PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[econ21]

What basis in RP or reality is for the 'age' of the settlement to determine its recruitment order? You could easily have a war in which one side owned 5 settlements that were 'old' and the other side owned 5 settlements that were 'new.' This rule could end up giving 5 units to the first side and none to the second, even if the RP circumstances dictated that the people living in the 'new' settlements would be more likely to support their Lords.

It's approximating the "area of recruitment" system commonly used in realism mods. When you first take over a settlement, the locals are likely to be hostile to you, unwilling to be recruited. So date of conquest will be a decent proxy for how strongly French culture and loyalty have been ingrained in the population.

But if you don't like, it's no big deal. Let's make any rationing random.

----

ECON's PROPOSAL (v1.04):

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, recruiting by settlement in a random order, but with priority given to settlements that did not draft in the previous turn.

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)

----

It seems like we're just replacing an potentially partisan Chancellor with an arbitrary and capricious rule.

Rotation means that no settlement will be able to recruit two units before all have recruited one. That sounds very fair to me.

If we couple that with the order in which you get your one unit being by a lottery, I don't think we can think of a fairer system. I don't see how anyone can compare that to a system in which one player allocates all recruitment in a civil war.

Take the example I posted earlier, by turn 3, all provinces had one recruit except Paris had two. Sounds plausible. But if we replace province seniority with a lottery, with rotation we get the same result: one settlement will end turn 3 with two extra units; the others with one.

Let's compare that with the Seneschal deciding. He will just authorise six units for his side and none for the other.