PvP movement system for the first Civil War

I have consulted with Zim and he has agreed to a vote to choose which method of strategic movement we will use for the first civil war. Settling this issue now should help us finalise remaining issues to do with PvP mechanics.

The alternatives, as described in the draft rules, are:

1 - Basic LotR system: Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another.

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, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Units could be moved at 2x speed or 2.5x speed etc.

3 - MTW/Risk-style system: Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based by province. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per 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.

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.


There has been some discussion of the alternatives in the draft rules and PvP mechanics threads, with a consensus moving towards either option (2) or option (3). Some of the points raised include:

The problem with option (1) is that slow in-game movement speeds may result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. It also suffers from an IGO-UGO problem over which player should move first in a given turn.

The problem with option (4) is that it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.

Options (2) and (3) are both WEGO systems (simultaneous movement via the GM). The risk style system is likely to see wars resolved more quickly, while the phased movement allows more strategic maneouvring on the campaign map. There is an issue of how the movement of neutrals is handled under either option, but an obvious solution is just to allow normal movement for non-combatants (the accelerated speed of combatants could be thought of as force marching).

I know some players would rather defer our choice of movement system until the first civil war actually breaks out, but there are good reasons to make the choice now:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(a) it will guide us on the issue of recruitment in a civil war. Most people see a problem with keeping "only the Chancellor recruits" mechanic in a civil war. But we can't really finalise any proposals until we know the movement system. If it is risk style, there's a case to telescope any non-Chancellor recruitment into turn 1 of the war, as wars will be quick. Systems linked to in-game movement speeds could allow more gradual recruitment.

(b) it will help people plan ahead if they know the rules. Know how quickly your army can fight a potential enemy will be a big help in planning to launch or defend against a civil war.

(c) we can have an impartial discussion or vote on the issue now while we are all still behind a "veil of ignorance" not knowing our avatars and allegiances. By the time war breaks out, there may be a temptation to push for a system that favours "our" side in the war.

(d) leaving it to the last minute will mean lots of second-guessing about Zim's choice, and likely some special pleading to try to influence it or at least have it revealed in advance.

number 3

I see number 2 (phased) as a reasonable compromise between speed in getting to the actual fight while still allowing strategic/operational decisions by players (staying on the mountains/forests, garrisoning a city/fort, guarding a bridge, trying to bypass the opposing army by taking the other side of the river etc.)

I voted 3, but I do think 2 would work just fine in the early phases of the game while our provinces were all located relatively close together. Given that this can be easily changed at a later date with a Rule Change if it becomes problematic, I won't have any complaints if 2 is chosen.

(Note to econ21: Be aware that the whole * marked rule system has been abolished. Rule Changes can now change any aspect of the rules at any point. Rule Changes are also now completely divorced from IC business and are passed by unweighted votes, with the GM having a veto over any Rule Change proposal before it even goes to the vote. Edicts and Amendments are now wholly IC in nature, and are considered temporary IC laws and permanent IC laws respectively. Rules can still require OOC enforcement of the unpleasant kind, which you are familiar with, but Edict and Amendments are now enforced only IC. If someone breaks an Edict or Amendment, they are perfectly free to get away with it unless the players make moves to enforce a punishment.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

(Note to econ21: Be aware that the whole * marked rule system has been abolished. Rule Changes can now change any aspect of the rules at any point. Rule Changes are also now completely divorced from IC business and are passed by unweighted votes, with the GM having a veto over any Rule Change proposal before it even goes to the vote. Edicts and Amendments are now wholly IC in nature, and are considered temporary IC laws and permanent IC laws respectively. Rules can still require OOC enforcement of the unpleasant kind, which you are familiar with, but Edict and Amendments are now enforced only IC. If someone breaks an Edict or Amendment, they are perfectly free to get away with it unless the players make moves to enforce a punishment.)

---

Yeah baby...that's one great peace of legislation right there!! :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Yeah baby...that's one great peace of legislation right there!! :beam:

---

Yeah, I consider that, the army ownership system, and the GM/Event system to be the most significant improvements made since KotR. The PvP and House/Rank changes are still major works in progress, but those first three aspects seem pretty solid to me.

