PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[ULC]

I'd prefer we didn't and that comes from someone who played a character whose traits could make him cross the Sinai in a single turn...

Allowing our characters and anyone else to move faster will do nothing to curb our expansionism, which seems to be one of the main concerns.

Actually, it will - the AI will be able to respond faster and in greater force, while we bicker amongst ourselves. We already have limitations on expansion by insuring that any captured settlement will stagnate and rebel if not heavily garrisoned, basically causing us to hold off on jumping to the next settlement until the next council session.

Increasing the speed won't change much except allow us to get to each others throats better.

[_Tristan_]

I'm not convinced... I prefer we do not change too much of the original game files except for some "pruning" because we do not know the long-term effects on the game.

And I know that if I can move twice faster there will be no limits to my greed...

[econ21]

(2) would work... in fact it did work in the final civil war of the game. We got sick of the problems with the basic LotR system, so I used my 'event' power to make the final game-ending war into (2).

Good link, tx - personally, for the reasons I gave before, I would like to see use adopt something concrete like that before the game starts rather than work it all out as an event at the time.

Reading the thread, my impression was that it was not so much the strategic movement that slowed things down (I think you gave people only a day or so to submit orders), but resolution of the battles? We may need to think a bit more about battle mechanics.

That said, I honestly think (3) would be faster than (2).

I think the wars would be resolved faster, but I am not sure that is a virtue. I guess this is partly if we want to model a war or a Lothar/Trent style "execution".

If we are designing rules for a climactic civil war when people are losing interest, then yes, cutting to the chase is good.

But if we are allowing for minor borderwars and expect PvP wars to be ongoing for around one third of the time, then my preference would be to come up with some relatively unobtrusive rules that let unaffected parties go about their normal business and allow combatants to maneouvre and recruit.

I am wondering if a good way to proceed is incrementally and try to get agreement on some parts of the package of PvP rules, then bundle it all together. I can see at least four broad areas:

(1) rules for who can war on who
(2) rules for strategic movement
(3) rules for PvP battles
(4) rules for recruitment

At the moment, I think we are coalescing around:

(1) laissez-faire - anyone can attack anyone, any time
(2) either option [2], accelerated WEGO, or [3] risk style WEGO
(3) MP or put it to a vote - but may need to rethink that given issue of speed and GHs point about quantity of GM involvement required
(4) no agreement yet (various options - Chancellor recruits; no recruitment; econ21 drafting/desertion; YLC militia/desertion etc)

[ULC]

I'm not convinced... I prefer we do not change too much of the original game files except for some "pruning" because we do not know the long-term effects on the game.

And I know that if I can move twice faster there will be no limits to my greed...

I believe you have played BC, correct? Tell me, is the AI able to capitalize on the fast movement rates?

[TinCow]

Good link, tx - personally, for the reasons I gave before, I would like to see use adopt something concrete like that before the game starts rather than work it all out as an event at the time.

Reading the thread, my impression was that it was not so much the strategic movement that slowed things down (I think you gave people only a day or so to submit orders), but resolution of the battles? We may need to think a bit more about battle mechanics.

That's true, but it only applies to Tabletop battles. The two MP battles were very quick. Abbreviated Tabletop is (IMHO) a brilliant compromise between strategy and speed, but it was never used in LotR. Honestly, if PvP battles are rare (which was the case in every game we've ever played so far, even LotR), then sitting around for a couple weeks while one is resolved isn't a big deal. It's only if they start coming fast and furious that the time on the actual battles becomes an issue. MP is its own thing, removed from all issues, because it is not only the fastest method, it's also the most accurate way of representing the actual battle.

I think the wars would be resolved faster, but I am not sure that is a virtue. I guess this is partly if we want to model a war or a Lothar/Trent style "execution".

If we are designing rules for a climactic civil war when people are losing interest, then yes, cutting to the chase is good.

But if we are allowing for minor borderwars and expect PvP wars to be ongoing for around one third of the time, then my preference would be to come up with some relatively unobtrusive rules that let unaffected parties go about their normal business and allow combatants to maneouvre and recruit.

I am wondering if a good way to proceed is incrementally and try to get agreement on some parts of the package of PvP rules, then bundle it all together. I can see at least four broad areas:

(1) rules for who can war on who
(2) rules for strategic movement
(3) rules for PvP battles
(4) rules for recruitment

At the moment, I think we are coalescing around:

(1) laissez-faire - anyone can attack anyone, any time
(2) either option [2], accelerated WEGO, or [3] risk style WEGO
(3) MP or put it to a vote - but may need to rethink that given issue of speed and GHs point about quantity of GM involvement required
(4) no agreement yet (various options - Chancellor recruits; no recruitment; econ21 drafting/desertion; YLC militia/desertion etc)

The point isn't that wars should be faster, but that they need to result in actual fighting. The problem in LotR was simply that war would be declared and then people would sit around doing nothing. I don't have any problems with wars taking a while to play out, but it seems to me like the mechanisms that allow wars to last a long time are the same mechanisms that tend to make them Phony Wars. We just need to make sure that civil wars eventually result in a battle, or they become toothless like they were for a large part of LotR. If that can be accomplished while still allowing for a leisurely pace, it's fine with me, though I remain skeptical that we can find that happy medium.

