Successor game rules, draft one.

[econ21]

I am about done with my proposal on a system for duelling - we can see if rival systems are proposed and decide on how to go forward on the duelling "mini-game" in due course. It looks like we have some time before all the players have Kingdoms, so it might be good to review the core rules, which are much more important than any mini-game. I was struck by what TC said recently in another thread:

... how I feel about LotR in general: many improvements that made the game better, but lots of flaws with the system that prevented it from really coming into its own. Fortunately, a lot of those problems were ironed out along the way so we don't have to deal with them anymore. The 'Royal Army' system that was pioneered in KotR has transformed into an excellent and very efficient system for private ownership of military units, as have the rules for IC legislation and OOC rule changes. The built-in ability for the GM to launch 'events' at will also helps a great deal. However, the House structure and the PvP mechanics were never properly polished up during the game and we're still trying to resolve the problems with them now.

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but I wonder if this implies we need to do more work on House structure and PvP mechanics? Reading this thread, I can see the point about the latter, at least. Do other people think there are problems? Are there solutions? I'm coming late to this discussion and without the benefit of following LotR, so forgive me if I am asking to go over old ground.


EDIT:


On other matters, a few minor points on the rules:

3 (d) Wills and inheritance: insert Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
Ducal succession was an issue in KotR and personally I don't like players making key decisions after their avatar is dead. Do we explicitly allow Dukes to resign? If not, I think we should.

3 )(f) Rules disputes : maybe state that Zim's ruling can over turn that of the King/Prince/Chancellor? this is to avoid a player who really abuses this power in an OOC way. Also, I am leery of giving the Chancellor sole power over the disputes involving the King/Prince. Wouldn't a council of Dukes plus the Chancellor be better?

3(f) Emergency sessions I am leery about allowing Dukes to call these. They really slow the game down and I would rather not let one partisan player do this. Maybe require a second Duke to agree? Two Dukes shouting stop sounds like an emergency - one not so much.

On impeachment, presumably it requires an emergency session, if it is to be done out of full session?

5 (b) army ownership: what's a garrison? any pre-existing stack in a settlement? or just free upkeep militia?

French terminology - now we have selected our faction, does that mean we should change some terminology to fit the context? e.g. do we need titles for some of our concepts, e.g. should it be Senate or Parliament or Assembly or what? What are our 4 Houses going to be called and which provinces will be in which? My preference is for something regional, roughly corresponding to east, west, north, south, but I don't know the details.

[Cecil XIX]

The problems with Houses in LotR was that they were so fluid that they didn't have much meaning, pretty much the opposite of what the problem was in KotR. Since the system in KotR seemed to work a bit better, the current version of KotF's rules are mixed between the two, but leaning towards KotR. I think we're satisfied with that, right?

As for PVP, the issue there was that in LotR most of the civil wars ocurred across distances so great that you could spend a whole Chancellor's term marching without getting to your enemy. That hasn't been fully resolved, although I think part of the problem was that we never got around to building paved roads through Anatolia. Also, we used Stainless Steel for LotR, which might have different movement rates than LTC. Perhaps LTC will be better?

In any case, my prefered solution is this: At the beginning of a civil war, either the combatants or all players will vote on the movement system to use that's most suitable for the war to be fought. The options are those Tincow outlines here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1) Basic LotR system, as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.

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 or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.

3) Phased Movement system, as was used in the KotR Cataclysm. Pretty much the same as (2), but everyone submits movement orders, even neutrals, and the game year keeps advancing. Has the advantages of (2) without making people twiddle their fingers. However, it's a lot more work for the GM/Umpire and it risks exploitation if the neutrals use this period of time to beat up the AI with their bonus movement.

4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased 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. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).

5) 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. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.

To use KotR as an example, this would allow us to use a different rule set for a war between Austria and Franconia than Austria and Outremer, where distance and time could really harm things. I think deciding on a system on a case-by-case basis really helps keep things flowing well.

