PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[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).