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.
Last edited by Vladimir; 07-10-2009 at 14:05.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
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).
Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.
I am also slightly concerned by the idea of allowing recruitment every turn in every province a person owns simultaneously. In LotR, it was not uncommon for a single person to own 4-5 provinces, and I think one person owned about 7 at one point. This means that even a massive budget surplus could quickly be drained into nothing by a single person's participation in a minor Civil War. While I do think financial issues are best left to IC discussions, the idea of someone who is not the Chancellor ruining the economy single-handedly unsettles me somewhat. I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.
Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.
Agreed.
I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.
I am not, however, I believe that is clear.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
I am also slightly concerned by the idea of allowing recruitment every turn in every province a person owns simultaneously. In LotR, it was not uncommon for a single person to own 4-5 provinces, and I think one person owned about 7 at one point. This means that even a massive budget surplus could quickly be drained into nothing by a single person's participation in a minor Civil War. While I do think financial issues are best left to IC discussions, the idea of someone who is not the Chancellor ruining the economy single-handedly unsettles me somewhat. I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.
I am ok with land being the basis of power - I thought that was the premise of the game?
I am less comfortable with one malcontent ruining the Kingdom's economy, but this is one case where I would say we deal with it IC. In that setting, why don't the non-malcontents agree not to bother recruiting any men and take what men they have to beat some sense into the malcontent? People who free ride and draft despite a collective agreement can be punished IC, if need be (denied recruits when the malcontent is brought to heel.)
I think the civil war = economic disaster feature is realistic and will create real political pressure for an end to hostilities.
Originally Posted by TinCow
Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.
Don't worry, it is easy to maintain a simple list of settlements in the order they were conquered. I did this in kotr, although it was by House:
I am happy to do so again, adding dates of conquest. We are going to need a listing of which province is owned by who anyway, so adding a date column is trivial.
Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.
I am not quite following this - I can see players can list which settlement they want to have recruitment first, but the GM still needs some ranking to determine which player to recruit for first. I think your proposal might lead to a more complicated sequencing than province seniority.
However, I am very flexible on this. As long as it is by settlement by rotation, it does not really matter what the sequencing of settlements is. It could be purely random sequencing - Zim could generate a random number next to every settlement - and I doubt it would change much.
If we make it by player by rotation (so player A gets all his draftees before player C gets any) then the order will be more important - whether the player with 7 settlements gets them all on the first turn or on the last turn could be matter.
On that distinction, I should rephrase:
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.
to
No settlement gets a second drafted unit in the war (whatever turn it is) until every settlement has had one; no settlement gets a third until every settlement has a second etc.
I am not quite following this - I can see players can list which settlement they want to have recruitment first, but the GM still needs some ranking to determine which player to recruit for first. I think your proposal might lead to a more complicated sequencing than province seniority.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood a bit. Under you system I assumed that if an entire 'round' of recruitment could not be completed due to lack of money, none of it would be completed. For instance, if there is enough money for everyone to get their first settlement recruitment, but only for half to get their second settlement recruitment, no one gets a second settlement recruitment. I thought that was what you meant, and it strikes me as both the simplest and most fair method.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood a bit. Under you system I assumed that if an entire 'round' of recruitment could not be completed due to lack of money, none of it would be completed. For instance, if there is enough money for everyone to get their first settlement recruitment, but only for half to get their second settlement recruitment, no one gets a second settlement recruitment. I thought that was what you meant, and it strikes me as both the simplest and most fair method.
My apologies - I need to be more explicit. I have rephrased to clarify the rotation by settlement idea.
I would not want to prevent a single unit being drafted just because we can't afford to draft one unit for each player, as that could mean there was never any drafting at all. I think it will be simpler for the GM, too, as he does not need to work out how many units he can draft before deciding whether to draft any - he just keep drafting till he's done or out of florins.
----
ECON's PROPOSAL (v1.03):
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 by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders.
3) Drafting is done by rotation of settlements: settlements are initially listed by seniority and the rotation extends across turns; any settlements that receive a draft in one turn, are moved to the bottom of the list next turn.
4) 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)
----
An example:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Game turn 1:
Priority of settlements for drafting = settlement seniority (could be random, I don't mind)
Let's say it is Paris, settlement A, B, C, D
GM gets draft orders for all settlements.
Recruits first in Paris, then in A, then in B, then runs out money. C and D are out of luck this turn, but jump to the top of the queue for next.
Game turn 2:
Paris, A and B got drafts last turn so they move to the end of the queue for drafts this turn:
Priority of settlements for drafting: C, D, Paris, A, B
GM drafts a unit in C but runs out of money.
Game turn 3:
Priority of settlements: D, Paris, A, B, C
GM drafts unit in D and now a second unit for Paris. Runs out of money etc
In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
Posts
4,138
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
I still say we should go with Mercenaries, and it would only require a few changes -
1. Mercenaries can only be recruited during a civil war, or by an edict
2. At the end of a civil war, all Mercenaries not recruited through edicts (that have not expired) are disbanded
3. A player involved in a civil war may only recruit 1 mercenary per turn, and only up to a total number of their prioritizations per term.
4. The recruitment is based upon first come, first serve.
I know this is very basic, and I wouldn't mind some feedback to see where this can go.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks