PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[econ21]

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.

[_Tristan_]

I rather like your rules, Econ... but for the sake of the game I don't think we should restrict wars to one instance only at a time.

I can imagine times when a full civil war will be raging and it will be a perfect time for changing allegiances and Houses thus breaking oath (say from a neutral House).

Moreso, I can imagine times when several low-ranking nobles will want to make a stand to their betters, breaking their oaths each from their Houses and siding together against whatever will be thrown at them.

Your rules just prevent this from happening. I fear we may be sorry for the loss.

Your rules as they are worded prevent any opportunistic wars such as we've seen in LotR, and which were rather fun in IMO.

[TinCow]

We're playing in a feudal system, which means that all nobles have their own loyal retainers, no matter what rank they are. If a 'Count' level wants to attack/rebel against a 'Duke' level, he would realistically be able to do so. For these reasons, I would prefer no restrictions on when someone can declare war on another player.

However, I am very much open to changes in the way that recruitment is done. If we can find a method that is fair and easy to implement while not being reliant upon the Chancellor, I would support it.

[econ21]

OK, let's keep declarations of war wholly unconstrained - it does simplify the number of rules (at the cost of making keeping track of who is at war with whom potentially complex).

How about the following rules? These would replace all the rules in section 6 of the current rules, except the last one about battles.

Proposed rules

(a) Declarations of War: A noble may only declare war on another noble at any time. The declaration must be noted in the Chancellor’s report and no noble can attack another noble until the subsequent turn (ie both sides have a full turn of movement before hostilities). A list of who is at war with whom will be maintained for clarity. A noble may only attack another noble if a state of war exists between them.

(b) Ending a war: A state of war between two nobles ends when both make a public declaration of ceasefire (or one dies, is captured etc).

(c)PvP flagging: a noble at war 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
(3) cannot recruit any units except via drafting
(Edit:) A noble automatically stops being PvP flagged when at peace - 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 - players pick - from each settlement they control. This will be done by the GM at the start of each turn before the Chancellor takes the save, provided the Kingdom has the funds. Where funds are scarce, the GM will recruit from settlements in order of seniority (Seniority is determined by intiial population for the 5 starter settlements, then by the time at which the settlement joined the Kingdom).

(e) War weariness: each noble has a war weariness score, which starts at 0 but increases by one each turn they are PvP flagged. When the PvP flag is switched off, the war weariness score remains frozen for 10 turns. Thereafter, every turn they are not PvP flagged reduces war weariness by 1 (0 being the minimum). Once war weariness reaches 5 or more, no more units may be drafted from any of the player's settlements.

(f) Desertion: once war weariness reaches 10 or higher, the PvP flagged character must disband one of their units each turn. The unit must be full strength (merge units if necessary) or, if this not possible, the GM picks. Bodyguards and fleets 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 led to the GM picking the unit to disband.

(g) movement on the campaign map: normal rules apply, but if the GM thinks it best, he may propose alternative mechanics (e.g. phased movement; risk style movement; instant battle) which will be adopted if passed on an OOC vote (unweighted).

Commentary

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(a) and (b) declaring and ending war are written mainly to simplify what we already have and implement TCs idea that declarations of war be totally unconstrained. What we currently have about feudal chains and oath breaking just seems unnecessary. Your vassals should join you in the war - unless they also want to break their oaths, in which case you can declare war on them. I don't think we need rules to automatically place them at war - if they and the oath breaker don't want to be at war, what is served by saying they must be?

PvP flagging: this is a mechanic that allows you to opt out of the peacetime system of the Chancellor ruling everything. If you are at war, you don't have to be PvP flagged - you can still allow the Chancellor to build and recruit etc.

The rules are intended to balance PvP flagging so that it is not overpowered (if it were, people would always want to be in a state of war, most likely phoney).

The benefit of PvP flagging is that you can recruit 1 "free" unit per settlement, up to 5 per settlement.

Some of the disadvantages of PvP flagging are:
- taxes at VH - to simulate unrest (and because your drafting is costing the Kingdom florins).
- no buildings or even repairs (guns or butter)
- no normal recruitment by the Chancellor at your cities

Typically, I would imagine a player who has the Chancellor on side would not want to PvP flag - it is mainly for the "rebel" side.

However, 5 units per settlement is potentially still an important benefit, so the concepts of war weariness and desertion are to further balance things. War weariness first stops you getting more than 5 drafted units per settlement, then exposes you to desertion. Desertion means your army gradually dwindles the longer the war drags on. As a player will tend to disband low quality units (drafting better ones), so desertion will be less of an issue to a powerful player with many units and/or settlements.

Note that since drafting imposes a financial cost on the Kingdom, there will be a pressure from non-combatants for civil wars to end. This seems fitting.

[ULC]

OK, let's keep declarations of war wholly unconstrained - it does simplify the number of rules (at the cost of making keeping track of who is at war with whom potentially complex).

How about the following rules? These would replace all the rules in section 6 of the current rules, except the last one about battles.

Proposed rules

(a) Declarations of War: A noble may only declare war on another noble at any time. The declaration must be noted in the Chancellor’s report and no noble can attack another noble until the subsequent turn (ie both sides have a full turn of movement before hostilities). A list of who is at war with whom will be maintained for clarity. A noble may only attack another noble if a state of war exists between them.

(b) Ending a war: A state of war between two nobles ends when both make a public declaration of ceasefire (or one dies, is captured etc).

