everyone knows about it, I am not sure we should leave it open as frankly it strikes me as a little gamey. The whole point of introducing recruitment rules is to balance things a little against the faction with the Seneschal/ex-Seneschal in their pocket. I don't find it plausible that a ruler who had bankrupted the nation could stop discontented people raising arms against him. Quite the converse - most revolutions start because the government is bankrupt. If anything, the side that has bankrupted the kingdom should be the weak one because they can't afford to pay their men.
The most realistic solution would be to have decentralised budgets, so that nobles pay for their men from their provinces own incomes. However, we both know from the kotr trial that that is a spreadsheet nightmare.
I doubt we will have to access the console unless the Seneschal has deliberately bankrupted the kingdom. Even if we do, its operation will be infinitely less complex for the GM than Risk movement, tabletop battles, tournaments etc. It's just a matter of noting down what add_money command you use each turn.
3) Neutrals who are not involved in the Civil War cannot prioritize any units while the Civil War is in progress.
Personally, I don't like this. It may be fine for a "real" civil war that divides the kingdom into two. But if we allow any noble to declare war at any time, I suspect we are going to see some minor "border disputes" which are very localised to a few players. it seems a little excessive to let that cripple everyone else.
5) At the end of the Civil War, there is no automatic disbanding of units ...
This goes back to my point to YLC - we have to think about an unscrupulous player who just goes to war to get the drafted units. Automatic disbandment does that. I don't see anything in your proposals that does. The disbandment I am trying to model is not a political peacedeal type disarmament. Its a corollary of a draft. In a conflict, you can take men from the fields. But sooner or later, you have to let them go. Unlike the core of men you started with in peacetime who can stay with you. In other words, I see it as an OOC realism mechanic - like not allowing 2000 men to travel in one cog - and not part of an IC political settlement.
Econ, your trying to control to many factors. Let the players politic it out in the council if someone is unit hording - they can do it outside of wartime as well, the civil war mechanic does not actually enable people anymore then it would outside of it. If you look previously at LotR, the Order and the Asteri both horded units like mad outside of civil war.
Second, disabling unit prioritization may be bad in minor skirmishes, but it is good in the sense of forcing people to act. A compromise would be to reduce the number of prioritization to 1 for all neutral players. This will allow unit recruitment outside of the civil war to continue, at the kingdoms detriment, and also gets those not involved to try and broker peace between the two nations hating each other. Couple that with the dueling mechanic, and the stigma that will likely go along with grinding the kingdom to a halt over a minor border skirmish, and this won't be abused at all.
I have nothing against adding money to the bank so long as it is returned to it's previous level, but that may be a bit of a hassle for the GM.
And as far as Bankrupting the country - you really think the other players will allow that? This is another thing that should be fought IC. If the Seneschal is trying to drive the kingdoms economy into the ground, then we as players, who oppose this, need to do something about it, not let rules support us.
_Tristan_
07-09-2009, 15:27
And as far as Bankrupting the country - you really think the other players will allow that? This is another thing that should be fought IC. If the Seneschal is trying to drive the kingdoms economy into the ground, then we as players, who oppose this, need to do something about it, not let rules support us.
And we've already seen how possible it is in LotR...:dizzy2:
Frankly, most times, for all of our debates in the Magnaura, there were almost never any consequence in game. Most debates were sterile and remind of the U.N. of nowadays : a lot of good will but very few actions...
So, I think it is better to prevent in the rules the "hoarding" of drafted men rather than be confronted by a player who would have all the cards in his hands by having cheated the rule...
There may be some misunderstanding here. There's no "recouping of expenses" in my proposals. The units aren't free - they come from the Kingdom's coffers. The console is only used to give the kingdom money if the Kingdom is so bankrupt that not all units ordered can be drafted. As soon as possible, this money is "repaid" - subtracted from the Kingdom using the console. Drafting does risk bankrupting the nation and does give neutrals an incentive to intervene to stop it.
Ah, I see. Sorry for misreading. However...
The reason why I think we should allow drafting even if the country is broke is to stop the "Seneschal bankrupts the country prior to civil war" exploit. That may have been fine for LotR, but now we everyone knows about it, I am not sure we should leave it open as frankly it strikes me as a little gamey. The whole point of introducing recruitment rules is to balance things a little against the faction with the Seneschal/ex-Seneschal in their pocket. I don't find it plausible that a ruler who had bankrupted the nation could stop discontented people raising arms against him. Quite the converse - most revolutions start because the government is bankrupt. If anything, the side that has bankrupted the kingdom should be the weak one because they can't afford to pay their men.