[econ21]

Thanks, Cecil. I agree we have probably solved most of these issues. I am still wondering about unit recruitment in a civil war though. This goes back to my view about tabletop battles which is that it is the pre-battle army strength rather than the battle itself which determines the outcome. What we seem to have now is that the Chancellor can decide to pick which priority recruitments to make - so having the Chancellor on your side in the war seems crucial. I might be ok with that [1] but I just want to check that is intended.

[1] It seems to imply rebels will need to have mustered their men before declaring war, or planted a compliant chancellor. I guess the rule requiring all prioritised units to be recruited before any others is some constraint on the chancellor - as is the threat of impeachment - but still. One reason why it may be ok is just the logistical hassle of decentralising unit recruitment and the associated economic model. We trialled such a thing in a co-operative concept before Kotr, but it was just spreadsheet hell.

On choosing the system for resolving PvP strategic movement, my preference would be for Zim to make the call rather than have a vote. Particular systems are likely to favour one side more than another (e.g. the strong initial faction will want a quick resolution, the underdogs may want a guerilla war). We can't expect players to vote impartially in that situation. I would rather Zim decide what is best from the point of view of a realistic simulation and from the point of view of keeping the game moving in a fun manner. He could change things mid-stream too, if the guerilla was just stalling and it was a war of words etc.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I would like to comment on the issue of PvP, more specifically the battles:

(d) - PvP Battles: Whenever two hostile armies enter adjacent squares, a PvP Battle will occur, even if the armies have movement points remaining. If both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with Zim or anyone he chooses acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the The Battle of the Iron Bridge and the Battle of the Basileis and will be umpired by Zim or anyone he chooses. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by Zim or anyone he chooses. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by Zim or anyone he choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.

I think that we may have to rework how we choose exactly what style of battle we fight. In LotR, I count a total of six battles being fought, if we divide the Battle of the Basileis into three separate engagements. Four were tabletop and two were MP. As the umpire for all of the tabletop battles (even though I had help thanks to Zim and TinCow), I was pretty blown out by the end of the PBM.

Now, we do have, by my reckoning, four players that have experience umpiring battles: Myself, Zim, TinCow, and econ21. That *should* be enough to cover everything. But in the case of, say, a Franconia/Austria Civil War that doesn't utilize the "everybody load up and throw it in" mechanic, there might be a string of battles at once. If they're all tabletop, that could seriously slow things down and kill the umpires. Naturally, every player is going to want to fight the full-on tabletop, but sometimes I think that shouldn't happen.

Instead, I propose the following:

If the engagement isn't MP, then there is a vote to determine the exact style, as before. However, it is divided three ways:

- 33% of the vote goes to the participants.
- 33% goes to the entire player base.
- 33% goes to the GM.

In my opinion, this would give a fairer representation to the relative weight of the player base and perhaps work to streamline things.

[TinCow]

I am still wondering about unit recruitment in a civil war though. This goes back to my view about tabletop battles which is that it is the pre-battle army strength rather than the battle itself which determines the outcome. What we seem to have now is that the Chancellor can decide to pick which priority recruitments to make - so having the Chancellor on your side in the war seems crucial. I might be ok with that [1] but I just want to check that is intended.

Yes, having the Chancellor be your ally is crucial during a Civil War and it was intentionally created that way. The way I saw it in LotR (and still do) a properly prepared civil war involves political campaigning to put yourself into a position where you can then seize whatever you want with military power. For the same reason, it is also important to stockpile military units when you can get them so that if an enemy comes after you while a hostile Chancellor is in power, you can still survive. I like this kind of system very much, because it forces people to use politics (and thus IC moves) in order to win civil wars. This seems realistic to me and focuses the game towards domestic interaction rather than attacking the AI.

