Successor game rules, draft one.

[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.