PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[TinCow]

There may be some misunderstanding here. There's no "recouping of expenses" in my proposals. The units aren't free - they come from the Kingdom's coffers. The console is only used to give the kingdom money if the Kingdom is so bankrupt that not all units ordered can be drafted. As soon as possible, this money is "repaid" - subtracted from the Kingdom using the console. Drafting does risk bankrupting the nation and does give neutrals an incentive to intervene to stop it.

Ah, I see. Sorry for misreading. However...

The reason why I think we should allow drafting even if the country is broke is to stop the "Seneschal bankrupts the country prior to civil war" exploit. That may have been fine for LotR, but now we everyone knows about it, I am not sure we should leave it open as frankly it strikes me as a little gamey. The whole point of introducing recruitment rules is to balance things a little against the faction with the Seneschal/ex-Seneschal in their pocket. I don't find it plausible that a ruler who had bankrupted the nation could stop discontented people raising arms against him. Quite the converse - most revolutions start because the government is bankrupt. If anything, the side that has bankrupted the kingdom should be the weak one because they can't afford to pay their men.

The reason Zim got away with bankrupting the faction in LotR was because most people were tired and no longer interested in the game at that point. Simply put, no one cared enough to do anything about it. This was due to fatigue with the game, and was the reason it was wrapped up. I very much doubt that will be a problem in KotF. There's a lot of energy in here right now, and I can personally guarantee you that if someone other than me bankrupts the faction, I'll raise a pretty massive stink about it IC. I very much believe IC actions will be enough to handle it in this game. I would expect intentional bankruptcy to result in impeachment at best and Civil War at worst.

The most realistic solution would be to have decentralised budgets, so that nobles pay for their men from their provinces own incomes. However, we both know from the kotr trial that that is a spreadsheet nightmare.

Heh, it was actually attempted again. Check the main throne room for threads with the "V&V" prefix. They came up with a simpler and more efficient method, but it still didn't get very far. Financial independence will likely forever be an elusive dream for us. It opens up so many more possibilities for great RPing and interaction, but I doubt we'll ever be able to implement it.

Personally, I don't like this. It may be fine for a "real" civil war that divides the kingdom into two. But if we allow any noble to declare war at any time, I suspect we are going to see some minor "border disputes" which are very localised to a few players. it seems a little excessive to let that cripple everyone else.

It only cripples everyone if money is low. If the economy is healthy, the mandatory recruitment for the civil war shouldn't deplete the treasury by very much. If there's money left over, the Chancellor can continue constructing buildings and recruiting units for everyone else, the only difference being that no one can use their prioritizations. If the Chancellor uses this rule to weaken neutrals he doesn't like, they can respond in an IC manner, including declaring war to get access to the mandatory recruitment. Thus, a Chancellor who utilizes a Civil War as an opportunity to injure his enemies may find the war spreading, which seems fun and realistic to me.

On the other hand, if the economy isn't healthy, everyone else will indeed be penalized because they won't get what they want. However, it makes sense that a Civil War that occurs during a period of weak finances would have an increased risk of dragging the entire country into a greater crisis.

This goes back to my point to YLC - we have to think about an unscrupulous player who just goes to war to get the drafted units. Automatic disbandment does that. I don't see anything in your proposals that does. The disbandment I am trying to model is not a political peacedeal type disarmament. Its a corollary of a draft. In a conflict, you can take men from the fields. But sooner or later, you have to let them go. Unlike the core of men you started with in peacetime who can stay with you. In other words, I see it as an OOC realism mechanic - like not allowing 2000 men to travel in one cog - and not part of an IC political settlement.

I've been brainwashed by AussieGiant here. He's been the main proponent for resolving as many issues as possible IC rather than OOC, and he converted me to that line of thought a long time ago. IC resolution of issues results in more of the politics we all like, so it's best to use it when possible. The way I see it the "unscrupulous player who just goes to war to get the drafted units" is the perfect target for some IC spanking.