[_Tristan_]

Being one of the main participants in the War of Words, I think I'm entitled to my say about why it ended up like that. That may shed some light on what needs to be done to make things happen.

First of all was the distance that either Ioannis or Methodios had to cross to get to the opposition. Doubling the movement rates might have lessened that problem.

Second, I saw the rebellion at the time as a direct and potentblow against the power of the Komnenoi, one that I thought would bring swift retaliation, the more so when I witnessed almost every character flogging to the Imperial banner. Hence I prepared for a siege situation that never came. The PvP flagging or desertion mechanism could have forced one or both parties to get a move on.

Last, the way recruitment worked in LotR, Methodios had to make do with what he could in terms of unit (and that was not much), having the Chancellor fully against him and afterwards the treasury in the red. I must admit that if Econ's rules of recruitment had been implemented at the time, the bonus units would certainly have pushed me to bring the fight to Igno. As it was, I didn't even have a fleet to cross the sea to Greece and Asia Minor.

I don't know if any of this makes sense but at least these are some of the remedies that may prevent another war of words.

One thing to consider also is the fact that France and its neighbours are much more tightly packed than Byzantium with a lot of mountains and the sea as the main way of exapnsion.

Here, the conquests will either go towards Spain, the HRE or maybe Italy and the British Isles but the distances involved are much shorter unless we have the Duke of Rennes declaring war on the Count of Hamburg (and still...)

[Cecil XIX]

I would still prefer to pick rules systems for PVP on a case-by-case basis, which econ quoted as the current draft rules. There seems to be a trade off between the speed with which the war is resolved the and the control players have over the armies. LotR rules should work fine for wars between adjacent provinces, and we can move toward faster rulesets as distances warrant. If we work out what these rulesets are before hand I don't think it will be a big deal to decide which to use on a case-by-case basis. Finally, this would allow us to test a variety of rule sets, and I think more testing is something our PVP could really use.

[TinCow]

One thing to consider also is the fact that France and its neighbours are much more tightly packed than Byzantium with a lot of mountains and the sea as the main way of exapnsion.

Here, the conquests will either go towards Spain, the HRE or maybe Italy and the British Isles but the distances involved are much shorter unless we have the Duke of Rennes declaring war on the Count of Hamburg (and still...)

I do completely agree that a game in which everyone was much closer geographically would solve lots of the problems. However, if KotR and LotR have shown us anything, it's that players like expanding to distant and hard-to-reach places. It's very likely that eventually the KotF players will reach spots that are pretty remote or otherwise hard to get to from France. Britain is an obvious and easy avenue of expansion, and Scotland would certainly be a pain to get to at normal movement rates for anyone not in middle or northern France. While Spain is relatively easily accessible, conquering Spain inevitably leads to conquests in North Africa. Getting to North Africa from France is just as hard as getting to Egypt from Constantinople. This is what we need to be concerned with: wars that begin after the game has been going for several months, not wars that begin while we're all still close to one another.

Perhaps multiple systems is the way to go then. The basic system works in the beginning, and the faster system only needs to be imposed after we expand. We just need to make sure the faster systems really are used later on when they're needed.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I suggest that whenever two hostile armies are in the same province a battle will occur. This means that armies don't have to be next to each other and PvP battles will be fought. If going with the LotR system(armies have to be next to each other) then there will be situations where there could be 1 tile between hostile armies but there will be no fighting. I think this is how battles were fought in MTW?

[econ21]

From the poll, it looks like the Risk style system will be implemented for the first civil war. I wonder if the following rules would do for what we want. They are a little long, but we can regard them as separate from the core rules - sort of like the tournament rules or rules for an event.

Rules for Risk style PvP campaign movement

A. Land movement:
1. PvP land movement is by province. Any turn players who are in a state of war with another player (combatants), they may use PvP movement. Alternatively, they may move normally subject to the constraint that they do not enter an enemy province. Non-combatants (neutrals) move normally.
2. Combatants on opposing sides may not occupy the same province at the end of a turn unless one is under siege by the other. If units happen to find themselves in enemy provinces other than by PvP movement – e.g. at the start of the war – then the GM will “teleport” them to the nearest friendly province.
3. Each turn, a combatant may move each unit to an adjacent province. This is done by submitting written orders in secret to the GM. The GM will then simultaneously execute all orders.
4. On the campaign map, the GM will place units moving by PvP movement in or adjacent to the settlement of the province they enter or reside (it is possible to use PvP movement to stay within a province, but group up at or adjacent to the settlement). Combatants wishing their units to be placed at alternative locations in a province (e.g. to hold a bridge against the AI) should use normal movement.
5. Should orders result in enemy units occupying the same province, a PvP battle may be fought. The GM will inform all sides of the units occupying the province and then both sides should secretly give the GM their pre-battle option: (a) fight; (b) retreat; (c) retreat behind settlement walls (if the player controls the settlement)
6. All battles that take place in a given turn are resolved before any retreats are executed – even pre-battle ones. If there are multiple battles in a turn, they are resolved sequentially in a random sequence.
7. Retreats are executed by units retreating to the province they came from or, if they were stationary, to an adjacent province not occupied by an enemy unit (their choice). If there are no such provinces, the army cannot retreat.
8. Only 20 units can retreat behind settlement walls (whether damaged or not) – any excess are disbanded. Units can be merged prior to retreat. If there are any disagreements between allies on which units retreat, the owner of the settlement decides.

