Successor game rules, draft one.

[econ21]

Thanks, Cecil. I agree we have probably solved most of these issues. I am still wondering about unit recruitment in a civil war though. This goes back to my view about tabletop battles which is that it is the pre-battle army strength rather than the battle itself which determines the outcome. What we seem to have now is that the Chancellor can decide to pick which priority recruitments to make - so having the Chancellor on your side in the war seems crucial. I might be ok with that [1] but I just want to check that is intended.

[1] It seems to imply rebels will need to have mustered their men before declaring war, or planted a compliant chancellor. I guess the rule requiring all prioritised units to be recruited before any others is some constraint on the chancellor - as is the threat of impeachment - but still. One reason why it may be ok is just the logistical hassle of decentralising unit recruitment and the associated economic model. We trialled such a thing in a co-operative concept before Kotr, but it was just spreadsheet hell.

On choosing the system for resolving PvP strategic movement, my preference would be for Zim to make the call rather than have a vote. Particular systems are likely to favour one side more than another (e.g. the strong initial faction will want a quick resolution, the underdogs may want a guerilla war). We can't expect players to vote impartially in that situation. I would rather Zim decide what is best from the point of view of a realistic simulation and from the point of view of keeping the game moving in a fun manner. He could change things mid-stream too, if the guerilla was just stalling and it was a war of words etc.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I would like to comment on the issue of PvP, more specifically the battles:

(d) - PvP Battles: Whenever two hostile armies enter adjacent squares, a PvP Battle will occur, even if the armies have movement points remaining. If both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with Zim or anyone he chooses acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the The Battle of the Iron Bridge and the Battle of the Basileis and will be umpired by Zim or anyone he chooses. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by Zim or anyone he chooses. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by Zim or anyone he choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.

I think that we may have to rework how we choose exactly what style of battle we fight. In LotR, I count a total of six battles being fought, if we divide the Battle of the Basileis into three separate engagements. Four were tabletop and two were MP. As the umpire for all of the tabletop battles (even though I had help thanks to Zim and TinCow), I was pretty blown out by the end of the PBM.

Now, we do have, by my reckoning, four players that have experience umpiring battles: Myself, Zim, TinCow, and econ21. That *should* be enough to cover everything. But in the case of, say, a Franconia/Austria Civil War that doesn't utilize the "everybody load up and throw it in" mechanic, there might be a string of battles at once. If they're all tabletop, that could seriously slow things down and kill the umpires. Naturally, every player is going to want to fight the full-on tabletop, but sometimes I think that shouldn't happen.

Instead, I propose the following:

If the engagement isn't MP, then there is a vote to determine the exact style, as before. However, it is divided three ways:

- 33% of the vote goes to the participants.
- 33% goes to the entire player base.
- 33% goes to the GM.

In my opinion, this would give a fairer representation to the relative weight of the player base and perhaps work to streamline things.

[TinCow]

I am still wondering about unit recruitment in a civil war though. This goes back to my view about tabletop battles which is that it is the pre-battle army strength rather than the battle itself which determines the outcome. What we seem to have now is that the Chancellor can decide to pick which priority recruitments to make - so having the Chancellor on your side in the war seems crucial. I might be ok with that [1] but I just want to check that is intended.

Yes, having the Chancellor be your ally is crucial during a Civil War and it was intentionally created that way. The way I saw it in LotR (and still do) a properly prepared civil war involves political campaigning to put yourself into a position where you can then seize whatever you want with military power. For the same reason, it is also important to stockpile military units when you can get them so that if an enemy comes after you while a hostile Chancellor is in power, you can still survive. I like this kind of system very much, because it forces people to use politics (and thus IC moves) in order to win civil wars. This seems realistic to me and focuses the game towards domestic interaction rather than attacking the AI.

The end of LotR was a direct result of such a situation. Zim was a heavy backer of Ignoramus, who was the son of the previous Emperor, but had not inherited the throne due to game mechanics. Zim and Ignoramus made sure that Zim got elected as Chancellor, and then Zim used his time to build up massive armies for Ignoramus. When the final war started, this resulted in Ignoramus having such a large force at his disposal that he was essentially invulnerable unless all his foes united against him from the start. They did not do this, and thus Ignoramus was the victor... all because he made sure to get an ally elected as Chancellor and that Chancellor specifically used his powers to boost Ignoramus.

[econ21]

Yes, having the Chancellor be your ally is crucial during a Civil War and it was intentionally created that way. ...

