PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[econ21]

Is this about approximating reality? If so then we should also add the supply script and a few other add-ons. I though this was about developing an effective way to handle player vs. player combat. Attempting to approximate strategic reality with a tactical game isn't wise.

Well, my perspective is that realism considerations are relevant to developing rules for PvP combat. Otherwise we are anchorless and can just make arbitrary decisions like CAs latest ETW update "frigates are more accurate/longer ranged than ships of the line". I will wager who wins the civil war will be determined by military power - I agree largely inherited, not recruited during war - not strategy or tactics. So we do need to think about recruitment in wartime. Personally, when thinking about the "sand-box" as AG says, I do think we need an eye to reality.

Essentially, I view rules design for a historical wargame as an exercise in "modelling". You are trying to come up with an abstract, simplified model that can give you key outcomes that roughly correspond to what would happen in reality. CA has done that for combat, movement (although not to the satisfaction of players, hence the Risk stuff), recruitment etc. It does not have supply, but we can abstract from that here as it is not crucial to the determination of civil war. Some rules for how to "share out the cake" when the faction fights itself are crucial to the determination of civil war and do need to be considered as there is nothing in CAs programming that covers a faction fighting itself.

I see you points econ, but I'm not sure why we are coming up with a subset of recruitment rules when we can simply base it on the game itself.

...The mercenary idea is great, use that, it's in the game, you don't need to write as many rules ...

...
Then the only civil war rules are based mostly around movement.

I think advocates of the mercenary option do need to post some proposed rules for what they suggest. It can't be right that the only civil war rules we need are based about movement - we do need some rules for the mercenaries themselves. They need to clarify:

(a) spawn rates - modded or not?
(b) IGO-UGO or WEGO?
(c) no recruitment outside of civil war except for ...
(d) recruitment once per turn (Per settlement? Per avatar? Affected by rank?)
(e) paid for before or after Seneschal blows the budget buys regular troops
(f) disbanded on peace? GM keeps tab on pre-war mercs
etc etc

I am sure it can be done, but I can't see them being simpler than those I have proposed for drafting. I feel I am being shot down for proposing something that is complex when it is in fact just three sentences:

-------

1) Every other turn, civil war participants (combatants) can prioritize (draft) one unit in each settlement they own or have conquered during the war, regardless of their normal prioritizations.

2) Civil war prioritizations take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are done by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders.

3) When a combatant is no longer at war, he must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war.

-------

What I propose is that people think about specific changes to the above or alternative rules (e.g. based on mercs) and then we put them to Zim with a view to asking for a poll. If someone posts draft rules in this thread, I will include them in what I raise with Zim. Staying with the current draft rules where the Seneschal recruits everything will always be an option. However, personally, I would think this is one area where the current game can try to innovate on its predecessors. Our rulesets for WotS type games have "evolved" and civil war recruitment strikes me as an area where we can afford to try something new without worrying about rules overload.

To bring some closure, I suggest that we allow 48 hours for further brainstorming and firming up proposed rules. Then approach Zim with a view to a 2 day poll starting Sunday or Monday. Is that timetable acceptable or would people like more time?

Potentially we do have lots of time, as PvP stuff won't happen for a month or maybe half a year, but I feel it would be best to stop rules discussion for a (long) while once we get our avatars, so we can put our energies into IC stuff.

[AussieGiant]

Timing is good econ. We need a deadline or we will be at this forever.

The sand box needs to model reality, but it will still be abstract to a degree.

Movement I think is set as "Risk style",

your points c, d, e and f all need to be captured and addressed in essence.

I think your three rule sentences cover that. My only issue with them is that they state that in a civil war all money is spent FIRST on the civil war requirements.

I think it should be AFTER non civil war requirements are met.

The clear point you make and that I see as vital is this;

"It does not have supply, but we can abstract from that here as it is not crucial to the determination of civil war. Some rules for how to "share out the cake" when the faction fights itself are crucial to the determination of civil war and do need to be considered as there is nothing in CAs programming that covers a faction fighting itself."

That's what we need to address is a KISS format. Once distilled your three rules get very close to dealing with the above issue.

That should be the focus.

[econ21]

My only issue with them is that they state that in a civil war all money is spent FIRST on the civil war requirements.

I think it should be AFTER non civil war requirements are met.

I was thinking of conceding that point, but the problem is I am sure a Seneschal can manage to expend the budget on non civil war requirements BEFORE drafting, so that drafting becomes impossible. As I recall, some late stage buildings are very expensive in M2TW and if push comes to shove, the Seneschal could even give away money to foreign factions to make sure the cupboard is bare.