B. Implications of PvP movement for land battles
1. If units from one player enter a province occupied by units of his enemy, then the entrant is regarded as the attacker. In a PvP battle, the GM will give the defender some suitable advantage in terms of choice of terrain (e.g. first pick of map side in Multiplayer). After a battle, the attacker must retreat unless he defeats the defender (draws and standoffs are treated as victories for the defender).
2. If neither side began the turn with a unit in a province, then the battle is regarded as a meeting engagement. Neither side will have an advantage of terrain
3. Bridge battles: if on the strategic map, all attacking units side could only have entered a province via a bridge, the battle will be modelled as a bridge battle.
4. The losing side of a battle can retreat any surviving units according to A7 (but the GM implements this only after all battles are resolved)

C. Implications for siege battles
1. If one side has retreated behind settlement walls, then the attacker may assault the settlement that turn or besiege the settlement.
2. Besieged armies can only exit the settlement if all enemy units leave the province, if they win a sally battle or if a relieving army attacks the province and wins. The GM will specify how besieged armies can hold out before automatically surrendering and may model attrition, guided by how the game engine models sieges involving the player vs the AI.
3. If a relieving army enters a province, there is a field battle with the besieger’s positioned between the relief army and the besieged garrison. For simplicity, the settlement (and the garrisons need to exit through the settlement gates) need not be represented in the battle.
4. If a garrison loses a sally or relief battle, survivors may retreat behind the settlement walls at the GMs discretion. They cannot retreat anywhere else. If garrison is in good order after the battle (it sallied only to impose some losses on the attacker), a retreat is appropriate. If it is utterly crushed, the GM may just declare the siege won.

D. Naval movement
1. While PvP land army movement is by province, PvP sea movement is by port. Unlike land movement, combatant ships may NOT move normally. All combatant owned ships must start each turn either (a) in a friendly port; (b) blockading an enemy port; or (c) a transit area (represented on the campaign map by being placed somewhere in the relevant zone at sea).
2. Each turn, players can give the GM secret orders to move their ships to any other port in the same sea zone or to the transit area for an adjacent sea zone. There three sea zones: the Black Sea; the Mediterranean; and the Atlantic – Gibraltar and Constantinople demarcate those zones.
3. Each sea zone has an associated transit area. No sea battles between combatants can take place in transit areas. Enemy ships may share the same transit area. Ships may stay indefinitely in a transit area. (These are all abstractions made for simplicity).
4. If orders lead to enemy fleets being at the same port, then a naval battle may result. The parties communicate their orders: (a) fight; (b) retreat; (c) retreat inside port – if the port is friendly.
5. If opposing combatants both fight, then the GM will resolve the sea battle. All sea battles are resolved before retreat options are executed.
6. Retreat orders are executed by returning ships to the port they originated to, provided it remains friendly and not subject to blockade. If the ships did not move, or their port of origin is no longer eligible to receive them (e.g. it is captured or blockaded), they may move to any non-blockaded friendly or neutral port (note: in the latter case, they would become owned by the neutral!). Ships may not retreat to transit areas. If no ports are eligible to receive a ship, that ship may not retreat before battle and is disbanded after battle if required to retreat.
7. If one side retreats inside the port, it is blockaded. Blockaded ships cannot leave a port except to fight a sea battle against the ships blockading them. Such a battle expends their movement for that turn.

E. Naval movement of land units
1. Land units that begin a turn in province that has a unblockaded port with friendly ships may be transported by those ships (2 units per ship). The GM will disband land units travelling with ships if losses from sea battles mean there are no longer enough ships to carry them (which units are lost is randomised).
2. Land units transported by ship end the turn in the destination province provided only if any of the following conditions apply: (a) it has a friendly or neutral port that is not blockaded by enemy ships; (b) it has an enemy port unoccupied by enemy ships; (c) it has an enemy port under blockade by friendly ships. (This implies, as in Shogun, that an enemy province can only be subject to naval landings if it has port infrastructure – this is rationalised by supply issues. It also implies that the blockading side effectively controls the surrounding waters, facilitating or obstructing landings.)
3. Land units transported by sea to a province held by enemy land units are treated just as if they entered by land. They may retreat before battle (effectively a feint or threatened landing), but not after battle (think Bay of Pigs).

[econ21]

Here is a revision of the earlier rules for unit recruitment during PvP combat:

(a)PvP flagging: a noble at war with another may declare they are PvP flagged. The settlements of PvP flagged nobles:
(1) must set taxes to VH where possible
(2) cannot construct or repair buildings (including walls!)
(3) cannot recruit any units except via drafting
noble automatically stops being PvP flagged when at peace with all - once switched on, the flag cannot be switched off while the noble is still at war.