Ok, that's very illuminating. I am a little worried that creating a very powerful strategy like this might distort the game. Now people have seen Ignoramus do it so successfully, there may be a scramble to repeat the trick and make civil war the focus of the game from the outset. I'm not sure that is wise given the problems we have implementing PvP mechanics (not to mention my personal tilt towards cooperative rather than competitive play). I wonder if we should muddy the waters a bit so that "get a Chancellor, then declare civil war" is not guaranteed to be so effective next time? One possibility would be to introduce some kind of "loyalty test" mechanic with units - so that some units may defect or desert from an army. The likelihood of such attrition could depend on the political balance of power. That might make the Chancellor's mega army less likely to conquer all, if he lacks political support.

I guess one basic question to ask is why do we want civil wars in the game? We did not allow for them in the WotS and KotR rules and only really used them to make the bring the game to a conclusion. A good reason for allowing for civil wars is to deal with massive divisive conflicts that get so heated, they can only be resolved by war. The English Civil War and the American Civil War are examples of such things. An additional reason would be for allowing for more minor disputes etc between nobles, but I am not convinced that is the way to go (hence the duelling idea). If we just want civil wars to be "big", we could require some political prerequisite - e.g. only Dukes or higher can declare civil war. That also might be a good way of allowing for some but not all lesser disputes. Personally, I think the competition between players is more fun when done via politicking and jockeying for influence rather than engaging in open warfare.

While talking of declaring war, what are the rules about declaring wars on (edit) civil foreign powers? I see the King can do - is it only the King? Or can the Senate vote for a war?

[Cecil XIX]

Ok, that's very illuminating. I am a little worried that creating a very powerful strategy like this might distort the game. Now people have seen Ignoramus do it so successfully, there may be a scramble to repeat the trick and make civil war the focus of the game from the outset. I'm not sure that is wise given the problems we have implementing PvP mechanics (not to mention my personal tilt towards cooperative rather than competitive play). I wonder if we should muddy the waters a bit so that "get a Chancellor, then declare civil war" is not guaranteed to be so effective next time? One possibility would be to introduce some kind of "loyalty test" mechanic with units - so that some units may defect or desert from an army. The likelihood of such attrition could depend on the political balance of power. That might make the Chancellor's mega army less likely to conquer all, if he lacks political support.

I guess one basic question to ask is why do we want civil wars in the game? We did not allow for them in the WotS and KotR rules and only really used them to make the bring the game to a conclusion. A good reason for allowing for civil wars is to deal with massive divisive conflicts that get so heated, they can only be resolved by war. The English Civil War and the American Civil War are examples of such things. An additional reason would be for allowing for more minor disputes etc between nobles, but I am not convinced that is the way to go (hence the duelling idea). If we just want civil wars to be "big", we could require some political prerequisite - e.g. only Dukes or higher can declare civil war. That also might be a good way of allowing for some but not all lesser disputes. Personally, I think the competition between players is more fun when done via politicking and jockeying for influence rather than engaging in open warfare.

While talking of declaring war, what are the rules about declaring wars on civil powers? I see the King can do - is it only the King? Or can the Senate vote for a war?

I think the chancellor is a little too important in civil wars. While he certainly should be a factor, it seemed like having him on your side was all that mattered. I'm also rather concerned that the results of endgame PVP in KotR and LotR were so obvious in hindsight, rather than closely contested matches. Obviously there's no reason that can't happen some of the time, but if it keeps happening it may indicate a problem.

To answer your question about Civil Wars, we want them for the same reason we want duels. It's odd to not have the option when it makes sense that such things could happen. I like your idea for restrict people's ability to declare though. Perhaps counts can only start civil wars in order to break away from the Houses, either to join another House or to start a new one.

[ULC]

I think the chancellor is a little too important in civil wars. While he certainly should be a factor, it seemed like having him on your side was all that mattered. I'm also rather concerned that the results of endgame PVP in KotR and LotR were so obvious in hindsight, rather than closely contested matches. Obviously there's no reason that can't happen some of the time, but if it keeps happening it may indicate a problem.

To answer your question about Civil Wars, we want them for the same reason we want duels. It's odd to not have the option when it makes sense that such things could happen. I like your idea for restrict people's ability to declare though. Perhaps counts can only start civil wars in order to break away from the Houses, either to join another House or to start a new one.

Which is what I saw as an inherent problem of the civil war system as of now, and it was my opinion that we some how balance this, possibly through a militia or mercenary recruitment, for those who had civil war declared upon them - possibly 2 militia of the highest quality from each settlement under the declared's control, be it a House, the Duke himself, or any of his underlings.