Abstained, although both 2 and 3 seem like they'd work well. Even 1 would if there are wars early on when we're close together...

4 is the easiest but doesn't seem as fun...

Looks like I'm in the minority (#1). Lord Pizza effectively demonstrated how easily one can exploit enhanced movement. I also want to keep the instances of civil war to a minimum and don't want a player to receive bonuses while (or incentives for) tearing the kingdom apart. I believe there are other ways to generate excitement. This is medieval politics, after all. :sneaky:

Back from the celebrating... :cheers:

That brings up a good point. I don't think this was ever addressed before but if we're going to use any civil war mechanism that increases movement we need to think about whether to allow the players involved in the war to attack enemy faction settlements or not.

On the one hand not allowing it would prevent things like Hummel's attempt to build a powerbase in Flanders by attacking Danish settlements there. On the other there is the potential to use increased movement rates to blitz enemy settlements (and if that faction were popular enough or killed off their opponents they'd have a good chance of getting them ratified as well...).

In my opinion, if you're engaged in civil war and using the PVP mechanics, any attacks should be constrained to other players. Otherwise the system might be abused to hasten external conquest, which is not the intent of the rule set.

They should be allowed to attack enemy AI armies in their territory, however, as that's just normal self-defence.

But if their independence/automony is recognised, then they should be allowed to attack the AI freely.

If their independence is recognized I think the war would be over and rules back to normal. :yes:

:wall:

I voted 2 but wanted to vote 3!

It's similar to a system we have in WotB and thus a bit familiar to me than the others.

Have you had to use that system in WOTB? I'd be interested to hear how it turned out. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

They should be allowed to attack enemy AI armies in their territory, however, as that's just normal self-defence.

---

Let me refine my position: If a player led army wants to engage an AI army in the example Igno gave, I think they should have to drop out of the PVP movement mechanics for the turn that the attack takes place. IE No doubled speed or anything like that.

The increased speed in PVP is meant to expedite and make possible civil war, not enhance our chances against the AI. In fact, I think the increased vulnerability to foreign invasion is one of the more effective brakes on PVP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

Let me refine my position: If a player led army wants to engage an AI army in the example Igno gave, I think they should have to drop out of the PVP movement mechanics for the turn that the attack takes place. IE No doubled speed or anything like that.

The increased speed in PVP is meant to expedite and make possible civil war, not enhance our chances against the AI. In fact, I think the increased vulnerability to foreign invasion is one of the more effective brakes on PVP.

---

I really hope we don't have to explain that in the rules. Common sense dictates you can't use PvP rule to take advantage of the "normal" game.

Firing Squad is the only plausible option for the GM in this situation.

Don't go all American law on us guy's. We can't write down every single option and alternatives. There is a meaning to the rules and the GM should be given the scope to govern them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Have you had to use that system in WOTB? I'd be interested to hear how it turned out. :yes:

---

We just finished a PvP battle in WotB. Cultured Drizzt fan and mini made a surprise attack against The Celtic Viking. Although there was a big distance between those armies in the province (where battle was fought) I think it worked quite well.

It's nice to hear that system has been tested at least once.

How exactly did it go? Were they both moving and you chose where they met? Or was one moving in the other's area? How did you choose where the battle was actually fought?

Don't mean to be nosy but I'm taking notes for when this happens in this game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Don't go all American law on us guy's. We can't write down every single option and alternatives. There is a meaning to the rules and the GM should be given the scope to govern them.

---

You mean American laws like these in California?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

It's nice to hear that system has been tested at least once.

How exactly did it go? Were they both moving and you chose where they met? Or was one moving in the other's area? How did you choose where the battle was actually fought?

Don't mean to be nosy but I'm taking notes for when this happens in this game...

---

Cultured Drizzt fan moved into Syria while The Celtic Viking was there. Choosing a battlefield was quite easy actually. I divided the distance between two sides into 5. Something like this:

Army TCV /-/-/-/-/-/ Army CDf ( /-/ marks the distance between armies)

CDf was the attacker. He would move 3 "steps" towards TCV. But because they took him off-guard CDf moved 4 "steps".

Army TCV /-/Battlefield/-/-/-/ Army CDf

After that I just checked the location on campaign map and made a roughly similar battlefield map.
It's not the best solution but it seemed to work.