The reason Zim got away with bankrupting the faction in LotR was because most people were tired and no longer interested in the game at that point. Simply put, no one cared enough to do anything about it. This was due to fatigue with the game, and was the reason it was wrapped up. I very much doubt that will be a problem in KotF. There's a lot of energy in here right now, and I can personally guarantee you that if someone other than me bankrupts the faction, I'll raise a pretty massive stink about it IC. I very much believe IC actions will be enough to handle it in this game. I would expect intentional bankruptcy to result in impeachment at best and Civil War at worst.
The most realistic solution would be to have decentralised budgets, so that nobles pay for their men from their provinces own incomes. However, we both know from the kotr trial that that is a spreadsheet nightmare.
Heh, it was actually attempted again. Check the main throne room for threads with the "V&V" prefix. They came up with a simpler and more efficient method, but it still didn't get very far. Financial independence will likely forever be an elusive dream for us. It opens up so many more possibilities for great RPing and interaction, but I doubt we'll ever be able to implement it.
Personally, I don't like this. It may be fine for a "real" civil war that divides the kingdom into two. But if we allow any noble to declare war at any time, I suspect we are going to see some minor "border disputes" which are very localised to a few players. it seems a little excessive to let that cripple everyone else.
It only cripples everyone if money is low. If the economy is healthy, the mandatory recruitment for the civil war shouldn't deplete the treasury by very much. If there's money left over, the Chancellor can continue constructing buildings and recruiting units for everyone else, the only difference being that no one can use their prioritizations. If the Chancellor uses this rule to weaken neutrals he doesn't like, they can respond in an IC manner, including declaring war to get access to the mandatory recruitment. Thus, a Chancellor who utilizes a Civil War as an opportunity to injure his enemies may find the war spreading, which seems fun and realistic to me.
On the other hand, if the economy isn't healthy, everyone else will indeed be penalized because they won't get what they want. However, it makes sense that a Civil War that occurs during a period of weak finances would have an increased risk of dragging the entire country into a greater crisis.
This goes back to my point to YLC - we have to think about an unscrupulous player who just goes to war to get the drafted units. Automatic disbandment does that. I don't see anything in your proposals that does. The disbandment I am trying to model is not a political peacedeal type disarmament. Its a corollary of a draft. In a conflict, you can take men from the fields. But sooner or later, you have to let them go. Unlike the core of men you started with in peacetime who can stay with you. In other words, I see it as an OOC realism mechanic - like not allowing 2000 men to travel in one cog - and not part of an IC political settlement.
I've been brainwashed by AussieGiant here. He's been the main proponent for resolving as many issues as possible IC rather than OOC, and he converted me to that line of thought a long time ago. IC resolution of issues results in more of the politics we all like, so it's best to use it when possible. The way I see it the "unscrupulous player who just goes to war to get the drafted units" is the perfect target for some IC spanking.
And we've already seen how possible it is in LotR...:dizzy2:
Frankly, most times, for all of our debates in the Magnaura, there were almost never any consequence in game. Most debates were sterile and remind of the U.N. of nowadays : a lot of good will but very few actions...
So, I think it is better to prevent in the rules the "hoarding" of drafted men rather than be confronted by a player who would have all the cards in his hands by having cheated the rule...
What you say is true, but I honestly think that was a failure by the players rather than a failure of the rules. There were plenty of IC methods of taking action, but no one had the guts to do it. Why should someone be stopped from exploiting a position of power if no one is prepared to stop them? Seems fair to me.
Vladimir
07-09-2009, 16:28
What you say is true, but I honestly think that was a failure by the players rather than a failure of the rules. There were plenty of IC methods of taking action, but no one had the guts to do it. Why should someone be stopped from exploiting a position of power if no one is prepared to stop them? Seems fair to me.
Agreed, fellow DC area resident. ~;)
AussieGiant
07-09-2009, 16:33
There's a clear approach.
Create a sandpit with a boundry. A nice wide boundry.
Then three rules:
1) IC
2) IC
3) IC
Why, because we have a voting system that can create the necessary IC legislation to limit or expand IC actions and behaviour. We don't want stuff OOC because;
a) it undermines the role playing experience
b) undermines the IC legislation Diet mechanism
c) creates confusion.
d) removes from the Diet excellent topics for debate.
You create the boundries/OOC rules, keeping them nice, simple and vague, and then let role playing and IC politicking resolve the issue(s).
Classic example:
HOUSE Armies from KotR.
We didn't have em, we realised the Houses wanted and needed em, the Dukes needed em, so we voted em, bingo house armies.