(d)Drafting: PvP flagged characters may request the recruitment of one available unit (including ships) - players pick - from each settlement they own for the first five turns they are at war. The PvP flagged player must keep a record of the accumulated purchase cost of their own recruitment. Recruitment will be done by the GM at the start of each turn before the Chancellor takes the save. If the Kingdom lacks the funds to draft, the console will be used to generate the extra funds. The GM will keep a record of extra funds provided by the console.

(e) Demobilisation: starting on the 6th turn at which the noble is at war, the PvP flagged character must disband one unit per turn. This is done by giving orders to disband a full strength drafted unit or, if this not possible, non-mercenary units of equal or greater purchase price. Units may be merged to help with this process, but the console cannot be used to artificially split units. If the unit has insufficient units to disband, buildings may be destroyed to generate the required funds. The noble’s avatars are not considered units for the purposes of desertion. Disbandment orders are to be communicated to the GM and implemented at the same time as drafting (ie before any other actions that turn). Failure to communicate will lead to the GM picking the unit(s) to disband. When a player ceases to be PvP flagged, any drafted units in their army that have not been disbanded, are disbanded if at full strength (or, if not possible, non-mercenary units of at least equal purchase cost).

(f) Long wars: if a PvP character stays at war longer than 10 turns, the process of drafting and disbanding resets. On turns 11 to 15, one new unit per settlement may be drafted per turn; on turns 16-20, one new unit disbanded etc. Resets continue every 10 turns.

(g) National debt: when the Kingdom returns to peace, the GM will use the console to subtract from the console any extra funds that were added to help pay for the drafts.

Commentary:
- The main purpose of these rules – specifically drafting - is to allow combatants who do not have or who have not had the support of the Seneschal to still recruit some forces in a civil war by becoming “PvP flagged”. Other combatants may prefer to get their prioritsed units and maybe more by the normal rules.
- The concept of demobilisation is introduced to try to balance drafting. Over a 10 year period, the PvP flagged player will average an extra 3 units by these rules. This is only one more than the 2 prioritised units they would get as Barons under normal recruitment rules. The additional one unit is balanced by the prohibition on building and the fact that all drafted units are disbanded when war ends.
- The main changes in these rules from the previous ones I proposed are (a) allowing for “long wars”; (b) quicker (and complete peacetime) disbandment to make it unattractive to go PvP flagged in a phoney war to accumulate extra troops; (c) national debt to allow recruitment even when the Seneschal has (perhaps deliberately) driven the country into the red.

Any thoughts?

[Andres]

This is all starting to get very complicated. I know there's a lot to say for making the civil war as "real" as possible, but the complexity is starting to get scary to a degree that I, for one, will probably avoid civil war at all costs just because of this.

We should remember that this is a game and the main purpose is fun. I remember that in LoTR there were some phases where we were only discussing rules and rule changes and nothing else. I, for one, am participating for the role playing aspect. Discussing rules and nitpicking about rules is like... work

The more rules, the more discussions about rules, the more risk for conflicts between players.

Risk style sounded very nice and shiny, but in retropsect, I'm more and more starting to lean to the instant battle solution, maybe with some rolling of dice to decide terrain advantage and weather conditions (e.g.: for every command star, you get one die; there are rolled risk style, the one who "wins" gets terrain advantage; the more dice left, the greater the terrain advantage) and the size of your army to fight the unique battle being related to the number of vassals and provinces you have. The civil war army only being created for the civil war and being non existant on the campaign map.

Advantages: simple and quick and no risks of an accidental breach of rules.

Just my

[TinCow]

I think can come up with some simpler rules for a Risk-style system. I'll draft up something later this afternoon/evening for discussion. I think one of the keys is to concentrate for the moment on only setting out rules for movement on the campaign map. Battle Umpires already have complete control over how the actual battles are fought and what the results are. If we continue that tradition, we can skip almost all rules about how the actual battles themselves are to be handled.

[Ramses II CP]

Okay, do we need specific mechanics for forts? Consider Adana; if the passes are held by forts then it would make little sense for a field battle to occur just because two armies were present in the province on different sides of a fort. What if the fort is held by a neutral party?

Also is the intent that forces can only move a *single* province per 1.5 years? This could still end up making for a very slow war once we expand. Or is a 'turn' a set of moves within the game's 1.5 years, such that, for example, each force gets 5 turns to move (Across five provinces) per that 1.5 years, resulting in some ability to maneuver?

I like it, but I want civil wars to really move and not drag on.

[Andres]

I think we should start thinking out of the box.

The Total War game engine is not made for a civil war from players vs. players. What we are now trying to do is making insanely complex rules to make it work within the TW engine.

If a civil war is declared, we should lift that conflict outside the Total War game, so to speak and have it fought out in a simple format.