No I don't mean those Ibn-Khaldun :balloon2:

Every country has those.

What I mean is the overriding tendency to approach law in the US as if every conceivable plausible or implausible possibility has to be explained in great detail due to the overtly aggressive and litigious environment that exists there.

Common Sense departed the system about 30 years ago. Other countries are vainly trying to stem the tide as the only group it benefit's are the lawyers.

Here ends the sermon. :egypt:

Ha. All I can say is that I work in law enforcement and sympathize completely. :clown:

I do have to admit that private company policy is affected even more by fear of litigation than law.

One good example is Ruger Firearms that have an inscribed message on the barrels pointing to the manual. That section of the manual might as well amount to "bullet things come out this end, don't point at friends"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

"bullet things come out this end, don't point at friends"...

---

Indeed Mr Zim. Common sense departed the legal profession and the industry some decades ago. The US now has some really nutty stuff in place.

"Warning, sticking hand in blender and turning on may cause harm."

No shiet Sherlock, that's for letting me know.

In Australia or England you'd go to court and they would throw you out 5 seconds later.

In the states the civil suit would be 25 million dollars to the idiot who put their hand in the blender. Why? Because they were not warned that it could happen.

Totally ridiculous.

And a real shame actually that things have gotten to that level. It indicates a decline in society in my opinion.

Well, to be fair most of those case are thrown out, but it only takes one judge...

Even the infamous McDonald's hot coffee case only made it because the coffee was kept a couple dozen degrees hotter than legally safe.

We do get some crazy cases here, though. I think the U.S. is too sue-happy. That one crazy case makes it, then all business that could even remotely be affected get paranoid.

It looks like the Risk style system will be adopted - especially given Ibn-Khaldun vote correction. I am posting some proposed rules for implementing it in the PvP mechanics thread.

They are just proposals so any comments etc are welcome, just please don't say they look complicated (especially if you voted for the Risk system!) - they are just trying to mimic the Shogun/MTW system which many long-timers should understand intuitively. Plus we only really need to worry about the details when war happens and then Zim can iron out any problems.

Once we have movement sorted out, we can turn to recruitment and any other remaining PvP mechanics issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Don't go all American law on us guy's. We can't write down every single option and alternatives.

---

Hey, having incomprehensible laws that are incredibly long and complex keeps me employed!

Plus, how else will we make up for our short Constitution? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Hey, having incomprehensible laws that are incredibly long and complex keeps me employed!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

You mean American laws like these in California?

---

Hey! Some of those are valid laws.

Quote:

---

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

---

California has several programs that are experimenting with driverless cars. The term vehicle is also broad and would apply to driverless trains (i.e. airport monorails) and other such things.

Quote:

---

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

---

A fishing vessel is a vehicle. If the above wasn't included, the law would ban whaling. We'll ignore the fact that whaling is illegal anyway...

Quote:

---

Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

---

This is aimed at people who use empty swimming pools as artificial half-pipes and such.

Quote:

---

You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.

---

OK, this is absurd.

Quote:

---

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

---

This is a zoning law that restricts farms and animal breeding facilities to keep them away from places of public gathering. Sensible for sanitary, visual, and olfactory reasons.

Good lord TC, you are scary :dizzy2:

I LOVE IT!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Good lord TC, you are scary :dizzy2:

I LOVE IT!!

---

It requires training. My current job covers adjudication of cases that fall under Veterans Benefits laws, as codified in 38 USC and 38 CFR, supplemented by a moderate amount of case law. Browse through one of those sets of regs, down to the actual text, and you'll see the stuff I write about 20 pages on every single day of the week. When you do stuff like that for a living, you get used to interpreting legalese. The tough part is actually the medical side of my job, because I have to interpret what doctors are saying, which is nigh on impossible. Those guys have a language that is far more difficult for an outsider to understand than legalese, none of them have good handwriting, most can't write or spell if their life depended on it, and they abbreviate everything. This book is standard issue to all attorneys in my office, and we would be lost without it. You don't know what the word incomprehensible means until you've tried to read a medical report written in shorthand in 1943 by a doctor who was treating wounded soldiers in some rain-soaked jungle in the Pacific. :wall: