PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[TinCow]

The only issue I would have with trying to get everyone a turn is that, for the most part, this will only matter if everyone is clustered in the same region - if they are not, there is no point and it weighs down the system. For instance, within the general area of our starting positions, we have France, Netherlands, Southern Germany, Northern Germany, England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland, Northern Spain, Southern Spain, and North Africa regions to recruit mercenaries from. For added realism, I could go in and edit the France region into a Southern and Northern France region.

Even if everyone is in different areas (or in the same areas, but not requesting overlapping units), it will still matter if there isn't enough money to recruit all of the units requested. The only fair methods I see of compensating for this are the all or nothing system I've talked about before, or econ21's rotation proposal. While the rotation proposal is more complex, the current wording places the burden of implementing it on the GM, not one of the players, and the burden is relatively minimal. In addition, the all or nothing system will pretty much prevent any civil war recruitment if income is low, while econ21's system will still allow for a slow trickle of reinforcements during a civil war unless the faction is flat broke. Thus, I think econ21's version is stronger than the all or nothing.

[Vladimir]

If the GM is OK with it, then so am I. It looks like a good rule set.

[Andres]

Have mercy on us non native speakers. What's a WEGO system?

[econ21]

What's a WEGO system?

Simultaneous movement.

We go.

Versus sequential movement:

I go, you go (IGO-UGO).

[econ21]

Pursuing the mercenary option, before YLC made his specific proposal, I sensed a consensus forming that all players - neutrals as well as combatants - should have access to any extra recruitment during in a civil war. I think the arguments were that: (a) from AG, it would be a foolish Duke who stayed out of a war, if neutrals could not get extra men when his rivals could; (b) from Cecil, some players may want to remain neutral - a plague on both your houses - but be able to defend themselves. Do we want to consider a version of the system that allows that?

Given Cecil likes the YLC rule set, but wanted neutrals to be able to recruit, I am going to name this proposal after him:

----

Cecil's proposal v1

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. In a civil war, any player may only recruit 1 mercenary per turn but only up to a total number of their prioritizations per term.
4. In civil war, mercenary recruitment takes precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders, recruiting by player in a random order, but with priority given to players that did not recruit mercenaries in the previous turn.

(Changes to YLC v1.01 in italics.)

----

It would be convenient if supporters of the merc option could decide this question among themselves prior to any poll.

[Vladimir]

Why isn't it called the YLC rule then? I'm still concerned that civil war actors will take their priority recruitment and use it against smaller neutrals.

[ULC]

I say no, simply because it allows undeclared neutrals to suck the very small mercenary pool dry - if they want them, join the side that has them. If an aggressor attacks them, then they become involved in the civil war and may recruit them.

[Cecil XIX]

Pursuing the mercenary option, before YLC made his specific proposal, I sensed a consensus forming that all players - neutrals as well as combatants - should have access to any extra recruitment during in a civil war. I think the arguments were that: (a) from AG, it would be a foolish Duke who stayed out of a war, if neutrals could not get extra men when his rivals could; (b) from Cecil, some players may want to remain neutral - a plague on both your houses - but be able to defend themselves. Do we want to consider a version of the system that allows that?

Given Cecil likes the YLC rule set, but wanted neutrals to be able to recruit, I am going to name this proposal after him:

As Tincow intimated, I don't want neutrals to be able to recruit mercenaries during a Civil War. I simply want them to be able to continue with their own unit prioritizations, with their powers unaffected by warring neighbors. I also don't think AG's concern is much of a problem. It would be if PVP combatants could keep their extra units, but since all the systems for wartime-recruitment require combatants to lose an equal amount of units after the war is over, I don't think that's a problem. It wouldn't give PVP combatants any extra strength after a war, and it's hardly enough to influence people to attack other opponents during a war they're already in.

Thanks for naming it after me though, econ.

[ULC]

Actually we should name it after Andres - he came up with the core rules for it, but his post was ignored. The only change I made was to add in the "1 per term, no more then their prioritizations" part.

[deguerra]

Simultaneous movement.

We go.

Versus sequential movement:

I go, you go (IGO-UGO).

'ats not an acronym at all...accursed english and its accursed flexibility

[Vladimir]

NVM. Sounds like complaining.

[AussieGiant]

Recruiting: While the all or nothing is easier to manage, the GM is a GM for a reason. I think we can let him keep track of things in the "ordered" recruiting system.

I've still got an odd feeling that someone is going to call a civil war in order to override the recruiting system in their favour.