Yes, I know, it would be more fun to have a civil war going on for two or three years, with niceties as blocking mountain passes, shipping troops to do a quick attack on an unprotected province, but all of that candy cannot be done in an easy, convenient way.

I'm all for lifting out the civil war of the game and playing it on a different level.

In short:

1) Freeze the game for 5 days maximum when civil war is declared.
2) a) OR: peace treaty;
b) OR: One decisive battle; size of army determined by provinces and number of vassals; terrain advantage determined by rolling dice, taking into account command stars of leading generals; weather decided by fate. Once the circumstances are fixed proceed to table top battle or MP battle using TW engine. After the battle is over, the winner decides on the fate of the loser (release him, keep him captive and release later in return for whatever price, kill him). Winner can also do as he pleases with possessions of the loser.
3) Make changes through console if necessary because the decisions made in step 2).
4) Unfreeze the game.

Simple and quick and no need to bother with complicated rules.

EDIT: look at the tournament and duel thing. It's great fun, mainly because of its' simplicity.

[_Tristan_]

Simple and quick and no need to bother with complicated rules.

EDIT: look at the tournament and duel thing. It's great fun, mainly because of its' simplicity.

I would love it if we could accomplish something of the kind but I don't think it's possible.

Why ?

Simply because the tourney/duel minigame is in itself totally out of the game. It has simply no existence in game, even if we tried to create some basis out of the avatar game-stats.

However, Civil Wars are just that : Wars. And that's the whole point of M2TW, fighting wars, be it against the AI or against others players (think MP or PBeM Hostseat campaigns).

And we have already everything we need : units, terrain, etc and I think it would be shame not to make use of that basis in our PvP system.

Now, we may need to simplify but not too much. If I could, I would prefer to fight those PvP wars in MP (though I'm totaly inexperienced there) but I can't seem to make it work...

Why should we be able to use the strategic map to devise attack plans against the reportedly dumb and toothless AI and not be able to do that against capable players who are able to bite back...

[Andres]

I would love it if we could accomplish something of the kind but I don't think it's possible.

Why ?

Simply because the tourney/duel minigame is in himself totally out of the game. It has simply no existence in game, even we tried to create some basis out of the avatar game stats.

However, Civil Wars are just that : Wars. And that's the whole point of M2TW, fighting wars, be it against the AI or against others players (think MP or PBeM Hostseat campaigns).

And we have already everything we need : units, terrain, etc and I think it would be shame not to make use of that basis in our PvP system.

Now, we may need to simplify but not too much. If I could, I would prefer to fight those PvP wars in MP (though I'm totaly inexperienced there) but I can't seem to make it work...

Why should we be able to use the strategic map to devise attack plans against the reportedly dumb and toothless AI and not be able to do that against capable players who are able to bite back...

Because of the amount of rules required to make it work... The more rules, the more discussions/nitpicking about rules in the OOC threads = less fun.

Less complexity would make the game more accessable and, imo, more fun.

Maybe it's just because for me, personally, the bickering during the Senate sessions, gaining influence in the Senate, the behind the scenes plotting and intrigues to get votes in the Senate for a certain edict or a certain candidate are the fun part of the game.

Civil war is just another way to achieve something but it shouldn't go on endlessly or be emphasized too much. It's also a burden for the Chancellor and, imo, will inevitably slow down the game.

I'd prefer Civil wars to be decided quickly so that the rest of the game can move on asap.

But that's just my opinion, coloured by my personal preferences.

[_Tristan_]

I agree with you Andres that CW are just another tool to have fun in this game but by oversimplifying that part, we may lose some of that fun factor...

I would also like to see a quick resolution to CW but not to the detriment of the fun that can be had by out-thinking your opponent on the strategic map. That was one of the most fun part of hotseat campaings as some here can attest (Zim, Ramses ).

We must not forget that how much we want it to be otherwise this is a wargame (with an element of RPG) and not the other way round... If Iwanted to play a RPG with a touch of wargame, I'd go play D&D or WoW or whatever would suit the definition...

So let us stick to the maximum to the original game, enacting rules (as simple as possible, if need be) that makes the most of the system at hand.

I know this is just my point of view but I think some may share it.

[AussieGiant]

This is a little like discussing van Gough in an art class.

I'm all for discussion but there needs to be decisions and some leadership on this as to what the best overall solution is.

[econ21]

This is all starting to get very complicated.

I should have started my proposed rules for the Risk system like the opening of the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy. "Don't panic!"

While I was waiting at a squash court, I happened to look on the rules for squash posted on the wall and they were very long, seemingly complex. It was not light reading. But once you start playing squash it is pretty straightforward.

Personally, I think the phased movement system would be simpler to write rules for because it is constrained by the M2TW game engine - all you do is give your orders to the GM to make it WEGO and he uses the reset command on the console to double your movement.

If, as the poll suggests, we go for the Risk system, it will inevitably be a little more tricky to operationalise because we are trying to mimic a first generation TW engine (STW/MTW) with a second generation one (M2TW). However, I do think it will be simple in practice.

I suggest we start off just letting combatant units move to an adjacent province each turn. [We could allow faster movement, but I think that will just make things complex.] And that is the system. The rest is just commentary. To make it work, I think only one side's units should be allowed to end the turn in a province (unless besieged). Let neutrals move normally. That's it.

I think half my rules are about naval movement, which we will need - especially given TCs plausible scenario about us taking Britain. However, that again can be simple to a Shoggie/MTW vet. You move by ports. If enemy ships block yours, you have to beat em or beat it.

It's not complicated really, except to document.

Also is the intent that forces can only move a *single* province per 1.5 years? This could still end up making for a very slow war once we expand. Or is a 'turn' a set of moves within the game's 1.5 years, such that, for example, each force gets 5 turns to move (Across five provinces) per that 1.5 years, resulting in some ability to maneuver?

In the draft rules, TC suggested moving 2, 1, 3, provinces per turn whatever. I think it will make life a lot easier to start with one. Then it is just like the Shogun/MTW we know. I don't think you would gain anything by allowing 5 movements each of one province in 1.5 years. It would take about the same player time as just playing out five game turns. But it would weight the odds heavily in favour of the larger starting armies in the civil war, which personally I am not keen on (going back to the coups vs wars argument). One province per game turn would also sync well with allowing recruitment of one unit per settlement per turn (as in STW/MTW).

Okay, do we need specific mechanics for forts? Consider Adana; if the passes are held by forts then it would make little sense for a field battle to occur just because two armies were present in the province on different sides of a fort. What if the fort is held by a neutral party?

We could do. My principle in writing draft rules for the Risk system was to mimic STW/MTW which had no forts. Overlooking some terrain features seems part of the price for choosing the Risk system over the phased one. However, if people really want it modelled, it might be the kind of detail we could leave the GM to iron out when we see the actual war front.

I'm all for discussion but there needs to be decisions and some leadership on this as to what the best overall solution is.

Please bear with us a little longer - we are getting there. The poll is deciding what people think is the best movement - it's still looking like Risk. After that, the only thing left is recruitment during a civil war, which I don't think we have discussed enough to identify a best solution.

[Ramses II CP]

Mmm, let me suggest this: Allow armies to move 3-5 provinces 'Risk' style per year but make the commanders issue all the movement orders at the start. For example Party A orders a move from Paris to Marsellies while Party B wants to go from Toulouse to Metz. The parties send the list of provinces they want to move through to the GM and the GM implements each province hop simultaneously. If they run into each other in the middle there's a battle.

If we stick to the one province rule wars are still going to be extremely slow and almost absurdly predictable. The two sides will essentially have to agree, OOC, on where they want to meet up to prevent wandering all over chasing each other one step at a time. I don't mind slanting things towards the larger standing army because, well, they have the larger standing army. Isn't that supposed to be an advantage?

If I had realized the Risk system was tied to single province movement I might well not have voted for it, although I suppose I should've figured that out from the Shogun/MTW comparison.

[TinCow]

Alright, here's my attempt at a simpler rule set for the Risk-style system. I'm writing this to slot into Zim's current rule draft under sections 6(d) and 6(e). Other tweaks will likely be needed to 6(a), (b), and (c) to fix any references in those bits to campaign map movement, but those would be minor.

-----

(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map: While a Civil War is in progress, all players involved in the Civil War will lose their ability to make any moves on the campaign map. On every game turn, all players involved in the Civil War will submit a PM to Zim, or anyone he chooses, giving movement orders for that turn. These movement orders can include up to a maximum of two of the following orders:

(1) - Gather: The player may gather units he owns that are located in the same province as his avatar, but which are not currently located in his avatar's army. All units specified in this manner will be teleported into the avatar's army.

(2) - Move: The player may move his avatar's army into any adjacent province.

(3) - Defend: The player fortifies his army in a specific province, providing a terrain advantage if a battle occurs in that province before the player moves again.

After the turn ends, Zim will implement all moves for players involved in the Civil War, utilizing the console. The orders will be executed simultaneously for all players, but in the sequence they were listed in the PMs (i.e. Order 1 will be implement for all players, followed by Order 2 for all players). If this movement results in a player entering a province with a hostile AI-controlled army, Zim will determine whether a battle against the AI will occur. Movement will continue in this manner until two hostile player-controlled armies enter the same province. When this occurs, a PvP Battle will begin. All PvP Battles will be considered Meeting Engagements, in which neither side has a terrain advantage, unless one of the armies was Defending the province where the battle occurred. If this happens, the defending army will get a terrain advantage in the following manner: (1) If the province is owned by the Defender, the battle will be a siege assault of the settlement. (2) If the province is not owned by the Defender, the battle map will be chosen such that a terrain advantage, such as a high mountain, fort, or bridge is given to the Defender. The Umpire of the battle will determine the precise nature of the terrain advantage.

(e) - PvP Battles: Whenever a PvP Battle occurs, if both players agree, the battle... (the rest is all the same.)