Why because the voting system and the weighting mechanism is where the action and IC effort is expended.
If you want the Chancellor with extra power, vote!! You want different ranks, vote!!
It's all kept IC and simple. Any expansion on rule sets or fundamentally IC issues like ranks can be modified IC using our base line political mechanism.
Again, it's too much. Very much like LotR. I personally and sincerely appreciate the efforts that have been made to create additional concepts but there is a real art to creating a rule set that creates a nice simple boundry and then doesn't try to go further.
The aim is to create four railway sleepers (those big solid pieces of wood), 3 tonnes of yellow sand, a small shovel and some water. That's it. Leave it at that and let people create the rest. Don't be tempted to over cook the OOC rules when there are already IC rules about how things are going to be handled IN the sand pit.
Our sheer mass is going to cause mayhem by itself. But, we are creating a rule set that boggles the mind and will.
I found KotR an excellent experience and the basis for a great game. We dodged a train wreck at the last minute with LotR because we over cooked our rule set. Lets not go down the same path again.
Here ends the sermon. :clown:
We seem to be quite close on recruitment mechanics, so if you want to formalise your proposals, TinCow, we can see if there is enough difference of opinion to warrant further discussion or even a poll.
There seem to be two main areas of disagreement on recruitment:
(1) should you be allowed to draft if the Kingdom has no money?
(2) should you be allowed to keep drafted units when war ends?
These are sufficiently clear cut choices to be amenable to a poll, although it may not be necessary.
I can see the bankrupting exploit being stopped by IC vigilance, especially now it is well understood.
I am not so sure about the "phoney war to accumulate units" exploit - as the exploiters can use the drafted units to resist IC pressure. Let's suppose Duchy A declares a phoney war on Duchy B, leaving neutral Duchies C and D unable to prioritise. After A and B have maxxed out their drafts, they declare "peace" and promptly launch a war on an outgunned C and D. It just seems "gamey" and better to stop by OOC rules.
My example may seem contrived, but what has been said about long periods of civil war in LotR with no fighting makes me think we should think about.
AussieGiant
07-09-2009, 16:48
Correct me if I'm reading this wrong.
The Civil War mechanism is an OOC event.
Given this, the rules MUST be restricted to the Civil War.
It only applies to those in the Civil War and only applies while the civil war is active.
The game already has an in-built drafting mechanism. We use that. Why overlay something the game already deals with perfectly well.
My approach would be to use the in game mechanism for the Civil War as well. Therefore you don't have to write OOC rules.
Again anything handled by the game should be and must be in my view used in the first instance. Otherwise you are directly overlaying rules on top of rules. CA have already codified a whole bunch of rules to create the game in the first place. Why would we want to supersede them.
We seem to be quite close on recruitment mechanics, so if you want to formalise your proposals, TinCow, we can see if there is enough difference of opinion to warrant further discussion or even a poll.
There seem to be two main areas of disagreement on recruitment:
(1) should you be allowed to draft if the Kingdom has no money?
(2) should you be allowed to keep drafted units when war ends?
These are sufficiently clear cut choices to be amenable to a poll, although it may not be necessary.
I can see the bankrupting exploit being stopped by IC vigilance, especially now it is well understood.
I am not so sure about the "phoney war to accumulate units" exploit - as the exploiters can use the drafted units to resist IC pressure. Let's suppose Duchy A declares a phoney war on Duchy B, leaving neutral Duchies C and D unable to prioritise. After A and B have maxxed out their drafts, they declare "peace" and promptly launch a war on an outgunned C and D. It just seems "gamey" and better to stop by OOC rules.
My example may seem contrived, but what has been said about long periods of civil war in LotR with no fighting makes me think we should think about.
To resolve your example - put a limit of one full term to prevent a person who has just declared civil war to declare peace, and then promptly declare civil war again.
And in the council, we can always pass legislation for demobilization for that term, but again - IC, IC, IC, IC, IC, IC!
But, we are creating a rule set that boggles the mind and will.
If you can indulge us just a little bit longer, AG, I predict we will wrap up the PvP rules within 24 hours with couple of paragraphs written by TC covering PvP movement and recruitment that will actually shorten the draft rules.
You create the boundries/OOC rules, keeping them nice, simple and vague, and then let role playing and IC politicking resolve the issue(s).
IC rule making is great for IC issues, the politics if you like.
But I don't buy it for solving OOC issues, the physics if you like.