(c)PvP flagging: a noble at war 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
(3) cannot recruit any units except via drafting

(d)Drafting: PvP flagged characters may request the recruitment of one available unit - players pick - from each settlement they control. This will be done by the GM at the start of each turn before the Chancellor takes the save, provided the Kingdom has the funds. Where funds are scarce, the GM will recruit from settlements in order of seniority (Seniority is determined by intiial population for the 5 starter settlements, then by the time at which the settlement joined the Kingdom).

(e) War weariness: each noble has a war weariness score, which starts at 0 but increases by one each turn they are PvP flagged. When the PvP flag is switched off, the war weariness score remains frozen for 10 turns. Thereafter, every turn they are not PvP flagged reduces war weariness by 1 (0 being the minimum). Once war weariness reaches 5 or more, no more units may be drafted from any of the player's settlements.

(f) Desertion: once war weariness reaches 10 or higher, the PvP flagged character must disband one of their units each turn. The unit must be full strength (merge units if necessary) or, if this not possible, the GM picks. RBGs and fleets 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 led to the GM picking the unit to disband.

(g) movement on the campaign map: normal rules apply, but if the GM thinks it best, he may propose alternative mechanics (e.g. phased movement; risk style movement; instant battle) which will be adopted if passed on an OOC vote (unweighted).

Commentary

(a) and (b) declaring and ending war are written mainly to simplify what we already have. What we currently have about feudal chains and oath breaking just seems unnecessary. Your vassals should join you in the war - unless they also want to break their oaths, in which case you can declare war on them.

PvP flagging: this is a mechanic that allows you to opt out of the peacetime system of the Chancellor ruling everything. If you are at war, you don't have to be PvP flagged - you can still allow the Chancellor to build and recruit etc.

The rules are intended to balance PvP flagging so that it is not overpowered (if it were, people would always want to be in a state of war, most likely phoney).

The benefit of PvP flagging is that you can recruit 1 "free" unit per settlement, up to 5 per settlement.

Some of the disadvantages of PvP flagging are:
- taxes at VH - to simulate unrest (and because your drafting is costing the Kingdom florins).
- no buildings or even repairs (guns or butter)
- no normal recruitment by the Chancellor at your cities

Typically, I would imagine a player who has the Chancellor on side would not want to PvP flag - it is mainly for the "rebel" side.

However, 5 units per settlement is potentially still an important benefit, so the concepts of war weariness and desertion are to further balance things. War weariness first stops you getting more than 5 drafted units per settlement, then exposes you to desertion. Desertion means your army gradually dwindles the longer the war drags on. As a player will tend to disband low quality units (drafting better ones), so desertion will be less of an issue to a powerful player with many units and/or settlements.

Note that since drafting imposes a financial cost on the Kingdom, there will be a pressure from non-combatants for civil wars to end. This seems fitting.

Ugh, far to complex - however, their are a few gems in there. I was thinking of not a draft, but a militia that could be automatically generated, without cost to the treasury, by the GM, for each settlement under the declared and/or the declaree's settlements on turn one. No further units are generated by the GM afterward.

OR

Each participant in a civil war may recruit a a unit(s) based on their rank each turn or hire mercenaries. This overrides unit prioritization, as it would be done by the GM once each term. However, using this ability forgoes your ability to use unit prioritization.

[econ21]

Ugh, far to complex

What exactly is complex about it? The proposed rules are 400 words, replacing the current 1000. I think PvP is such a big part of the game it deserves some rules. Feudal ranks have 1500 words in the rules.

Yes, I know word count is not exactly a proper measure of complexity, but still... What is complicated? The new elements over what we have are:

Declare you are PvP flagged or not
Keeping a tally of war weariness (counting 1, 2, 3, ...)
The GM recruiting one unit per settlement at turn
The GM disbanding on unit per PvP avatar

I don't really see this as complex. The main thing, about from very trivial book keeping, is that it requires the GM takes possession of the save each turn but I am not convinced this is a biggie.

- however, their are a few gems in there. I was thinking of not a draft, but a militia that could be automatically generated, without cost to the treasury, by the GM, for each settlement under the declared and/or the declaree's settlements on turn one. No further units are generated by the GM afterward.

OR

Each participant in a civil war may recruit a a unit(s) based on their rank each turn or hire mercenaries. This overrides unit prioritization, as it would be done by the GM once each term. However, using this ability forgoes your ability to use unit prioritization.

The problem with these ideas is balancing - who does not want extra troops? The war weariness, desertion and other rules are to introduce a downside.

[_Tristan_]

I really like this new set of rules, Econ. Under those rules, I think that Methodios' rebellion would have stood a better chance than it did.

The whole PvP flagging concept is revolutionary and would work for me.

EDIT : @ YLC : I don't see why you find this too complex... I don't think yours would be simpler or would be as much tied to the situation in-game.

[ULC]

I really like this new set of rules, Econ. Under those rules, I think that Methodios' rebellion would have stood a better chance than it did.

The whole PvP flagging concept is revolutionary and would work for me.

EDIT : @ YLC : I don't see why you find this too complex... I don't think yours would be simpler or would be as much tied to the situation in-game.

To many variables to keep track of. The GM would be forced to pause the game each turn, recruit, tally the war weariness, reduce if necessary, check units to see if they desert (all involved in the war).

Mine simply requires forwarding each players prioritizations at the start of the term to the GM, who then recruits them, impartial to the current war. This is a once check thing, that does not require any tally checking beyond what we are already asking to be kept.