------------

Using the above system, people can use a combination of Gather, Move, and Defend orders. You could Gather and then Move, Move and then Gather, Move twice, Move and Defend, Gather and Defend, etc. That provides for a decent amount of strategy, given that you can move into any province. It is also easy to tweak the pace of the war on the fly by changing the word "two" in the first paragraphs to whatever number is deemed appropriate. Issues of conflicts with AI armies are handled by Zim, which avoids having to deal with it now. These rules only apply to civil war participants, so no pausing of the game is necessary and turns will continue as normal for all neutrals until a PvP Battle occurs.

[edit] Just realized this doesn't provide a way for crossing water. I would suggest for simplicity and speed that we ignore the need to get a fleet and sail, etc. Instead, Zim can just determine that certain bodies of water take a certain number of turns to cross. For instance, if you're standing in Normandy and want to cross the English Channel, only 1 move order will be required to make this crossing. However, if you're standing in Provence and want to cross to Sicily, 2 move orders will be required to make this crossing, which might require the person to end the turn at sea.

[econ21]

TinCow, I don’t think we need gather or defend as options. Gathering can be covered by regarding all units in a province as already gathered to the owning player. Defending can be covered by regarding any player stationary in a province as the defender against an enemy that enters the province.

Also, I don’t see the point of allowing two moves per turn. It over complicates things - your second move order has to be made before you know the outcome of your first. Hence it is likely to be contingent (if I conquer province A, attack province B; if I am defeated at province A, defend province C). It just seems an unnecessary headache.

Here’s a simplified version of your simple rules:

--------

(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map:

While a Civil War is in progress, all players involved in the Civil War will lose their ability to make any moves on the campaign map. On every game turn, all players involved in the Civil War will submit a PM to Zim, or anyone he chooses, giving movement orders for that turn.

A player can order any unit he owns to move to an adjacent province. After the turn ends, Zim will implement all moves for players involved in the Civil War, utilizing the console. The orders will be executed simultaneously for all players. If this movement results in a unit being in a province with a hostile unit, a PvP battle will begin. All PvP Battles will be considered Meeting Engagements, in which neither side has a terrain advantage, unless one of the armies was stationary in a province and the other entered the province. If this happens, the defending army will get a terrain advantage in the following manner: (1) If the province is owned by the Defender, the battle will be a siege assault of the settlement. (2) If the province is not owned by the Defender, the battle map will be chosen such that a terrain advantage, such as a high mountain, fort, or bridge is given to the Defender. The Umpire of the battle will determine the precise nature of the terrain advantage.

(e) - PvP Battles: Whenever a PvP Battle occurs, if only one side has a noble present, the battle is fought against the AI. If both sides have players, if both sides agree, the battle... (the rest is all the same.)

-------

[econ21]

If I had realized the Risk system was tied to single province movement I might well not have voted for it, although I suppose I should've figured that out from the Shogun/MTW comparison.

Don’t worry, it was not tied - we are debating that now. You want 3-5 moves per turn; TC suggests 2; I'm suggesting one.

If we stick to the one province rule wars are still going to be extremely slow and almost absurdly predictable. The two sides will essentially have to agree, OOC, on where they want to meet up to prevent wandering all over chasing each other one step at a time.

I don’t see that - if you retreat from your settlements, you lose them. If we allow recruitment during war time, which I really think we should, that’s a pretty strong incentive not to let yourself wander or be chased around.

I don't mind slanting things towards the larger standing army because, well, they have the larger standing army. Isn't that supposed to be an advantage?

They will have an advantage in any system, the question is whether we want to amplify that advantage. I don’t because I don’t think players who attack other players should have an amplified advantage (I’m assuming the stronger army will tend to be the aggressor). If anything, I’d rather give the edge to the victim. Plus historically, my hunch is that in every civil war worthy of the name, the starting armies were small compared to the forces levied in the war. I’m thinking here of the English Civil War, the American Civil War, the Chinese Civil War. In all those cases, the decisive factor was the ability to raise troops during the war, not the starting armies.

[TinCow]

TinCow, I don’t think we need gather or defend as options. Gathering can be covered by regarding all units in a province as already gathered to the owning player.

If you do this automatically, you cause several problems. First, you're stripping all garrisons, many of which the owner might want to leave behind to defend against the AI or to provide defenses against his PvP foes so that they can't just walk into his settlements without at least some kind of fight if his main army is in a different province. Second, you have to deal with the issue of a player going over a full stack (which isn't allowed by the rules) just by moving into a province they own. Since this happens automatically, you're going to be having lots of PM conversations that would otherwise be avoided unless a person specifically desired to grab the units.

While I allowed people to go over a full stack army in the final war in LotR, I think for normal PvP we should stick to the normal rules which prevent anyone from being in direct control of anything over a full stack at any one time. If you want to bring more than one stack to a PvP battle, find an ally join your war and lead that army.

Defending can be covered by regarding any player stationary in a province as the defender against an enemy that enters the province.

This is necessary if Gathering is an option, because Gathering requires a person to ride all over the province assembling their army, just like they would have to do if they were doing it by normal movement. Thus, a person attacked while Gathering would not have time to fortify and it would be a normal Meeting Engagement. Plus, it penalizes people who fail to submit orders by removing an automatic defender terrain advantage from them just because they were being lazy.

