PvP recruitment mechanics poll

In the PvP mechanics brainstorming thread, we have identified three alternative rules for recruitment during a civil war. This is an informal poll of prospective KotF players to gauge their opinion. Zim will have the final say on what rules we adopt.

The alternatives are:

(1) Seneschal-based recruitment: this is the system in current draft rules, where recruitment is the same in civil war as out of it. The Seneschal makes the recruitment choices, subject to the prioritisation mechanic.

(2) A draft-based system: this will allow players to recruit one unit per settlement per turn in a civil war (Kingdom funds permitting), but they will have to disband an equal number when the war is over.

Detailed rules:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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).

(2) A mercenary-based system: this will allow players in a civil war to recruit mercenaries up to their prioritisation limits, but they will have to disband them after the war is over.

Detailed rules:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Some pros and cons

The Seneschal recruitment system is simple, but clearly weights the war heavily in favour of the side with the Seneschal and perhaps more importantly, the previous Seneschals. (With no or very limited recruitment during the civil war, starting armies will be decisive).

The draft and mercenary based systems share some features in common - in particular, in both systems, players will have to relay their recruitment requests to the GM each turn and any extra recruitment during war will lead to disbandment of units after war.

The draft system will probably lead to more recruitment during civil war, as it will apply to both neutrals and combatants, and for most ranks, one unit per settlement is far more than their prioritisations. For example, a baron might draft 10 units per term compared to their normal prioritisation of one. However, this level of recruitment may well drive the Kingdom into debt and thus dry up. Under the draft based system, settlements will have added importance for recruitment.

The mercenary system will remove the need for the GM to keep count of how many units have been recruited and simplify disbandment after the war. Mercenary pools will have added importance for recruitment.

Interesting. It seems the mods favor mercenary recruitment.

It's a lot closer than I had expected.

Man, I can't decide. Quick, everybody fight for my vote! :whip:

I'm also undecided. Persuade me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Man, I can't decide. Quick, everybody fight for my vote! :whip:

---

*slap*

pull your self together man!

Well, the draft system is much more certain as far as allowing everyone to recruit, which means bigger battles, and helps the weaker side rather more. The merc system makes keeping track easier, but is dependent on mercenary pools. Large wars contained within a small-mediumish area will see pool depleted rapidly. Say two adjacent Houses of five members each fight. I could see pools being depleted very quickly resulting in a lot of "noone can recruit mercs" turns. Whether that is good or bad depends on perspective.

Also, recruiting mercs during times without war would require an edict. While mercenaries don't provide as much local character in armies in LTC as, say, EB, I could see generals in for example Outremer wanting some local HA mercs, or a Great Cross for a crusade. I guess they'd have to convince the Council for that. :clown:

I like the in game mercenary pool limitations.

Realistic, built in and will keep battles small, short, sweat and perhaps a little more decisive. Meaning one side wins rather than big battles with pyrrhic victories.

Would there be an exception for recruiting mercs during a Crusade, or for each Crusade would we have to authorize it through an edict or CA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

Would there be an exception for recruiting mercs during a Crusade, or for each Crusade would we have to authorize it through an edict or CA?

---

Through edicts and CA's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I like the in game mercenary pool limitations.

Realistic, built in and will keep battles small, short, sweat and perhaps a little more decisive. Meaning one side wins rather than big battles with pyrrhic victories.

---

I like using mercs in theory, it would be easier to demobilize them after a civil war, but I think the merc recruitment pools are just too shallow to fuel a civil war. There are usually only a few units available in each region.

I'm still undecided.

Drafting does mean that it's a level playing field, and does allow for more units being raised.

Mercenary recruitment seems somehow more appropriate, and perhaps will cause wars to be shorter and sharper.

Fighting for Cecil and Ignoramus's vote:

I like the draft system because:

(a) they are YOUR troops: they come from your settlements, they are the type you are built training grounds for, with the armour upgrades, experience etc that you expect etc.

(b) you will have much more control over what kind of units you get

(c) you don't have to worry about your neighbours "pinching" your troops from the merc pool

(d) potentially you will get a lot more men, meaning the kingdom is less at risk from a coup

(e) it makes settlements really matter in a civil war - in a long war, people may fight for ground rather than just chasing the enemy army

(f) it makes civil wars very major events for the kingdom - potentially quickly draining its coffers. It will make people less willing to tolerate open conflict in the Kingdom and instead encourage a quick resolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

(e) it makes settlements really matter in a civil war - in a long war, people may fight for ground rather than just chasing the enemy army

---

This sold me. My inner Edmund Becker is always for things that make settlements more valued!

This poll doesn't so much correctly model which system is better, so much as how people think when it comes to rules - between the MCIB and KISS methods.

Compelling Econ.

I like all the points you mention.