The end of LotR was a direct result of such a situation. Zim was a heavy backer of Ignoramus, who was the son of the previous Emperor, but had not inherited the throne due to game mechanics. Zim and Ignoramus made sure that Zim got elected as Chancellor, and then Zim used his time to build up massive armies for Ignoramus. When the final war started, this resulted in Ignoramus having such a large force at his disposal that he was essentially invulnerable unless all his foes united against him from the start. They did not do this, and thus Ignoramus was the victor... all because he made sure to get an ally elected as Chancellor and that Chancellor specifically used his powers to boost Ignoramus.

[econ21]

Yes, having the Chancellor be your ally is crucial during a Civil War and it was intentionally created that way. ...

Ok, that's very illuminating. I am a little worried that creating a very powerful strategy like this might distort the game. Now people have seen Ignoramus do it so successfully, there may be a scramble to repeat the trick and make civil war the focus of the game from the outset. I'm not sure that is wise given the problems we have implementing PvP mechanics (not to mention my personal tilt towards cooperative rather than competitive play). I wonder if we should muddy the waters a bit so that "get a Chancellor, then declare civil war" is not guaranteed to be so effective next time? One possibility would be to introduce some kind of "loyalty test" mechanic with units - so that some units may defect or desert from an army. The likelihood of such attrition could depend on the political balance of power. That might make the Chancellor's mega army less likely to conquer all, if he lacks political support.

I guess one basic question to ask is why do we want civil wars in the game? We did not allow for them in the WotS and KotR rules and only really used them to make the bring the game to a conclusion. A good reason for allowing for civil wars is to deal with massive divisive conflicts that get so heated, they can only be resolved by war. The English Civil War and the American Civil War are examples of such things. An additional reason would be for allowing for more minor disputes etc between nobles, but I am not convinced that is the way to go (hence the duelling idea). If we just want civil wars to be "big", we could require some political prerequisite - e.g. only Dukes or higher can declare civil war. That also might be a good way of allowing for some but not all lesser disputes. Personally, I think the competition between players is more fun when done via politicking and jockeying for influence rather than engaging in open warfare.

While talking of declaring war, what are the rules about declaring wars on (edit) civil foreign powers? I see the King can do - is it only the King? Or can the Senate vote for a war?

[Cecil XIX]

Ok, that's very illuminating. I am a little worried that creating a very powerful strategy like this might distort the game. Now people have seen Ignoramus do it so successfully, there may be a scramble to repeat the trick and make civil war the focus of the game from the outset. I'm not sure that is wise given the problems we have implementing PvP mechanics (not to mention my personal tilt towards cooperative rather than competitive play). I wonder if we should muddy the waters a bit so that "get a Chancellor, then declare civil war" is not guaranteed to be so effective next time? One possibility would be to introduce some kind of "loyalty test" mechanic with units - so that some units may defect or desert from an army. The likelihood of such attrition could depend on the political balance of power. That might make the Chancellor's mega army less likely to conquer all, if he lacks political support.

I guess one basic question to ask is why do we want civil wars in the game? We did not allow for them in the WotS and KotR rules and only really used them to make the bring the game to a conclusion. A good reason for allowing for civil wars is to deal with massive divisive conflicts that get so heated, they can only be resolved by war. The English Civil War and the American Civil War are examples of such things. An additional reason would be for allowing for more minor disputes etc between nobles, but I am not convinced that is the way to go (hence the duelling idea). If we just want civil wars to be "big", we could require some political prerequisite - e.g. only Dukes or higher can declare civil war. That also might be a good way of allowing for some but not all lesser disputes. Personally, I think the competition between players is more fun when done via politicking and jockeying for influence rather than engaging in open warfare.

While talking of declaring war, what are the rules about declaring wars on civil powers? I see the King can do - is it only the King? Or can the Senate vote for a war?

I think the chancellor is a little too important in civil wars. While he certainly should be a factor, it seemed like having him on your side was all that mattered. I'm also rather concerned that the results of endgame PVP in KotR and LotR were so obvious in hindsight, rather than closely contested matches. Obviously there's no reason that can't happen some of the time, but if it keeps happening it may indicate a problem.