The problem as I see it, AG, is that with PvP issues we are trying to do something with the game - allow a faction to fight itself - that just is not modelled by the game engine. To make it plausible, we have to decide some OOC things.
For example, how far can an army march? The game gives us one answer to that. But apparently, that's too slow, so we go for Risk and have to write some rules for that.
Recruitment is another issue - how many units can we recruit? The game again tells us something - but it does not tell us how many should go to each side in the war or the neutrals. That surely can't be decided IC.
The counter-arguments to letting OOC rules grow organically during the game - which will no doubt happen - is that sorting them out now, at the beginning:
(a) it let's players know their in-game capabilities (can my army in Calais reach Edinburgh next turn? can it attack Metz next turn? will I be able to draft any men if I am attacked by the Seneschal's clique?)
(b) we can discuss it now without being biased by our in character self-interest, as we don't know our characters, let alone their self interest.
Vladimir
07-09-2009, 17:00
What about the go to war with what you have truism (demonstrated in early Iraqi Freedom)? Spawn the maximum amount of the most basic free upkeep troops for garrison purposes and disband them when the conflict it over. Don't let the combatants recruit any additional troops (except for mercenaries, maybe?) This will create an in-character incentive to ensure no avatar controls too many units.
Get rid of all this confusion and wasted effort. Let’s try to be respectful of people’s out of character time.
What about the go to war with what you have truism (demonstrated in early Iraqi Freedom)? Spawn the maximum amount of the most basic free upkeep troops for garrison purposes and disband them when the conflict it over. Don't let the combatants recruit any additional troops (except for mercenaries, maybe?) This will create an in-character incentive to ensure no avatar controls too many units.
Free upkeep troops are poor troops, so I don't think it addresses the issue that motivated discussion of this topic - the desire to model genuine civil wars, rather than military coups. In most civil wars I know of, most of the combatants were levied during the war. The early Iraqi Freedom was not a civil war. The insurgents in the more civil war like later Iraqi Freedom were "units" that did not exist when Iraq was invaded.
Get rid of all this confusion and wasted effort. Let’s try to be respectful of people’s out of character time.
This is a brainstorming thread - there's no obligation to waste any of your time reading it. When we have identified the best solution or clear options, Zim or a poll will decide. As I said, I think we are nearly done.
Vladimir
07-09-2009, 18:27
You’ve misinterpreted my entire post.
Free upkeep troops are poor troops, so I don't think it addresses the issue that motivated discussion of this topic - the desire to model genuine civil wars, rather than military coups. In most civil wars I know of, most of the combatants were levied during the war. The early Iraqi Freedom was not a civil war. The insurgents in the more civil war like later Iraqi Freedom were "units" that did not exist when Iraq was invaded.
The point is that the US went in with an army unprepared for the fighting they encountered and weren’t able to use consol commands or wait X amount of turns to train additional forces to attack. That is merely an example.
I’m not concerned with civil wars you or anyone else know of. I’m concerned with civil wars in LTC Gold. My belief is that if a noble wishes to start a civil war he does so with the troops he has direct control over. No drama.
The free upkeep troops are to protect the settlement while the avatar and his army are away.
This is a brainstorming thread - there's no obligation to waste any of your time reading it. When we have identified the best solution or clear options, Zim or a poll will decide. As I said, I think we are nearly done.
How much time will the GM, Senchel/Chancellor thingy, or whoever, waste with a lot of monkeying around? If you want them to be able to raise troops, let them use an in-game function: Mercenaries.
You're too deep in the weeds on this one.
Hmmm.... the mercenaries concept is interesting. The game already provides mercenaries at a limited rate, and once a province is depleted of them, it takes a while for them to reappear. That could be used as a method of limiting the number of units that could be 'drafted' without needing to count turns: just restrict Civil War recruitment to 1 Mercenary unit per player per turn. This is somewhat realistic, as mercenaries formed the bulk of many, many armies throughout the entire timeperiod covered by M2TW. In addition, using mercenaries opens up an easy method to implement econ21's post-war disbanding without relying on anything other than the game engine itself. Mercenary units are very easy to distinguish from normal units in an army. We could simply say that all Mercenary units owned by all participants in a Civil War are disbanded when the Civil War ends. Clean, efficient, and requires no one to take notes of which units were recruited when. The only issue would be mercenary units that were owned before the war began, but those tend to be few and far between, since they cannot be gained by prioritization anyway, so they would be rare and small in number and thus relatively easy to keep track of.
My main concern with mercenaries would be that I'm not sure whether the replenishment rate is slow enough to properly fit into the limits we want to impose on civil war recruitment. Does anyone know how fast mercs 'spawn' in LTC?
