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