To answer your question about Civil Wars, we want them for the same reason we want duels. It's odd to not have the option when it makes sense that such things could happen. I like your idea for restrict people's ability to declare though. Perhaps counts can only start civil wars in order to break away from the Houses, either to join another House or to start a new one.

[ULC]

I think the chancellor is a little too important in civil wars. While he certainly should be a factor, it seemed like having him on your side was all that mattered. I'm also rather concerned that the results of endgame PVP in KotR and LotR were so obvious in hindsight, rather than closely contested matches. Obviously there's no reason that can't happen some of the time, but if it keeps happening it may indicate a problem.

To answer your question about Civil Wars, we want them for the same reason we want duels. It's odd to not have the option when it makes sense that such things could happen. I like your idea for restrict people's ability to declare though. Perhaps counts can only start civil wars in order to break away from the Houses, either to join another House or to start a new one.

Which is what I saw as an inherent problem of the civil war system as of now, and it was my opinion that we some how balance this, possibly through a militia or mercenary recruitment, for those who had civil war declared upon them - possibly 2 militia of the highest quality from each settlement under the declared's control, be it a House, the Duke himself, or any of his underlings.

[Zim]

Those changes seem reasonable. I hadn't really expected many rules disputes to happen, I think about that one...

2 Dukes to call an emergency session makes sense.

Impeachment does indeed require an emergency session.

A garrison is any units inside of a settlement, at least for the purposes of the rules.

EDIT:


On other matters, a few minor points on the rules:

3 (d) Wills and inheritance: insert Wills must be deposited with Zim before the character's death to be considered valid.
Ducal succession was an issue in KotR and personally I don't like players making key decisions after their avatar is dead. Do we explicitly allow Dukes to resign? If not, I think we should.

3 )(f) Rules disputes : maybe state that Zim's ruling can over turn that of the King/Prince/Chancellor? this is to avoid a player who really abuses this power in an OOC way. Also, I am leery of giving the Chancellor sole power over the disputes involving the King/Prince. Wouldn't a council of Dukes plus the Chancellor be better?

3(f) Emergency sessions I am leery about allowing Dukes to call these. They really slow the game down and I would rather not let one partisan player do this. Maybe require a second Duke to agree? Two Dukes shouting stop sounds like an emergency - one not so much.

On impeachment, presumably it requires an emergency session, if it is to be done out of full session?

5 (b) army ownership: what's a garrison? any pre-existing stack in a settlement? or just free upkeep militia?

French terminology - now we have selected our faction, does that mean we should change some terminology to fit the context? e.g. do we need titles for some of our concepts, e.g. should it be Senate or Parliament or Assembly or what? What are our 4 Houses going to be called and which provinces will be in which? My preference is for something regional, roughly corresponding to east, west, north, south, but I don't know the details.

[Zim]

I think befriending the Chancellor or making careful use of prioritized units before a Civil War should give some advantages. I should note my case in LOTR was somewhat exaggerated. Nobody seemed to pay attention to my gross overspending and recruitment of troops in the middle of the Empire where they weren't needed (or if they did noone objected) and noone but Rossahh called in any prioritized units, which would have made things tougher.

I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.

GH I fear that might be getting too complicated. I'd like the deciding phase for battles to go quickly, especially since a day or so of voting could easily take longer than many of the pvp battle methods (excepting tabletop of course). It is something to think about though...

[ULC]

I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.

That sounds like a fair compromise, and actually stresses House alliances more, who can give units from their lands, where they can still be recruited. It can also setup another House, such as those who prepared the whole thing, to suddenly be backstabbed and lose another Houses support who had been supplying them with troops.

I just don;t want our civil wars to all be "coups"

[econ21]

I'm not sure about artificially buffing the defending side... maybe due to civil unrest units can't be recruited in provinces involved in a Civil War? This would have the side benefit of punishing anyone engaged in a long war, and mean that once it began, the advantage of having a Chancellor friend decrease greatly.

From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.

One step might be to say that Civil Wars are always "events" in which the gamemaster has the right to intervene by conjuring up and moving forces as he sees fit. That would remove the need to have complex rules to cover a tricky area, but by puts a lot of responsibility/pressure on Zim (and potentially turns it into a game of who has Zim's ear).

But I still like the "desert-deflect" mechanic I suggested. The idea would be that, whenever a noble joins a civil war, each of their units are subject to a "loyalty" test, which would be harder if the noble's side lacks political support. It would not be to artificially buff the defending side, but to allow for the fact that not all troops could be relied upon to fight against their brothers - especially if the cause was unpopular. (I am thinking of Russia in 1917 and also in the failed "coup" against Gorbachev amongst countless other examples here). The tricky part would be to gauge the degree of political support. What I would suggest is a secret ballot made at the start of the hostility where people voted for side A, B or abstained. The results would modify the loyalty test. This ballot would be a one shot affair, so it would be in civil warrior's interests to build up the popularity before the war - a good thing, IMO, because it would encourage "big" divisive civil wars as opposed to small coup like grabs for power. It would be secret so that people can declare their true sympathies, even if at the start of the war they are remaining neutral (or even playing a double game).

The test could be something simple - e.g. roll a D6.

0 or less defect
1 desert
2 desert
4+ pass

Modifiers could be:

If you have 75% or more support: +2
If you have 50% or more support: +1
If your opponent has 40% or more support: -1
If your opponent has 60% or more support: -2

Note these are percentages of all votes cast - including neutrals.

So in a balanced civil war, both sides would lose 1/3 of their starting units to desertion - making initially massing of a force a bit less effective. Defection would only occur when your opponent has considerable political support. Desertion would not be a problem if a strong majority rally around you.

This mechanic could either be formally in the rules or just one option open to the gamesmaster when running the civil war event. My preference would be for the former, so people can make informed plays and not be tempted to work behind the scenes to influence game mechanics, but adherents of KISS would prefer the latter.

[ULC]

From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.

One step might be to say that Civil Wars are always "events" in which the gamemaster has the right to intervene by conjuring up and moving forces as he sees fit. That would remove the need to have complex rules to cover a tricky area, but by puts a lot of responsibility/pressure on Zim (and potentially turns it into a game of who has Zim's ear).

But I still like the "desert-deflect" mechanic I suggested. The idea would be that, whenever a noble joins a civil war, each of their units are subject to a "loyalty" test, which would be harder if the noble's side lacks political support. It would not be to artificially buff the defending side, but to allow for the fact that not all troops could be relied upon to fight against their brothers - especially if the cause was unpopular. (I am thinking of Russia in 1917 and also in the failed "coup" against Gorbachev amongst countless other examples here). The tricky part would be to gauge the degree of political support. What I would suggest is a secret ballot made at the start of the hostility where people voted for side A, B or abstained. The results would modify the loyalty test. This ballot would be a one shot affair, so it would be in civil warrior's interests to build up the popularity before the war - a good thing, IMO, because it would encourage "big" divisive civil wars as opposed to small coup like grabs for power. It would be secret so that people can declare their true sympathies, even if at the start of the war they are remaining neutral (or even playing a double game).

The test could be something simple - e.g. roll a D6.

0 or less defect
1 desert
2 desert
4+ pass

Modifiers could be:

If you have 75% or more support: +2
If you have 50% or more support: +1
If your opponent has 40% or more support: -1
If your opponent has 60% or more support: -2

Note these are percentages of all votes cast - including neutrals.

So in a balanced civil war, both sides would lose 1/3 of their starting units to desertion - making initially massing of a force a bit less effective. Defection would only occur when your opponent has considerable political support. Desertion would not be a problem if a strong majority rally around you.

This mechanic could either be formally in the rules or just one option open to the gamesmaster when running the civil war event. My preference would be for the former, so people can make informed plays and not be tempted to work behind the scenes to influence game mechanics, but adherents of KISS would prefer the latter.