Vladimir
07-09-2009, 19:17
That's a good point. I wasn't thinking about simulating the historical role of mercenaries but I like it. :2thumbsup:
Disbanding them once conflict is over is also a good idea. They're much easier to track.
The merc spawn rate always seems slow to me but I don't know the rate.
Ramses II CP
07-09-2009, 19:25
If it's capped at one unit per player per turn then we don't have to worry about the replacement rate, right? There's a trick to mercenary recruitment everyone should know about; if you disband a partial unit in it's usual recruitment zone (And outside a settlement) then next year there will be a full company of that same merc available (In vanilla anyway, not tested in LTC). This makes common sense but I've found people to be surprised that things work that way. There are a few circumstances where this can be useful as opposed to retraining the mercs in a settlement.
Now, would merc recruitment by participants be first come, first serve?
:egypt:
Now, would merc recruitment by participants be first come, first serve?
First come, first serve wouldn't matter because only one person can own a province at a time. Since you can only recruit mercs in provinces you own or have conquered, other people wandering through your lands won't be able to recruit them there.
Or should we change that? Recruiting only in your lands might tie people down to their lands for longer and discourage them from attacking like we want them to. Would it be better to allow merc recruitment anywhere, as long as they were available?
Hmmm.... the mercenaries concept is interesting. The game already provides mercenaries at a limited rate, and once a province is depleted of them, it takes a while for them to reappear. That could be used as a method of limiting the number of units that could be 'drafted' without needing to count turns: just restrict Civil War recruitment to 1 Mercenary unit per player per turn. This is somewhat realistic, as mercenaries formed the bulk of many, many armies throughout the entire timeperiod covered by M2TW. In addition, using mercenaries opens up an easy method to implement econ21's post-war disbanding without relying on anything other than the game engine itself. Mercenary units are very easy to distinguish from normal units in an army. We could simply say that all Mercenary units owned by all participants in a Civil War are disbanded when the Civil War ends. Clean, efficient, and requires no one to take notes of which units were recruited when. The only issue would be mercenary units that were owned before the war began, but those tend to be few and far between, since they cannot be gained by prioritization anyway, so they would be rare and small in number and thus relatively easy to keep track of.
My main concern with mercenaries would be that I'm not sure whether the replenishment rate is slow enough to properly fit into the limits we want to impose on civil war recruitment. Does anyone know how fast mercs 'spawn' in LTC?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
TC, I made that suggestion EONS ago, minus the disbandment afterwards.
No! Don't go off on the mercenary tangent, I thought we were so close on drafting.
I would assume LTC mercs are just like vanilla - too few and no substitute for a nice fortress pumping out troops.
Can I suggest a consensus be formed around TinCow's draft recruitment rules:
1) All Civil War participants can prioritize a maximum of one unit per turn, regardless of their normal prioritizations, to a maximum total of 5 units every 10 turns.
2) These units can only be recruited in settlements owned by the Civil War participants or settlements they have conquered during the war.
3) Neutrals who are not involved in the Civil War cannot prioritize any units while the Civil War is in progress.
4) Civil War prioritizations take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game, and they MUST be done by the GM/Chancellor/Whoever if the treasury has sufficient sums to fulfill the recruitment requests.
The only thing I would like to add is some automatic disbandment. For simplicity, I suggest:
5) At the end of the Civil War, each player must disband one full strength unit for every unit they have drafted.
If people are not happy with that, I am content to go with just TCs points 1-4. (His point 5 was redundant IMO).
No! Don't go off on the mercenary tangent, I thought we were so close on drafting.
:inquisitive: I thought mercs would make it easier to implement what you wanted. I'm not sure I understand why they are less desirable.
Ramses II CP
07-09-2009, 19:47
First come, first serve wouldn't matter because only one person can own a province at a time. Since you can only recruit mercs in provinces you own or have conquered, other people wandering through your lands won't be able to recruit them there.
Or should we change that? Recruiting only in your lands might tie people down to their lands for longer and discourage them from attacking like we want them to. Would it be better to allow merc recruitment anywhere, as long as they were available?
Mercs have a more than one province wide recruitment zones. The same mercs I can buy at Bordeaux will deny the player at Paris from buying them. I think there's a map somewhere of the exact zones.
:egypt:
I thought mercs would make it easier to implement what you wanted. I'm not sure I understand why they are less desirable.