You've persuaded me too, econ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Fighting for Cecil and Ignoramus's vote:

I like the draft system because:

(a) they are YOUR troops: they come from your settlements, they are the type you are built training grounds for, with the armour upgrades, experience etc that you expect etc.

(b) you will have much more control over what kind of units you get

(c) you don't have to worry about your neighbours "pinching" your troops from the merc pool

(d) potentially you will get a lot more men, meaning the kingdom is less at risk from a coup

(e) it makes settlements really matter in a civil war - in a long war, people may fight for ground rather than just chasing the enemy army

(f) it makes civil wars very major events for the kingdom - potentially quickly draining its coffers. It will make people less willing to tolerate open conflict in the Kingdom and instead encourage a quick resolution.

---

Counterpoints for Mercs:

(a) they ARE'NT your troops: if you have a poor settlement and have been stiffed by the Seneschal (since you can't prioritize construction in KotF) then this will actually give you useful units rather than just loads of spear militia. Under the draft system, the people with castles will pretty much always wreck the people with cities. Mercs provide high quality units to everyone.

(b) you have just as much control over the units you get as in the draft system, if they're available, you can specify whatever you want, just like in settlements. Settlements provide greater reliability of units, not greater control

(c) but you do have to worry about them taking your settlement immediately, leaving you without any means of fighting back. with mercs, you could theoretically flee into other areas to recruit your mercs and then return a short while later to continue the war. this gives you a last ditch recruitment option which isn't present for settlements.

(d) this is only true in small, local wars. In wars over larger areas, you would actually get more units with mercs, as you can recruit them in provinces you don't own.

(e) settlements really matter in a civil war no matter what.

(f) since the draft system allows recruitment in all cities at once, instead of just one per person, it again buffs the person who is already stronger.

(g) the merc system only requires disbanding of surviving mercs at the end of the war. the draft system requires disbanding of an equal number of units recruited. Since most wars will certainly result in people losing units, both sides will emerge from the war with smaller armies than they had when they entered the war.

Now I'm really torn. Econ's post really persuaded me, but now TC made an equally arguable case for mercenaries.

The biggest argument for mercenaries is TinCow's point (c). I love the thought of a defeated noble wandering around in exile, still at war with his enemy, biding his time to come back and reclaim his lands.

Edit: When exactly does the poll close?

The 15th, 10:44. I presume that's 15:44 GMT.

Me being me, I always like to pick the best of both worlds. What exactly hinders us from using a combination of the Draft and Mercenary system? You get as many mercenaries as your priorization limit AND as many recruited units as you have settlements MINUS any mercenaries you hired previously.

Choice is up to the player, everything's possible, problem solved! :2thumbsup:



I haven't read all the rules thouroughly so excuse any wrong assumptions I make. That being said, while the chance of going into exile and then returning with a host of mercenaries sounds intriguing, won't you only be able to hire as many mercenaries as you can prioritize? And I assume priorization is tied with rank, which is tied to land, which you no longer have, so how many mercenaries can you truly recruit in such a situation?

The point I really see for the Mercenaries is to balance out Castles vs. Cities, which would also be achieved by the combination I mentioned above.
And the thing I would not like to give up from the Draft is the added power it gives to your settlements in times of Civil War.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Everyone should make their own decision, however, I favor the mercenary option. TinCow's excellent counterargument aside, there is a question I asked myself. Why use an artificial and convoluted system when there is a clear and in-game option for us to use?

I especially like TinCow's point G. What happens if the remaining player has fewer units when the war ends then he recruited during the war? Can you have a negative number of units?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I especially like TinCow's point G. What happens if the remaining player has fewer units when the war ends then he recruited during the war? Can you have a negative number of units?

---

It is worth emphasizing this. Unless a civil war ends without any fighting at all, under the draft system EVERYONE will end the war with fewer units than they started with, even if they were wildly successful. While the draft system allows people to recruit nice units if they have settlements that can produce them, the blanket disbanding system also encouraged people to not use those units in battle because after the war is over they're going to have a hard time maintaining their strength and will need all the elite units they can get. Under the merc system, it's in your interests to send your recruits to the front lines of all battles.

Overall, people need to be aware that the draft system ties you far more closely to the Seneschal then the Merc system. Under the draft system, you need to have at a minimum a well-upgraded settlement, which means sucking up to the Seneschal because there is no independent prioritized construction system. Those that have been out of favor with the Seneschal for a while will be more vulnerable to losing a Civil War under the draft system than under the Merc system. The Merc system doesn't negate any advantages held before the war begins, but it keeps the situation relatively even after the war has broken out. Under the draft system, the stronger party will keep getting stronger the longer the war goes on.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it simply requires people to plan ahead more. I am fine with that and would be happy playing with it myself. I just want people to be aware of the implications of both sides. On a personal note, I would be far happier with the draft system if it had a cap on the maximum number of units that could be recruited per turn and if prioritized construction was re-introduced to give people a say in the development of their settlements.

