PvP recruitment mechanics poll

[Vladimir]

Everyone should make their own decision, however, I favor the mercenary option. TinCow's excellent counterargument aside, there is a question I asked myself. Why use an artificial and convoluted system when there is a clear and in-game option for us to use?

I especially like TinCow's point G. What happens if the remaining player has fewer units when the war ends then he recruited during the war? Can you have a negative number of units?

[TinCow]

I especially like TinCow's point G. What happens if the remaining player has fewer units when the war ends then he recruited during the war? Can you have a negative number of units?

It is worth emphasizing this. Unless a civil war ends without any fighting at all, under the draft system EVERYONE will end the war with fewer units than they started with, even if they were wildly successful. While the draft system allows people to recruit nice units if they have settlements that can produce them, the blanket disbanding system also encouraged people to not use those units in battle because after the war is over they're going to have a hard time maintaining their strength and will need all the elite units they can get. Under the merc system, it's in your interests to send your recruits to the front lines of all battles.

Overall, people need to be aware that the draft system ties you far more closely to the Seneschal then the Merc system. Under the draft system, you need to have at a minimum a well-upgraded settlement, which means sucking up to the Seneschal because there is no independent prioritized construction system. Those that have been out of favor with the Seneschal for a while will be more vulnerable to losing a Civil War under the draft system than under the Merc system. The Merc system doesn't negate any advantages held before the war begins, but it keeps the situation relatively even after the war has broken out. Under the draft system, the stronger party will keep getting stronger the longer the war goes on.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it simply requires people to plan ahead more. I am fine with that and would be happy playing with it myself. I just want people to be aware of the implications of both sides. On a personal note, I would be far happier with the draft system if it had a cap on the maximum number of units that could be recruited per turn and if prioritized construction was re-introduced to give people a say in the development of their settlements.

[deguerra]

Personally I voted for the draft system, not out of some intense dislike of the ideas in the mercenary system, but simply because I am wary of tying our rules too closely to the game - which can be tediously rigid at times.

Really, I am all for compromise. I hear the arguments for the merc system, and they are good. None the less, I would be against using only the merc system. So can we perhaps do something to combine the two?

Of course, the downside is more rule drafting....

[AussieGiant]

Please no more rule drafting.

Combining systems seems a nice middle path but all systems will have + and -, thinking they will disappear with a hybrid concept is not going to happen.

You've got two very good systems in place with pros and cons, pick and let get on with it.

[Zim]

I took a look through the LOTR rules again out of curiosity, since prioritized buildings had not come up during my own term as Megas, or as far as I recall in the first months I was in the game. It appears the highest ranking member of the House (if he were at least an Antypatos) could prioritize a single building per term. I suppose for this game that power would be given to Dukes.

That's 1 building every ten turns, per House. I guess if a House was unlucky enough to get a Seneschal that was not only an enemy but completely unwilling to compromise, while also facing no political consequences for treating one group extremely poorly and recruiting no buildings at all for them, and this Seneschal (or perhaps successive allies with the same political views) managed to win the position for something like half the expected lifespan of the game (let's say 4-5 terms) then maybe that House would benefit for having been able to build the barracks in a single province to high level. Or maybe they have conquered decently developed settlements over the course of the game, and so were able to improve 4-5 settlements from ok barracks to slightly better ones, which is the most optimistic use of the power I can see that would affect civil war recruitment.

I guess I just don't see why that would have a major effect. Having completely antagonistic Seneschals for long enough to really take advantage of the power seems extremely unlikely. To really give the power a stronger effect the number of prioritized settlements would have to be increased, but that would make being Seneschal more of a busy work position than one of power. We're already weakening the position from LOTR by changing the prioritized unit system to allow nobles to pick the exact units hired.

The power was not used often in LOTR and I see no compelling reason to add it into this game. Lots of the powers that were not included in this rule system had interesting implications if used a certain way but never were, and cluttered the rules. I see no compelling reason as of yet to add this one back in.

I do think the draft rules might need some tweaking if they're chosen, but overall I like it somewhat better than the merc system. I think either would work, however, and will abide by the poll (which is still fairly close).

[TinCow]

Very fair points, and I accept your conclusions. Looks like I better make friends with someone who has a castle.

[econ21]

Overall, people need to be aware that the draft system ties you far more closely to the Seneschal then the Merc system. Under the draft system, you need to have at a minimum a well-upgraded settlement, which means sucking up to the Seneschal because there is no independent prioritized construction system. Those that have been out of favor with the Seneschal for a while will be more vulnerable to losing a Civil War under the draft system than under the Merc system. The Merc system doesn't negate any advantages held before the war begins, but it keeps the situation relatively even after the war has broken out. Under the draft system, the stronger party will keep getting stronger the longer the war goes on.

That's possible but it is not necessarily how I see things playing out. What will happen over the course of a long civil war is that drafts will start to be more important than starting armies. With mercenaries, that will happen much more slowly. The difference is not so much drafts vs mercs, but the rate of recruitment: a potential 10 drafts per settlement per term vs each noble's prioritisation of mercs (1-3) per term. It's not clear to me that the party with more settlements will start as the strong party, but if it is, so be it - land is power. What the rules were designed to counter was the "civil war as coup" threat that seems implicit in the current Seneschal recruitment rules. You build up a strong army through a supportive Seneschal and then blitz while your opponents are powerless because they cannot recruit. I am not sure 1-3 mercs per term will do much to reduce that risk. Drafting won't either, unless you have a lot more settlements on your side than the coup plotters have on theirs.

The rules do favour castles (which I suspect will mean Dukes), but again, so be it - castles are supposed to give better troops. But with LTC, the differences between castles and cities are less than people are used to in KotR because spears have received a major boost and missile attacks left alone, while cavalry and foot knights have been nerfed. (Armoured spears and DFK now have the same attack and defence stats). I can see the drafting rules giving rise to an interesting "Spanish civil war" type situation, with hastily raised levies trying to fend off a military coup.

I'm open to tweaking the rules, but whichever we vote for, I think - like the Risk movement poll - we can just say it is the ground rules for the first civil war. When the dust has settled, we will have learnt from the experience and can re-evaluate whether it is still people's preferred system.

[TinCow]

I think - like the Risk movement poll - we can just say it is the ground rules for the first civil war. When the dust has settled, we will have learnt from the experience and can re-evaluate whether it is still people's preferred system.

That's a very strong point. Let's use the draft system as the starting version and just get the game going. We've got the Rule Change system for a reason; if it needs tweaking, we can figure it out later.