Ramses achieved miracles with mercs in the cataclysm, IIRC, but I think most of us admired him for that because mercs are rather limited in their capabilities. Without the console, you won't get that many and they tend to be spears/missiles. I suspect important civil wars will happen late, when the factions have access to high end troops with upgraded armour etc. I think most combatants would prefer to be able to train one unit per settlement for some period than rely on the vagaries of available mercs.
How do people feel about disbandment of this kind:
-----
5) At the end of the Civil War, each player must disband one full strength unit for every unit they have drafted.
------
It requires minimal book-keeping and is easy to implement. As players will tend to disband lower quality units than they have drafted, they will still come out of civil wars with a modest military edge.
If people are still unhappy, could we forget disbandment and go with TCs rules 1-4? They work for me. :sweatdrop:
----
1) All Civil War participants can prioritize a maximum of one unit per turn, regardless of their normal prioritizations, to a maximum total of 5 units every 10 turns.
2) These units can only be recruited in settlements owned by the Civil War participants or settlements they have conquered during the war.
3) Neutrals who are not involved in the Civil War cannot prioritize any units while the Civil War is in progress.
4) Civil War prioritizations take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game, and they MUST be done by the GM/Chancellor/Whoever if the treasury has sufficient sums to fulfill the recruitment requests.
Strange, I've always thought mercs generally offered higher quality than was available except from heavily upgraded castles. I'd like to get more info on merc availability from someone who knows about it better than I do. If they simply aren't supplied with sufficient numbers to make this system work, it's a moot point.
If they are supplied, I'd like to hear which proposal people would prefer as they're frankly both fine with me. If we go with the non-merc version, I am satisfied by your proposed (5) for disbanding after the war is over. It's simple and clean and easy to implement. We should probably have a poll just to check whether people want this recruitment option in the first place though. This could just be you and me spinning our wheels for something no one else is interested in. :laugh:
Vladimir
07-09-2009, 20:45
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! :devil:
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
07-09-2009, 22:30
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
07-09-2009, 23:03
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
07-09-2009, 23:33
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. :grin:
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.
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
07-10-2009, 02:31
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
07-10-2009, 08:29
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. :balloon2:
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?
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 :2thumbsup:
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 :grin:
AussieGiant
07-10-2009, 08:59
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 :2thumbsup:
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 :grin:
Also very plasible. Then the only civil war rules are based mostly around movement.
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.
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
07-10-2009, 10:12
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.
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).
----
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
07-10-2009, 12:08
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.
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
07-10-2009, 12:48
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. :whip:
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
07-10-2009, 13:34
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. :bow:
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)
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
07-10-2009, 14:25
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.
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/showpost.php?p=1383081&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.
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.
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:
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
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
07-10-2009, 15:38
I don't want to be a Senchal in a civil war. :no:
-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.
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.
Ramses II CP
07-10-2009, 16:07
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.
This is spot on IMHO. Let the engine do the tracking, and as for IC justification say simply that French citizens are reluctant to take sides once the conflict has begun.
:egypt:
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.
I would agree to this, though 4 won't work because it's a WEGO system, so there's no way to implement first come, first serve.
Vladimir
07-10-2009, 16:12
I like it. It’s also a good general rule on merc recruitment.
Instead of 4, we could do the all-or-nothing system. If there's enough money for every civil war participant to get their merc choice, everyone gets a merc. If there isn't enough money, no one gets it. This is easy to implement as well, as the person doing the recuiting just loads up the save and starts hiring. If he runs out of cash before he finishes, he just reloads the save and doesn't recruit anything.
However, there are issues with who gets what unit though due to the hiring region thing. If 3 people request the same unit, who gets it?
Vladimir
07-10-2009, 16:20
I say if it is there, the person takes it.
Right, but WHO? All civil war orders are submitted by PM to the GM, people aren't loading up the save, so there's no way for them to recruit what they want. In addition, allowing such a system would prejudice people who were in a time zone that was inconvenient for the start of a new turn. If the turn starts at 8pm EST, it would be very easy for me to grab the save and get my unit, while for a person on GMT it would be 2am and there's no way they'd ever get first pick.
Ramses II CP
07-10-2009, 16:36
I think a WEGO movement system and a first come recruitment system can work together. Recruitment has, as far as I know, always been first come in the game. It's arbitrary, but it is fair. Let the first person to DL the save recruit their merc company of choice. This eliminates worries about who gets what as well, if you're there first you get what you want.
:egypt:
_Tristan_
07-10-2009, 16:41
I don't think it has ever been like that (maybe in KotR) but surely not in LotR because all recruitment was done by the Chancellor.
If you wanted mercs, you had to wait for the Chancellor to recruit them for you.