Personally I voted for the draft system, not out of some intense dislike of the ideas in the mercenary system, but simply because I am wary of tying our rules too closely to the game - which can be tediously rigid at times.

Really, I am all for compromise. I hear the arguments for the merc system, and they are good. None the less, I would be against using only the merc system. So can we perhaps do something to combine the two?

Of course, the downside is more rule drafting....

Please no more rule drafting.

Combining systems seems a nice middle path but all systems will have + and -, thinking they will disappear with a hybrid concept is not going to happen.

You've got two very good systems in place with pros and cons, pick and let get on with it.

I took a look through the LOTR rules again out of curiosity, since prioritized buildings had not come up during my own term as Megas, or as far as I recall in the first months I was in the game. It appears the highest ranking member of the House (if he were at least an Antypatos) could prioritize a single building per term. I suppose for this game that power would be given to Dukes.

That's 1 building every ten turns, per House. I guess if a House was unlucky enough to get a Seneschal that was not only an enemy but completely unwilling to compromise, while also facing no political consequences for treating one group extremely poorly and recruiting no buildings at all for them, and this Seneschal (or perhaps successive allies with the same political views) managed to win the position for something like half the expected lifespan of the game (let's say 4-5 terms) then maybe that House would benefit for having been able to build the barracks in a single province to high level. Or maybe they have conquered decently developed settlements over the course of the game, and so were able to improve 4-5 settlements from ok barracks to slightly better ones, which is the most optimistic use of the power I can see that would affect civil war recruitment.

I guess I just don't see why that would have a major effect. Having completely antagonistic Seneschals for long enough to really take advantage of the power seems extremely unlikely. To really give the power a stronger effect the number of prioritized settlements would have to be increased, but that would make being Seneschal more of a busy work position than one of power. We're already weakening the position from LOTR by changing the prioritized unit system to allow nobles to pick the exact units hired.

The power was not used often in LOTR and I see no compelling reason to add it into this game. Lots of the powers that were not included in this rule system had interesting implications if used a certain way but never were, and cluttered the rules. I see no compelling reason as of yet to add this one back in.

I do think the draft rules might need some tweaking if they're chosen, but overall I like it somewhat better than the merc system. I think either would work, however, and will abide by the poll (which is still fairly close).

Very fair points, and I accept your conclusions. Looks like I better make friends with someone who has a castle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Overall, people need to be aware that the draft system ties you far more closely to the Seneschal then the Merc system. Under the draft system, you need to have at a minimum a well-upgraded settlement, which means sucking up to the Seneschal because there is no independent prioritized construction system. Those that have been out of favor with the Seneschal for a while will be more vulnerable to losing a Civil War under the draft system than under the Merc system. The Merc system doesn't negate any advantages held before the war begins, but it keeps the situation relatively even after the war has broken out. Under the draft system, the stronger party will keep getting stronger the longer the war goes on.

---

That's possible but it is not necessarily how I see things playing out. What will happen over the course of a long civil war is that drafts will start to be more important than starting armies. With mercenaries, that will happen much more slowly. The difference is not so much drafts vs mercs, but the rate of recruitment: a potential 10 drafts per settlement per term vs each noble's prioritisation of mercs (1-3) per term. It's not clear to me that the party with more settlements will start as the strong party, but if it is, so be it - land is power. What the rules were designed to counter was the "civil war as coup" threat that seems implicit in the current Seneschal recruitment rules. You build up a strong army through a supportive Seneschal and then blitz while your opponents are powerless because they cannot recruit. I am not sure 1-3 mercs per term will do much to reduce that risk. Drafting won't either, unless you have a lot more settlements on your side than the coup plotters have on theirs.

The rules do favour castles (which I suspect will mean Dukes), but again, so be it - castles are supposed to give better troops. But with LTC, the differences between castles and cities are less than people are used to in KotR because spears have received a major boost and missile attacks left alone, while cavalry and foot knights have been nerfed. (Armoured spears and DFK now have the same attack and defence stats). I can see the drafting rules giving rise to an interesting "Spanish civil war" type situation, with hastily raised levies trying to fend off a military coup.

I'm open to tweaking the rules, but whichever we vote for, I think - like the Risk movement poll - we can just say it is the ground rules for the first civil war. When the dust has settled, we will have learnt from the experience and can re-evaluate whether it is still people's preferred system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I think - like the Risk movement poll - we can just say it is the ground rules for the first civil war. When the dust has settled, we will have learnt from the experience and can re-evaluate whether it is still people's preferred system.

---

That's a very strong point. Let's use the draft system as the starting version and just get the game going. We've got the Rule Change system for a reason; if it needs tweaking, we can figure it out later.