PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[econ21]

I guess the issue of recruitment and movement are linked. If movement is normal (slow), then there is more time to recruit and recruitment issues become more important. Instant battle from the outset would of course make the issue of recruitment in war time irrelevant.

My concern is which of the PvP movement systems we're using. Has that been decided somewhere that I've missed?

I'm suggesting what I understand to be the basic LotR system, but with the ability to switch systems if it is too slow:

(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).

If we are going to have civil war about one third or more of the game, then I think just moving as far as the computer allows will be the easiest to implement. Players can do it directly without going via the GM. I also have a strong preference for this system on the grounds of transparency - everyone will know what they can do, how at risk they are etc. If it proves too slow and inconclusive, the GM can speed things up using the console etc.

However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?

One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.

[Rowan]

However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?

We didn't

One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.

I'd much prefer the WEGO system, if only because there are players from multiple timezones. Otherwise the run-up to successful rebellion becomes "find a sympathetic seneschal from about the same timezone" or "find a sympathetic seneschal and be ready to stay up until 6am to check if new turn has been openend" .

[_Tristan_]

I'd much prefer the WEGO system.

Same here... mostly because I'm in the GMT+1 timezone which means that most times the save had been opened for a few hours whenever I managed to get my hands on it, only to discover that what I had planned was no longer doable.

[econ21]

This stuff needs to be ironed out now. We have more than enough experience with PvP at this point to create a final system that works properly. Putting it off until it becomes a problem will just shift the frustration into the game instead of disposing of it right now.

Well, we can agree on that. These are the current draft rules for campaign movement in a civil war:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map: At the beginning of any Civil War the GM will decide how the war will play out on the campaign map. There are four methods by which the Civil War can be fought.

1 - Basic LotR system: as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.

2 - Phased Movement System: as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.

3 - MTW/Risk-style system: Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).

4 - Instant battle system: As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.

I totally agree with TC that it would be better to settle on a system now. Putting it off until it happens saves us a headache in the short term, but:
(a) we have time now to brainstorm
(b) sorting it out in advance means no one is arguing for a particular system because it is best for their "side", as we don't know our sides
(c) it takes some of the pressure of Zim: leaving it to the GM would mean a lot of people would be asking him how is going to play it and trying to persuade him etc.

I'd much prefer the WEGO system, ...

I agree, so what does that imply in terms of rules? Should WEGO be on all the time for those at war or just for those who could give battle that turn?

ie should opt for:

(a) WEGO all the time: players in a state of war cannot directly make moves on the map. They must submit orders to the GM who will execute them.

or:

(b) WEGO when a battle is possible: at the start of each turn, the GM will check if players have sufficient movement to attack an enemy. If they do, the GM will post the name of the affected players in the Chancellor's report. Named players cannot directly make moves on the map. They must submit orders to the GM who will execute them.

Having written the rules, WEGO all the time sounds the more straightforward system. What do other people think?

Why don't we just double the movement rates of armies involved in a civil war (like crusading armies) ? This would require the GM to use the console to reset the movements of said armies.

I think this is a brilliant idea. And it would work well coupled with a WEGO system for warring players mediated via the GM. Submit orders to the GM and he can implement them at double speed.

Do you think it is enough, TC, to remove your worries about the LotR system?

I don't think there is an issue of disadvantaging neutral parties - think of double speed as a "force march". And personally, I would not like to see too many meddling neutrals, turning coat at the last minute.

[TinCow]

Well, in the list of possible movement systems you just posted, all but (1) use WEGO. Since (1) is the system I think should never be used anyway, WEGO would be the result, regardless of which one is finally chosen. As an aside, I prefer (3). If it was good enough for MTW, it should be good enough for us.

[econ21]

So double speed WEGO - I guess a variant of (2) - would not work, in your opinion?

As an aside, I prefer (3). If it was good enough for MTW, it should be good enough for us.

Could we combine risk-style movement for civil warriors with normal or even risk-style movement for neutrals? If the civil war were just a localised border dispute involving few, we surely can't make everyone else tread water?

PS: Sorry, I don't want to turn this into an interrogation, TC, it's just you've had the most experience handling PvP campaign mechanics so your view is very important.

[TinCow]

(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). As for making (2) double speed, (2) already is double speed. More than double actually because the War of the Four Basileis was done at 2.5 times normal movement ranges. That said, I honestly think (3) would be faster than (2). (2) requires that everyone submit orders that then have to be processed and implemented by the GM. So does (3), but it involves far fewer orders and easier calculations. If you're worried about neutrals getting bored, you can allow the game to keep moving and treat neutrals according to the normal rules while the PvP movement only applies to combatants. Perhaps just add in some rule that PvP combatants cannot take advantage of the movement bonuses if they are going after the AI.

[ULC]

OOOOOOORR...

We could go into descr_character, and double all the action points for all campaign models, basically negating the need to bother with having the GM do it. This means the whole of France could be traverse by a general in 2 turns however - but the AI can do that as well.

[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)

[TinCow]

I'm suggesting what I understand to be the basic LotR system, but with the ability to switch systems if it is too slow:

(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).

If we are going to have civil war about one third or more of the game, then I think just moving as far as the computer allows will be the easiest to implement. Players can do it directly without going via the GM. I also have a strong preference for this system on the grounds of transparency - everyone will know what they can do, how at risk they are etc. If it proves too slow and inconclusive, the GM can speed things up using the console etc.

However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?

One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.

Ug... well, IMO using the LotR system is a very bad idea. The LotR system was immensely aggravating and resulted in multiple wars with no fighting simply due to the distances involved. It was unrealistic, took all excitement out of civil wars, and frustrated a lot of players. As I noted, having the GM speed it up with the console is fine, but what do you do with neutral players? Do they also get bonus movement? Does the game keep advancing during the war? This stuff needs to be ironed out now. We have more than enough experience with PvP at this point to create a final system that works properly. Putting it off until it becomes a problem will just shift the frustration into the game instead of disposing of it right now.

As for movement priority, in the LotR system movement was first come, first served. If you took the save first and moved into contact with an opponent who had not yet moved, then a battle occurred. This was intentional, and it worked fine. If you're in a civil war and an enemy is nearby, pay attention to the game time. This never caused any problems in LotR, even when it resulted in a battle. However, as I noted, I think the entire LotR movement system should be scrapped.

[_Tristan_]

Why don't we just double the movement rates of armies involved in a civil war (like crusading armies) ? This would require the GM to use the console to reset the movements of said armies.

One would think that the commanders are eager to get to blows with their enemies or are busy running away/running to confront their challengers.

This would prevent any delay for the neutral characters and would somewhat remedy situations such as what we had to face in the war of words and subsequent "battles" (or lack of).