PvP movement system for the first Civil War

[Zim]

Back from the celebrating... :cheers:

That brings up a good point. I don't think this was ever addressed before but if we're going to use any civil war mechanism that increases movement we need to think about whether to allow the players involved in the war to attack enemy faction settlements or not.

On the one hand not allowing it would prevent things like Hummel's attempt to build a powerbase in Flanders by attacking Danish settlements there. On the other there is the potential to use increased movement rates to blitz enemy settlements (and if that faction were popular enough or killed off their opponents they'd have a good chance of getting them ratified as well...).

[OverKnight]

In my opinion, if you're engaged in civil war and using the PVP mechanics, any attacks should be constrained to other players. Otherwise the system might be abused to hasten external conquest, which is not the intent of the rule set.

[Ignoramus]

They should be allowed to attack enemy AI armies in their territory, however, as that's just normal self-defence.

But if their independence/automony is recognised, then they should be allowed to attack the AI freely.

[Zim]

If their independence is recognized I think the war would be over and rules back to normal.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I voted 2 but wanted to vote 3!

It's similar to a system we have in WotB and thus a bit familiar to me than the others.

[Zim]

Have you had to use that system in WOTB? I'd be interested to hear how it turned out.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Have you had to use that system in WOTB? I'd be interested to hear how it turned out.

We just finished a PvP battle in WotB. Cultured Drizzt fan and mini made a surprise attack against The Celtic Viking. Although there was a big distance between those armies in the province (where battle was fought) I think it worked quite well.

[OverKnight]

They should be allowed to attack enemy AI armies in their territory, however, as that's just normal self-defence.

Let me refine my position: If a player led army wants to engage an AI army in the example Igno gave, I think they should have to drop out of the PVP movement mechanics for the turn that the attack takes place. IE No doubled speed or anything like that.

The increased speed in PVP is meant to expedite and make possible civil war, not enhance our chances against the AI. In fact, I think the increased vulnerability to foreign invasion is one of the more effective brakes on PVP.

[AussieGiant]

Let me refine my position: If a player led army wants to engage an AI army in the example Igno gave, I think they should have to drop out of the PVP movement mechanics for the turn that the attack takes place. IE No doubled speed or anything like that.

The increased speed in PVP is meant to expedite and make possible civil war, not enhance our chances against the AI. In fact, I think the increased vulnerability to foreign invasion is one of the more effective brakes on PVP.

I really hope we don't have to explain that in the rules. Common sense dictates you can't use PvP rule to take advantage of the "normal" game.

Firing Squad is the only plausible option for the GM in this situation.

Don't go all American law on us guy's. We can't write down every single option and alternatives. There is a meaning to the rules and the GM should be given the scope to govern them.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Don't go all American law on us guy's. We can't write down every single option and alternatives. There is a meaning to the rules and the GM should be given the scope to govern them.

You mean American laws like these in California?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

[TinCow]

You mean American laws like these in California?

Hey! Some of those are valid laws.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

California has several programs that are experimenting with driverless cars. The term vehicle is also broad and would apply to driverless trains (i.e. airport monorails) and other such things.

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

A fishing vessel is a vehicle. If the above wasn't included, the law would ban whaling. We'll ignore the fact that whaling is illegal anyway...

Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

This is aimed at people who use empty swimming pools as artificial half-pipes and such.

You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.

OK, this is absurd.

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

This is a zoning law that restricts farms and animal breeding facilities to keep them away from places of public gathering. Sensible for sanitary, visual, and olfactory reasons.

[TinCow]

Don't go all American law on us guy's. We can't write down every single option and alternatives.

Hey, having incomprehensible laws that are incredibly long and complex keeps me employed!

[Zim]

Plus, how else will we make up for our short Constitution?

Hey, having incomprehensible laws that are incredibly long and complex keeps me employed!