I'd prefer we used a WEGO system all the way : for both recruitment and movement (though in the fromer, it might a bit tougher to implement)
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.
It's approximating the "area of recruitment" system commonly used in realism mods. When you first take over a settlement, the locals are likely to be hostile to you, unwilling to be recruited. So date of conquest will be a decent proxy for how strongly French culture and loyalty have been ingrained in the population.
But if you don't like, it's no big deal. Let's make any rationing random.
----
ECON's PROPOSAL (v1.04):
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, recruiting by settlement in a random order, but with priority given to settlements that did not draft in the previous turn.
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)
----
It seems like we're just replacing an potentially partisan Chancellor with an arbitrary and capricious rule.
Rotation means that no settlement will be able to recruit two units before all have recruited one. That sounds very fair to me.
If we couple that with the order in which you get your one unit being by a lottery, I don't think we can think of a fairer system. I don't see how anyone can compare that to a system in which one player allocates all recruitment in a civil war.
Take the example I posted earlier, by turn 3, all provinces had one recruit except Paris had two. Sounds plausible. But if we replace province seniority with a lottery, with rotation we get the same result: one settlement will end turn 3 with two extra units; the others with one.
Let's compare that with the Seneschal deciding. He will just authorise six units for his side and none for the other.
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..
You are going to face the same issue I have been debating with TC - in a WEGO system, how do you ration out recruits? I say go for the same rationing rule as I propose with drafting - use random numbers, but give priority to any who lost out the previous turn:
------
YLC's proposal v1.01
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. In civil war, mercenary recruitment takes precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders, recruiting by player in a random order, but with priority given to players that did not recruit mercenaries in the previous turn.
(Changes to YLCs original proposal in italics.)
YLC's proposal v1.01
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. In civil war, mercenary recruitment takes precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders, recruiting by player in a random order, but with priority given to players that did not recruit mercenaries in the previous turn.
(Changes to YLCs original proposal in italics.)
This is my favorite system so far. The burden of keeping track of who gets the mercs first falls on the GM, instead of the Seneschal, which prevents that position from becoming too complex. While it increases the GM's work, it isn't by a huge amount and he already has to take the save and do the moves during a Civil War anyway. It looks like a good compromise to me.
It's arbitrary, but it is fair. Let the first person to DL the save recruit their merc company of choice.
I would be loathe to avoid ever letting competition between players be determined by who downloads the save first. I have been told that some players have lives, if so it would be unfair on them.
There is also terrible scope for abuse (general 1 of side A only uploads save when general 2 is online etc).
Cecil XIX
07-10-2009, 17:55
I definitely prefer YLC's system, it seems the least redundant with the unit prioritization rules we already have.
The only issue I would have with trying to get everyone a turn is that, for the most part, this will only matter if everyone is clustered in the same region - if they are not, there is no point and it weighs down the system. For instance, within the general area of our starting positions, we have France, Netherlands, Southern Germany, Northern Germany, England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland, Northern Spain, Southern Spain, and North Africa regions to recruit mercenaries from. For added realism, I could go in and edit the France region into a Southern and Northern France region.
The only issue I would have with trying to get everyone a turn is that, for the most part, this will only matter if everyone is clustered in the same region - if they are not, there is no point and it weighs down the system. For instance, within the general area of our starting positions, we have France, Netherlands, Southern Germany, Northern Germany, England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland, Northern Spain, Southern Spain, and North Africa regions to recruit mercenaries from. For added realism, I could go in and edit the France region into a Southern and Northern France region.
Even if everyone is in different areas (or in the same areas, but not requesting overlapping units), it will still matter if there isn't enough money to recruit all of the units requested. The only fair methods I see of compensating for this are the all or nothing system I've talked about before, or econ21's rotation proposal. While the rotation proposal is more complex, the current wording places the burden of implementing it on the GM, not one of the players, and the burden is relatively minimal. In addition, the all or nothing system will pretty much prevent any civil war recruitment if income is low, while econ21's system will still allow for a slow trickle of reinforcements during a civil war unless the faction is flat broke. Thus, I think econ21's version is stronger than the all or nothing.
Vladimir
07-10-2009, 18:32
If the GM is OK with it, then so am I. It looks like a good rule set.
Have mercy on us non native speakers. What's a WEGO system?
What's a WEGO system?
Simultaneous movement.
We go.
Versus sequential movement:
I go, you go (IGO-UGO).
