PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[econ21]

The issue is that each unit is checked to see if it deserts, and we have another tally that must be kept separately per player.

Each unit does not need to be checked - the PvP flagged players tell the GM units which units are to be drafted and which units to be disbanded (deserted).

PvP already has significant risk, and the extra troops are not extra troops - just simply what you receive form your unit prioritizations, the recruit done once at the start of each term by the GM who is impartial.

The regular prioritisations seem rather small in the context of a civil war. I think they are 1-5 units per 10 turns depending on rank? Under the current rules, you get your prioritisations anyway but is not enough to not stop the "Chancellor backed coup" issue we've been concerned with.

The draft/desert mechanic is an attempt to give the side without the Chancellor more recruitment power without giving them a big advantage over others in the long term.

[ULC]

Yet, why on earth would the side that has prepared this entire time bother having themselves be PvP flagged when they have the chancellor on their side?

In either case, I just simply disagree with the war wearniness, as it's simply compounding the reasons not to go to war with another, and our objective is to bring PvP to the forefront. A Compromise would be to have a unit or two units desert every chancellor term per settlement under the control of those involved in the war, coupled with getting one unit every term.

The fewer numbers we have to keep track of, the better.

[TheFlax]

and our objective is to bring PvP to the forefront.

That's highly subjective, not everyone wants a lot of PvP.

Now about Econ's ruleset, I have a question. How exactly do you unflag yourself from PvP? Unless I read something wrong, it seems to me people would flag themselves from 5 turns, get the extra units and then unflag themselves to avoid desertions.

[econ21]

Yet, why on earth would the side that has prepared this entire time bother having themselves be PvP flagged when they have the chancellor on their side?

As I said in the commentary, I don't think they would. PvP flagging is for the folk who haven't had the Chancellor on side, so need to recruit but won't be able to under the current rules.

How exactly do you unflag yourself from PvP? Unless I read something wrong, it seems to me people would flag themselves from 5 turns, get the extra units and then unflag themselves to avoid desertions.

Good point. Let's say you can only switch the PvP flag off when you are no longer at war. I've now inserted:

(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.

On the war weariness - it is partly intended to stop PvP wars dragging on endlessly. Fans of Civ4 may see some inspiration for the concepts of war weariness and drafting units.

[ULC]

As I said in the commentary, I don't think they would. PvP flagging is for the folk who haven't had the Chancellor on side, so need to recruit but won't be able to under the current rules.

On the war weariness - it is partly intended to stop PvP wars dragging on endlessly.

But only those who do not have the chancellor on their side grow weary of war? It seems heavily in favor of those who plot first to have the chancellor on their side first and simply exaggerates the issues we already have.

I still think all involved in the civil war lose 1 unit per settlement that their opponents control to desertion at the beginning of the session, and those involved can acquire one unit from each of their settlements.

[econ21]

But only those who do not have the chancellor on their side grow weary of war?

Yes, it's the trade off for getting those five extra units.

It seems heavily in favor of those who plot first to have the chancellor on their side first and simply exaggerates the issues we already have.

You are right that having the Chancellor on side is still likely to be a big help (although not so much if many settlements are against him, leaving him with no florins after they have drafted their men). And it is true that the advantage from the Chancellor will grow over time due to war weariness of the rebels. However, it surely does not exaggerate the issues? At least, not exaggerate it compared to the current rules (maybe you are comparing it to some other proposed rules?).

Suppose you don't have the Chancellor on your side, would you rather:
(a) be able to pick 5 units per settlement
(b) have the Chancellor give your quota of prioritised units (typically 1-3 per noble), no doubt after he has give the quota to your enemies and no doubt the worst units of their type available, and perhaps never if he has been smart enough to build up an army in advance so he does not need to recruit more than the quotas of his allies.

I still think all involved in the civil war lose 1 unit per settlement that their opponents control to desertion at the beginning of the session, and those involved can acquire one unit from each of their settlements.

That's an interesting idea - why don't you formalise your proposed rules? Then other people can comment. Are you thinking of one unit per settlement as a once and for all? If so, I'd still much rather have the five I am suggesting. Or one unit per turn? In which case, we will all be at (phoney) war all the time.

I am open to discussion on all this. It is true that my system works against a long lasting rebellion and may favour short term phoney wars for recruitment. I am not that bothered about the former problem - five units per settlement is quite a lot and we do want civil wars to be decided without too much delay. On the latter, more thought may be required. Regardless of whiich rules we use, if we do allow some non-Chancellor recruitment in a civil war, it might be prudent to give the GM the power to declare nobles at peace, remove PvP flags etc if he thinks it is being exploited (as a phoney war to raise men).

[ULC]

Ugh, I am tired, but I shall try.

The issue is I tend to think in examples, or in metaphors.

Say we have to opposing sides, each with 5 settlements, and with my rules in place. So long as neither side does anything, no recruitment effectively takes place - what is gained is lost.

If side A where to obtain a settlement, then they would hold advantage, and gain 6 units, and lose only 4. Side B would gain 4 and lose 6. a losing side would suffer more, preventing unit farming, since this would utterly cripple a faction, and force combat before the one at a disadvantage falls completely under the mercy of it's opponent.

[econ21]

The issue is I tend to think in examples, or in metaphors.

It's a good metaphor.

So the recruitment and desertion would be annual.

I think it goes a long way to solving the existing "Chancellor organises coup" problem, but perhaps not the "phoney war to recruit" danger of changing the current rules. Let's sleep on it.

Ugh, I am tired, but I shall try.

This can keep - get some rest. Sleep well.