PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[Ramses II CP]

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.

This is spot on IMHO. Let the engine do the tracking, and as for IC justification say simply that French citizens are reluctant to take sides once the conflict has begun.

[TinCow]

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.

I would agree to this, though 4 won't work because it's a WEGO system, so there's no way to implement first come, first serve.

[Vladimir]

I like it. It’s also a good general rule on merc recruitment.

[TinCow]

Instead of 4, we could do the all-or-nothing system. If there's enough money for every civil war participant to get their merc choice, everyone gets a merc. If there isn't enough money, no one gets it. This is easy to implement as well, as the person doing the recuiting just loads up the save and starts hiring. If he runs out of cash before he finishes, he just reloads the save and doesn't recruit anything.

However, there are issues with who gets what unit though due to the hiring region thing. If 3 people request the same unit, who gets it?

[Vladimir]

I say if it is there, the person takes it.

[TinCow]

Right, but WHO? All civil war orders are submitted by PM to the GM, people aren't loading up the save, so there's no way for them to recruit what they want. In addition, allowing such a system would prejudice people who were in a time zone that was inconvenient for the start of a new turn. If the turn starts at 8pm EST, it would be very easy for me to grab the save and get my unit, while for a person on GMT it would be 2am and there's no way they'd ever get first pick.

[Ramses II CP]

I think a WEGO movement system and a first come recruitment system can work together. Recruitment has, as far as I know, always been first come in the game. It's arbitrary, but it is fair. Let the first person to DL the save recruit their merc company of choice. This eliminates worries about who gets what as well, if you're there first you get what you want.

[_Tristan_]

I don't think it has ever been like that (maybe in KotR) but surely not in LotR because all recruitment was done by the Chancellor.

If you wanted mercs, you had to wait for the Chancellor to recruit them for you.

I'd prefer we used a WEGO system all the way : for both recruitment and movement (though in the fromer, it might a bit tougher to implement)

[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.

[econ21]

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..

You are going to face the same issue I have been debating with TC - in a WEGO system, how do you ration out recruits? I say go for the same rationing rule as I propose with drafting - use random numbers, but give priority to any who lost out the previous turn:

------

YLC's proposal v1.01

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. 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 YLCs original proposal in italics.)

[TinCow]

YLC's proposal v1.01

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. 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 YLCs original proposal in italics.)

This is my favorite system so far. The burden of keeping track of who gets the mercs first falls on the GM, instead of the Seneschal, which prevents that position from becoming too complex. While it increases the GM's work, it isn't by a huge amount and he already has to take the save and do the moves during a Civil War anyway. It looks like a good compromise to me.

[econ21]

It's arbitrary, but it is fair. Let the first person to DL the save recruit their merc company of choice.

I would be loathe to avoid ever letting competition between players be determined by who downloads the save first. I have been told that some players have lives, if so it would be unfair on them.

There is also terrible scope for abuse (general 1 of side A only uploads save when general 2 is online etc).

[Cecil XIX]

I definitely prefer YLC's system, it seems the least redundant with the unit prioritization rules we already have.

[ULC]

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.

[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.

[TinCow]

The issue about neutrals having access to the Civil War recruitment pool came up because my early proposals had neutrals not getting anything. Under the current system, neutrals still get their usual prioritizations and the only way they won't is if we're out of money. If we're out of money, it doesn't matter what rule system you put in for them, because there's no way to recruit anything. So, I think the issue of neutral recruiting is now moot.

[Ramses II CP]

I don't think it has ever been like that (maybe in KotR) but surely not in LotR because all recruitment was done by the Chancellor.

If you wanted mercs, you had to wait for the Chancellor to recruit them for you.

I'd prefer we used a WEGO system all the way : for both recruitment and movement (though in the fromer, it might a bit tougher to implement)

My comment wasn't clear, sorry Tristan; I meant in mechanical terms the game is always played that way. No one in a hotseat complains that England hires mercs before the Danes, or etc. I don't see our situation as being substantially different.

[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.

[econ21]

OK, scratch the "Cecil proposal". I suggest we keep this discussion open for another day for any last minute tinkering with the proposals or new ideas.

Then I will PM Zim, drawing his attention to what I have called the YLC v1.01 proposal and the econ v1.04. He can either pick one himself or we can set up a 48 hour poll, with the status quo as a third option.

YLC, TC or any other supporter of the mercenary option is free to improve on the wording of the YLC v1.01. If there is a poll, I won't call them YLC/econ options but mercenary-based/draft options.

[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.