Pursuing the mercenary option, before YLC made his specific proposal, I sensed a consensus forming that all players - neutrals as well as combatants - should have access to any extra recruitment during in a civil war. I think the arguments were that: (a) from AG, it would be a foolish Duke who stayed out of a war, if neutrals could not get extra men when his rivals could; (b) from Cecil, some players may want to remain neutral - a plague on both your houses - but be able to defend themselves. Do we want to consider a version of the system that allows that?
Given Cecil likes the YLC rule set, but wanted neutrals to be able to recruit, I am going to name this proposal after him:
----
Cecil's proposal v1
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. In a civil war, any player may only recruit 1 mercenary per turn but only up to a total number of their prioritizations per term.
4. In civil war, mercenary recruitment takes precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders, recruiting by player in a random order, but with priority given to players that did not recruit mercenaries in the previous turn.
(Changes to YLC v1.01 in italics.)
----
It would be convenient if supporters of the merc option could decide this question among themselves prior to any poll.
Vladimir
07-10-2009, 20:40
Why isn't it called the YLC rule then? I'm still concerned that civil war actors will take their priority recruitment and use it against smaller neutrals.
I say no, simply because it allows undeclared neutrals to suck the very small mercenary pool dry - if they want them, join the side that has them. If an aggressor attacks them, then they become involved in the civil war and may recruit them.
The issue about neutrals having access to the Civil War recruitment pool came up because my early proposals had neutrals not getting anything. Under the current system, neutrals still get their usual prioritizations and the only way they won't is if we're out of money. If we're out of money, it doesn't matter what rule system you put in for them, because there's no way to recruit anything. So, I think the issue of neutral recruiting is now moot.
Ramses II CP
07-10-2009, 21:09
I don't think it has ever been like that (maybe in KotR) but surely not in LotR because all recruitment was done by the Chancellor.
If you wanted mercs, you had to wait for the Chancellor to recruit them for you.
I'd prefer we used a WEGO system all the way : for both recruitment and movement (though in the fromer, it might a bit tougher to implement)
My comment wasn't clear, sorry Tristan; I meant in mechanical terms the game is always played that way. No one in a hotseat complains that England hires mercs before the Danes, or etc. I don't see our situation as being substantially different.
:egypt:
Cecil XIX
07-10-2009, 21:51
Pursuing the mercenary option, before YLC made his specific proposal, I sensed a consensus forming that all players - neutrals as well as combatants - should have access to any extra recruitment during in a civil war. I think the arguments were that: (a) from AG, it would be a foolish Duke who stayed out of a war, if neutrals could not get extra men when his rivals could; (b) from Cecil, some players may want to remain neutral - a plague on both your houses - but be able to defend themselves. Do we want to consider a version of the system that allows that?
Given Cecil likes the YLC rule set, but wanted neutrals to be able to recruit, I am going to name this proposal after him:
As Tincow intimated, I don't want neutrals to be able to recruit mercenaries during a Civil War. I simply want them to be able to continue with their own unit prioritizations, with their powers unaffected by warring neighbors. I also don't think AG's concern is much of a problem. It would be if PVP combatants could keep their extra units, but since all the systems for wartime-recruitment require combatants to lose an equal amount of units after the war is over, I don't think that's a problem. It wouldn't give PVP combatants any extra strength after a war, and it's hardly enough to influence people to attack other opponents during a war they're already in.
Thanks for naming it after me though, econ. :yes:
Actually we should name it after Andres - he came up with the core rules for it, but his post was ignored. The only change I made was to add in the "1 per term, no more then their prioritizations" part.
OK, scratch the "Cecil proposal". I suggest we keep this discussion open for another day for any last minute tinkering with the proposals or new ideas.
Then I will PM Zim, drawing his attention to what I have called the YLC v1.01 proposal and the econ v1.04. He can either pick one himself or we can set up a 48 hour poll, with the status quo as a third option.
YLC, TC or any other supporter of the mercenary option is free to improve on the wording of the YLC v1.01. If there is a poll, I won't call them YLC/econ options but mercenary-based/draft options.
deguerra
07-11-2009, 02:23
Simultaneous movement.
We go.
Versus sequential movement:
I go, you go (IGO-UGO).
:inquisitive: 'ats not an acronym at all...accursed english and its accursed flexibility :clown:
Vladimir
07-11-2009, 02:53
NVM. Sounds like complaining.
AussieGiant
07-12-2009, 18:02
Recruiting: While the all or nothing is easier to manage, the GM is a GM for a reason. I think we can let him keep track of things in the "ordered" recruiting system.
I've still got an odd feeling that someone is going to call a civil war in order to override the recruiting system in their favour.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.