Yes, but the system is comparativly complex compared to ceasing all unit production within the provinces directly controlled by those involved in the civil war.

I swear, there is a non-complex way to solve this, without overburdening the GM, without overpowering the Chancellor, and I will find it!

Wait! What if we allow for the possibility of having those whom war is being declared upon be able to call an emergency session?

[ULC]

Wait! What if we allow for the possibility of having those whom war is being declared upon be able to call an emergency session?

To say, try to impeach or get forced support for troops?

[Zim]

*reaction to Econ's last post, YLC hadn't posted yet when I wrote this...

I guess I'm a little confused. Given that the Chancellor is the guy who can recruit soldiers (true in KOTR and LOTR, although the former didn't have a regular civil war system) it makes sense that getting him to recruit troops for you before declaring war is a good idea.

If after the war the winner succeeded because he managed to ensure he had more troops at the outset...well, that also makes sense to me.

I suppose there are a lot of conditions that maybe should effect how loyal the instigator's troops are. Whether he's seen as a legitimate authority figure, the popularity and perceived righteousness of his cause, his personal charisma and likelihood of attracting supporters... heck, I spent a good time in college studying civil wars and what affects their perceived legitimacy, it's part of earning a degree in Political Science, but I can't see representing those accurately without making things too complicated.

If such a system as suggested were put in place and it was up to me to decide I'd likely make the chances of desertion equal on both sides. If left to the players....well, I'm not sure whether or not that would be a good measure of the popularity of noble x's cause among the common people, who are the majority of the army, not the nobles voting (not to mention that more votes means more time with the game frozen, something I'm trying to avoid in deciding in both this and choosing the Civil War method...).

[econ21]

I guess I'm a little confused. Given that the Chancellor is the guy who can recruit soldiers (true in KOTR and LOTR, although the former didn't have a regular civil war system) it makes sense that getting him to recruit troops for you before declaring war is a good idea.

If after the war the winner succeeded because he managed to ensure he had more troops at the outset...well, that also makes sense to me.

It makes sense from the point of view of rational player behaviour given our rules. I am just questioning whether the game played by those rules is the most fun. "Get a Chancellor elected; recruit; win civil war" sounds a less interesting game than "Get a lot of powerful players on your side; win civil war." But that's just my opinion.

One thing I would like to explore is what we want the PvP system to be for. What kinds of conflicts do we want to lead to PvP action? Then we can review what rules would make them play out the best. Perhaps we could brainstorm on that question and see where it leaves?

Let's start with a few possibilities:

EDIT: 0. War of secession: one party wages war to break away from the faction. This is very historical, but does not really fit M2TW. We don't have a good way to split up the finances etc of a single faction. So I think we should allow this only if it marks the end of the game, ie is of the next type...

1. Terminal civil war: a climactic struggle to end the game, leaving one side utterly victorious and the other dead or exiled. This is the WotS and KotR civil war. Given that such a conflict will be a one off, I think we don't need to worry too much about it - we could improvise as we have done and it would be pretty ok.

2. A grab for power: maybe to depose a King? or a Chancellor? The difference from the terminal war is that it is expected that the game continue after the war is won. In this case, we might want to work out clear rules as it will happen several times. Also, we might want to consider safeguards so that the losers are willing to play on. Perhaps limits on the fate of their avatars or their lands?

3. A war of principle: to me this would be the most fun kind of war to play, where there is a cause beyond self-advancement. An example might be the American Civil War. I am not sure what the principle might be with us - republicanism is what we fixed on in WotS and KotR, but religion and foreign entanglements were also themes. Functionally, this kind of war would look rather like the grab for power. But it would be different in that the "coup" type mechanics we currently have don't feel very right for it. The war of principle should depend more on the allegiances of the many - hence the loyalty test mechanic etc.

