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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

- 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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.