Also, I don’t see the point of allowing two moves per turn. It over complicates things - your second move order has to be made before you know the outcome of your first. Hence it is likely to be contingent (if I conquer province A, attack province B; if I am defeated at province A, defend province C). It just seems an unnecessary headache.

Ramses already discussed this. Without two moves per turn, the wars will go very slowly. Moving from one province to another in a single turn isn't much of a boost in movement over normal LTC movement rates, and it's certainly under 2x or 2.5x as proposed in the phased movement option. The point of this system was to be even faster than that, thus larger distances have to be crossable in a single turn. I also disagree about it being contingent... despite describing this as Risk, it's not Risk. You don't have to conquer every province you enter. Many will probably belong to allies or neutrals and you'll just be passing through. You can easily move multiple provinces in a single turn without any battles occurring. If a battle occurs on the first round a move, but the civil war isn't ended there, the Umpire can always use his powers to give the victory an extra post-battle order if he feels it appropriate.

In addition, multiple movements helps compensate for people submitting non-move orders, such as Gather or Defend (or any other orders which are inserted into the rules later on). Without multiple orders, Gather and Defend simply have to be eliminated because many turns would result in no movement whatsoever. In fact, I put in two orders per turn to be conservative, I actually think three would be better to keep the speed up.

[woad&fangs]

I like TinCow's system as it is.

[econ21]

I like TinCow's system as it is.

OK, I am happy to go with TinCow's system if - as seems likely - the Risk sytem wins the poll.

Anyone want to offer any opinions on the issue of recruitment during war?

I think the basic idea I presented a while back about allowing players to opt out of Seneschal recruitment and instead train their own men at their own settlement is solid, but the details need more thought.

In the spirit of trying to keep things simple, how about:

Recruitment in Civil War
(a) Nobles in civil war cannot prioritise recruitment. They can train (draft) one unit per turn at each settlement they own. This is done by giving the GM their recruitment order at the same time as they submit their movement orders. The GM recruits drafted units before the Seneschal takes the save, using the console to generate more funds if required.
(b) On turns in which a unit is drafted, the drafting settlement cannot train other units that turn or start new buildings (they can repair), and must set taxes to VH if possible
(c) Every unit drafted raises the combatant's war weariness by 1. Every full strength unit disbanded lowers a combatant's war weariness by 1. War weariness can never be allowed to rise above 5. As soon as the player stops being a combatant or every 10 turns of being at war, sufficient units must be disbanded so as to return war weariness to 0. If this is not possible, any units that come into the player's possession must be disbanded until war weariness is zero. To avoid exploits, players with positive war weariness cannot transfer units to others (or have their units seized by others).

[TinCow]

I like your abbreviated recruitment system, as it is simple and clean. My only concern is the war weariness, as that requires us to keep track of precise numbers of recruits and disbandings for every player. Keeping track of stats like this is one of the things that resulted in some of the worst rules nightmares in LotR. Can you think of a method of doing (c) that doesn't require quite as much number crunching?

Apologies for the continued push for short, simple rules, but the excessively complex rule system was one of LotR's biggest flaws. I think a lot of Throne Room players shrink back in horror now when they see a wall of rule text. If it's not short and punchy, people tend to run screaming for the hills.

[Ramses II CP]

Okay, so I just took a look at the LTC map and crunched some numbers on what I consider to be our likely first term expansion, taking for granted that there won't be a civil war until after the first term at least, when we have something worth fighting over. Five provinces is definitely too much movement, I over-estimated there, but I'd say 2-3 is absolutely necessary. For the first term I think two is enough, but later if we expand through Germany, Italy, or into Africa we may want to consider revising the number upwards.

The idea that you have to defend your settlements only makes sense if one side has overwhelming force at their disposal, if both are relatively equal then strategically the aggressor can't afford to tie himself to a siege with a mobile opponent in the area.

[Vladimir]

OK, I am happy to go with TinCow's system if - as seems likely - the Risk sytem wins the poll.

Anyone want to offer any opinions on the issue of recruitment during war?

I just want to know how the money works. If the civil war is against the sovereign he should loose all revenue from those settlements. Any corruption from those settlements could be reduced or limited because it's based on distance to capital. The rebel leader would receive all money from the settlements but also be responsible for all the upkeep; but, what were his starting funds?

Then, once the war ends, how are the remaining funds calculated? What is done with the money? What about agents in the service of the rebel leader? I hope the king keeps a stable of good assassins because I see civil wars are a pain in the arse.

Okay, so I just took a look at the LTC map and crunched some numbers on what I consider to be our likely first term expansion, taking for granted that there won't be a civil war until after the first term at least, when we have something worth fighting over. Five provinces is definitely too much movement, I over-estimated there, but I'd say 2-3 is absolutely necessary. For the first term I think two is enough, but later if we expand through Germany, Italy, or into Africa we may want to consider revising the number upwards.

There are three that need to be taken straight away, and I have a plan for that. The fourth is also necessary and the fifth is a bonus. Watch out for Milan/Genoa.