4. A war between Duchies: one or more Duchies wanting to weaken a rival Duchy, by taking their land. This might lead to a lot of neutrals or interesting "semi-neutrals. Personally, I am leery about allowing this kind of war. It seems both too big and too messy. I'd rather a civil war was national or limited wtihin a Duchy. Otherwise, we could end up playing 4 or more factions rather than one, and M2TW is just not set up for such decentralisation.

5. A grab for power within a Duchy: this would be like the Swabian Civil war, where different players fight to be Duke. This might lead to some interesting meddling from outside, like Lothar helping the Swabian rebels. But there might have to be some constraints if we are ruling out wars between Duchies - like no noble from another House can fight.

6. An attempt to break away from a Duchy: like Becker in KotR. Again, this seems interesting but perhaps hard to balance.

7. A war between minor nobles. Personally, I would not want to see this - too much effort OOC for too little gain IC.


Anyone have anything to add to this list?

If we identify what kind of wars we want, we can choose rulesets to deal with them.

For example, my preference would be to have one set of rules for "real" civil wars of type 1-3; rules to deal with intra-Duchy conflicts of type 5-6; and not allow 0, 4 or 7.

With real civil wars, we might consider:
(a) there can only be two sides: you are with us or against us. A three or more sided war would just be complicated and ahistorical. This would imply the war would have to be resolved before any other civil wars and indeed intra-Duchy fights.
(b) the Chancellor should not be the only player recruiting units: it just feels utterly wrong. In the ACW, only Washington DC could recruit units...; or worse, IMO, no one could recruit units.
(c) strategic movement could be of the first type TC listed - using in-game restrictions on movement. The war is big enough and important enough that we can take our time.

With intra-Duchy civil wars, we could consider:
(a) there could be multiple conflicts coexisting and inter-mingling: neutrality would make more sense than in a real civil war, where soldiers would probably end up taking sides.
(b) again, the Chancellor recruiting all units does not feel right to me: we could introduce rules to allow local recruitment based on lands and perhaps mercs.
(c) given that these wars are more local, I still think strategic movement of the first type TC listed would be fine. The distances woudl presumably be short, so there would be less risk of a war of words.

Any thoughts? I think if we clarify what we want to simulate, we will be able to identify suitable rules. I am not terribly sympathetic to the KISS argument here, as I think at the moment it's not a question of rule complexity but us not having any rules to cover some of the issues.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'm not really sure we need to limit PvP here. Eventually, the concept becomes pretty self-policing. LotR, while an extraordinarily lethal game, was especially so when it came to matters of PvP. As a matter of fact, the climatic Battle of Antioch actually stands out in my mind because, if memory serves, every general was actually able to come out alive, and this was only because the dice were exceptionally kind.

If you get into PvP, avatars *will* die, that's a fact of life. I think that concept alone will prevent people from engaging in a war just because they feel like it and compel them to work in more subtle channels to get what they want.

[TinCow]

From what I understood from TC, the issue is not so much what the Chancellor does during the civil war - although that is an issue - but what he has done before. You recruit a big army and then declare civil war, not declare first and then recruit. If anything, freezing recruitment during the civil war could aggravate that, not address it as it makes permanent the initial advantage. (If the attackers were very unpopular, an emergency diet could impeach the Chancellor and the defenders could then use their own Chancellor to start recruiting troops). It would also seem wholly ahistoric - in the ECW, ACW etc, the starting armies were rather pitiful in size and quality. It was during the war that the sides recruited and trained masses to their side.

I have no better response to the first bit except Sun Tzu:

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

As for the second part, what you say is true about historical accuracy. However, it is also historically inaccurate during these time periods to have standing armies of any kind. I have no ideas about how to solve this problem that do not make the game too complex. After LotR, I am very wary of complicated rule systems.

[KnightnDay]

Couldn't agree more.

[Cecil XIX]

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

That's very true, but to me seeking battle after victory is really boring. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks that way, but since this is first and foremost a game what's boring or not is a concern.