If you are worred about the drafting being unfair to non-participants, then we could just let them draft too, so everyone benefits equally. Bear in mind that TC wanted neutrals not to get any prioritisation at all. Personally, I could live with everyone being able to draft - if your neighbours are raising armies to attack each other, even a neutral might want a precautionary draft. I read that a large proportion of English counties - a third? - in the ECW, raised troops explicitly to keep the warring sides out of their lands (to avoid pillage etc). The war was actually a minority affair between King and Parliament - most people did not want to take sides.

I think we still need some disbandment or other penalty to drafting, so we don't see phony wars called just to allow nobles to get some more precious troops.

So we could have:

----

ECON's PROPOSAL (revised):

1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment of (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are done by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders.

3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).

----

[TinCow]

Bear in mind that TC wanted neutrals not to get any prioritisation at all.

The arguments presented over the past few days have steered my away from that point. My current preference is that prioritizations are treated as normal, except that Civil War recruitment (of whatever kind is decided upon) always comes first.

[AussieGiant]

Hmm,

so two lords call a civil war, and then the whole country has to give them resources first before the rest of the empire builds or recruits.

[econ21]

so two lords call a civil war, and then the whole country has to give them resources first before the rest of the empire builds or recruits.

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

[AussieGiant]

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

Ok then. That would be bloody inconvenient for those not interested in the civil war.

I LIKE IT.

[TinCow]

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

The whole point of giving preferred recruitment to Civil War combatants was to reduce the Chancellor's ability to prejudice one side over the other. By treating everyone equally, we are faced with the almost guaranteed situation where there will not be enough money to meet all recruiting requests. Thus, someone will have to decide who gets their units and who does not and we're right back to the Chancellor (or some other random person) being able to support one side of the civil war and starve the other. This is fine with me, since I never saw that as a problem in the first place, but I recall this being a major complaint not too long ago so you should be aware of the implications of what you are now proposing.

[Vladimir]

It makes sense if the intent is for civil wars to add a level of excitement to the game. I don't see how encouraging civil wars is better than having players control different factions. I'd rather have a total ban on recruitment. Free settlement upkeep troops would be generated and remain in settlements for siege defense.

Vladimir’s simple rules for destroying the fleur de lis:

1. Players warring against each other are only allowed to utilize funds for the upkeep of the standing army under their direct control when hostilities begin.

2. A number of the most advanced troops available to the settlement that are eligible for and equal to the maximum allowable for free upkeep shall be generated by console command. These troops are for siege defense alone, are considered to have zero movement points, and are disbanded immediately after the cessation of hostilities.

These lines are fairly long but their effects are small. The number of lines doesn’t matter much, it’s the content of those lines. For example: E=MC^2 only involves three letters but its effect is complex.

Number 2 isn’t worded well but I hope you get the point. It could use some TinCow refining. You get the maximum amount your best, free upkeep troops for siege defense and nothing else. I don’t like malcontents taking away from (or especially having priority over) other players looking to expand the empire but that’s my personal opinion.

These two rules express my thoughts on this issue. Please take what you will from them. And I’ll accept whatever the group approves.

[econ21]

The whole point of giving preferred recruitment to Civil War combatants was to reduce the Chancellor's ability to prejudice one side over the other. By treating everyone equally, we are faced with the almost guaranteed situation where there will not be enough money to meet all recruiting requests. Thus, someone will have to decide who gets their units and who does not and we're right back to the Chancellor (or some other random person) being able to support one side of the civil war and starve the other. This is fine with me, since I never saw that as a problem in the first place, but I recall this being a major complaint not too long ago so you should be aware of the implications of what you are now proposing.

Good point. The reason for going through this brainstorming rather than jumping to a decision is for people to be able to identify unintended implications of proposed rule changes.

So we need a system for rationing out drafts? Drafting will be done by the GM, so let's just make it by rotation. No one gets a second drafted unit in the war (whatever turn it is) until everyone has had one; no one gets a third until everyone has a second etc. The order of rotation is not that important, but since drafting will be per settlement, I suggest the GM draft in order of the "seniority" of the settlement (Paris first, then the 4 other starter settlements in order of starting population, then other provinces by date of conquest).

----

ECON's PROPOSAL (v1.02):

1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed in rotation by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders (using settlement seniority to determine initial order of rotation).

3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).

(Changes over previous version in italics)