View Poll Results: How should we handle PvP movement in the first civil war?

Voters
17. This poll is closed
  • 1. Normal movement (LotR system)

    2 11.76%
  • 2. Phased movement (War of the 4 Bassileis)

    6 35.29%
  • 3. Risk style (mimic MTW/Shogun)

    7 41.18%
  • 4. Instant battle

    0 0%
  • I abstain

    2 11.76%
Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: PvP movement system for the first Civil War

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default PvP movement system for the first Civil War

    I have consulted with Zim and he has agreed to a vote to choose which method of strategic movement we will use for the first civil war. Settling this issue now should help us finalise remaining issues to do with PvP mechanics.

    The alternatives, as described in the draft rules, are:

    1 - Basic LotR system: Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another.

    2 - Phased Movement System: as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Units could be moved at 2x speed or 2.5x speed etc.

    3 - MTW/Risk-style system: Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based by province. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage.

    4 - Instant battle system: As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over.


    There has been some discussion of the alternatives in the draft rules and PvP mechanics threads, with a consensus moving towards either option (2) or option (3). Some of the points raised include:

    The problem with option (1) is that slow in-game movement speeds may result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. It also suffers from an IGO-UGO problem over which player should move first in a given turn.

    The problem with option (4) is that it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.

    Options (2) and (3) are both WEGO systems (simultaneous movement via the GM). The risk style system is likely to see wars resolved more quickly, while the phased movement allows more strategic maneouvring on the campaign map. There is an issue of how the movement of neutrals is handled under either option, but an obvious solution is just to allow normal movement for non-combatants (the accelerated speed of combatants could be thought of as force marching).

    I know some players would rather defer our choice of movement system until the first civil war actually breaks out, but there are good reasons to make the choice now:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    (a) it will guide us on the issue of recruitment in a civil war. Most people see a problem with keeping "only the Chancellor recruits" mechanic in a civil war. But we can't really finalise any proposals until we know the movement system. If it is risk style, there's a case to telescope any non-Chancellor recruitment into turn 1 of the war, as wars will be quick. Systems linked to in-game movement speeds could allow more gradual recruitment.

    (b) it will help people plan ahead if they know the rules. Know how quickly your army can fight a potential enemy will be a big help in planning to launch or defend against a civil war.

    (c) we can have an impartial discussion or vote on the issue now while we are all still behind a "veil of ignorance" not knowing our avatars and allegiances. By the time war breaks out, there may be a temptation to push for a system that favours "our" side in the war.

    (d) leaving it to the last minute will mean lots of second-guessing about Zim's choice, and likely some special pleading to try to influence it or at least have it revealed in advance.

  2. #2
    Loitering Senior Member AussieGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    4,162

    Default Re: PvP movement system for the first Civil War

    number 3

  3. #3
    Alphonse la Hire Member Rowan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: PvP movement system for the first Civil War

    I see number 2 (phased) as a reasonable compromise between speed in getting to the actual fight while still allowing strategic/operational decisions by players (staying on the mountains/forests, garrisoning a city/fort, guarding a bridge, trying to bypass the opposing army by taking the other side of the river etc.)

    Alphonse la Hire - Veteran of many battles seeking new employment
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Vartholomaios Ksiros
    Grand Master of the Order of St. John
    Prince of Antioch and Protector of Levant

  4. #4
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: PvP movement system for the first Civil War

    I voted 3, but I do think 2 would work just fine in the early phases of the game while our provinces were all located relatively close together. Given that this can be easily changed at a later date with a Rule Change if it becomes problematic, I won't have any complaints if 2 is chosen.

    (Note to econ21: Be aware that the whole * marked rule system has been abolished. Rule Changes can now change any aspect of the rules at any point. Rule Changes are also now completely divorced from IC business and are passed by unweighted votes, with the GM having a veto over any Rule Change proposal before it even goes to the vote. Edicts and Amendments are now wholly IC in nature, and are considered temporary IC laws and permanent IC laws respectively. Rules can still require OOC enforcement of the unpleasant kind, which you are familiar with, but Edict and Amendments are now enforced only IC. If someone breaks an Edict or Amendment, they are perfectly free to get away with it unless the players make moves to enforce a punishment.)


  5. #5
    Loitering Senior Member AussieGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    4,162

    Default Re: PvP movement system for the first Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    (Note to econ21: Be aware that the whole * marked rule system has been abolished. Rule Changes can now change any aspect of the rules at any point. Rule Changes are also now completely divorced from IC business and are passed by unweighted votes, with the GM having a veto over any Rule Change proposal before it even goes to the vote. Edicts and Amendments are now wholly IC in nature, and are considered temporary IC laws and permanent IC laws respectively. Rules can still require OOC enforcement of the unpleasant kind, which you are familiar with, but Edict and Amendments are now enforced only IC. If someone breaks an Edict or Amendment, they are perfectly free to get away with it unless the players make moves to enforce a punishment.)
    Yeah baby...that's one great peace of legislation right there!!

  6. #6
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: PvP movement system for the first Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by AussieGiant View Post
    Yeah baby...that's one great peace of legislation right there!!
    Yeah, I consider that, the army ownership system, and the GM/Event system to be the most significant improvements made since KotR. The PvP and House/Rank changes are still major works in progress, but those first three aspects seem pretty solid to me.
    Last edited by TinCow; 07-07-2009 at 22:00.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO