PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[econ21]

OK, let's keep declarations of war wholly unconstrained - it does simplify the number of rules (at the cost of making keeping track of who is at war with whom potentially complex).

How about the following rules? These would replace all the rules in section 6 of the current rules, except the last one about battles.

Proposed rules

(a) Declarations of War: A noble may only declare war on another noble at any time. The declaration must be noted in the Chancellor’s report and no noble can attack another noble until the subsequent turn (ie both sides have a full turn of movement before hostilities). A list of who is at war with whom will be maintained for clarity. A noble may only attack another noble if a state of war exists between them.

(b) Ending a war: A state of war between two nobles ends when both make a public declaration of ceasefire (or one dies, is captured etc).

(c)PvP flagging: a noble at war may declare they are PvP flagged. The settlements of PvP flagged nobles:
(1) must set taxes to VH where possible
(2) cannot construct or repair buildings
(3) cannot recruit any units except via drafting
(Edit:) A noble automatically stops being PvP flagged when at peace - once switched on, the flag cannot be switched off while the noble is still at war.

(d)Drafting: PvP flagged characters may request the recruitment of one available unit - players pick - from each settlement they control. This will be done by the GM at the start of each turn before the Chancellor takes the save, provided the Kingdom has the funds. Where funds are scarce, the GM will recruit from settlements in order of seniority (Seniority is determined by intiial population for the 5 starter settlements, then by the time at which the settlement joined the Kingdom).

(e) War weariness: each noble has a war weariness score, which starts at 0 but increases by one each turn they are PvP flagged. When the PvP flag is switched off, the war weariness score remains frozen for 10 turns. Thereafter, every turn they are not PvP flagged reduces war weariness by 1 (0 being the minimum). Once war weariness reaches 5 or more, no more units may be drafted from any of the player's settlements.

(f) Desertion: once war weariness reaches 10 or higher, the PvP flagged character must disband one of their units each turn. The unit must be full strength (merge units if necessary) or, if this not possible, the GM picks. Bodyguards and fleets are not considered units for the purposes of desertion. Disbandment orders are to be communicated to the GM and implemented at the same time as drafting (ie before any other actions that turn). Failure to communicate will led to the GM picking the unit to disband.

(g) movement on the campaign map: normal rules apply, but if the GM thinks it best, he may propose alternative mechanics (e.g. phased movement; risk style movement; instant battle) which will be adopted if passed on an OOC vote (unweighted).

Commentary

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(a) and (b) declaring and ending war are written mainly to simplify what we already have and implement TCs idea that declarations of war be totally unconstrained. What we currently have about feudal chains and oath breaking just seems unnecessary. Your vassals should join you in the war - unless they also want to break their oaths, in which case you can declare war on them. I don't think we need rules to automatically place them at war - if they and the oath breaker don't want to be at war, what is served by saying they must be?

PvP flagging: this is a mechanic that allows you to opt out of the peacetime system of the Chancellor ruling everything. If you are at war, you don't have to be PvP flagged - you can still allow the Chancellor to build and recruit etc.

The rules are intended to balance PvP flagging so that it is not overpowered (if it were, people would always want to be in a state of war, most likely phoney).

The benefit of PvP flagging is that you can recruit 1 "free" unit per settlement, up to 5 per settlement.

Some of the disadvantages of PvP flagging are:
- taxes at VH - to simulate unrest (and because your drafting is costing the Kingdom florins).
- no buildings or even repairs (guns or butter)
- no normal recruitment by the Chancellor at your cities

Typically, I would imagine a player who has the Chancellor on side would not want to PvP flag - it is mainly for the "rebel" side.

However, 5 units per settlement is potentially still an important benefit, so the concepts of war weariness and desertion are to further balance things. War weariness first stops you getting more than 5 drafted units per settlement, then exposes you to desertion. Desertion means your army gradually dwindles the longer the war drags on. As a player will tend to disband low quality units (drafting better ones), so desertion will be less of an issue to a powerful player with many units and/or settlements.

Note that since drafting imposes a financial cost on the Kingdom, there will be a pressure from non-combatants for civil wars to end. This seems fitting.

[ULC]

OK, let's keep declarations of war wholly unconstrained - it does simplify the number of rules (at the cost of making keeping track of who is at war with whom potentially complex).

How about the following rules? These would replace all the rules in section 6 of the current rules, except the last one about battles.

Proposed rules

(a) Declarations of War: A noble may only declare war on another noble at any time. The declaration must be noted in the Chancellor’s report and no noble can attack another noble until the subsequent turn (ie both sides have a full turn of movement before hostilities). A list of who is at war with whom will be maintained for clarity. A noble may only attack another noble if a state of war exists between them.

(b) Ending a war: A state of war between two nobles ends when both make a public declaration of ceasefire (or one dies, is captured etc).

(c)PvP flagging: a noble at war may declare they are PvP flagged. The settlements of PvP flagged nobles:
(1) must set taxes to VH where possible
(2) cannot construct or repair buildings
(3) cannot recruit any units except via drafting

(d)Drafting: PvP flagged characters may request the recruitment of one available unit - players pick - from each settlement they control. This will be done by the GM at the start of each turn before the Chancellor takes the save, provided the Kingdom has the funds. Where funds are scarce, the GM will recruit from settlements in order of seniority (Seniority is determined by intiial population for the 5 starter settlements, then by the time at which the settlement joined the Kingdom).

(e) War weariness: each noble has a war weariness score, which starts at 0 but increases by one each turn they are PvP flagged. When the PvP flag is switched off, the war weariness score remains frozen for 10 turns. Thereafter, every turn they are not PvP flagged reduces war weariness by 1 (0 being the minimum). Once war weariness reaches 5 or more, no more units may be drafted from any of the player's settlements.

(f) Desertion: once war weariness reaches 10 or higher, the PvP flagged character must disband one of their units each turn. The unit must be full strength (merge units if necessary) or, if this not possible, the GM picks. RBGs and fleets are not considered units for the purposes of desertion. Disbandment orders are to be communicated to the GM and implemented at the same time as drafting (ie before any other actions that turn). Failure to communicate will led to the GM picking the unit to disband.

(g) movement on the campaign map: normal rules apply, but if the GM thinks it best, he may propose alternative mechanics (e.g. phased movement; risk style movement; instant battle) which will be adopted if passed on an OOC vote (unweighted).

Commentary

(a) and (b) declaring and ending war are written mainly to simplify what we already have. What we currently have about feudal chains and oath breaking just seems unnecessary. Your vassals should join you in the war - unless they also want to break their oaths, in which case you can declare war on them.

PvP flagging: this is a mechanic that allows you to opt out of the peacetime system of the Chancellor ruling everything. If you are at war, you don't have to be PvP flagged - you can still allow the Chancellor to build and recruit etc.

The rules are intended to balance PvP flagging so that it is not overpowered (if it were, people would always want to be in a state of war, most likely phoney).

The benefit of PvP flagging is that you can recruit 1 "free" unit per settlement, up to 5 per settlement.

Some of the disadvantages of PvP flagging are:
- taxes at VH - to simulate unrest (and because your drafting is costing the Kingdom florins).
- no buildings or even repairs (guns or butter)
- no normal recruitment by the Chancellor at your cities

Typically, I would imagine a player who has the Chancellor on side would not want to PvP flag - it is mainly for the "rebel" side.

However, 5 units per settlement is potentially still an important benefit, so the concepts of war weariness and desertion are to further balance things. War weariness first stops you getting more than 5 drafted units per settlement, then exposes you to desertion. Desertion means your army gradually dwindles the longer the war drags on. As a player will tend to disband low quality units (drafting better ones), so desertion will be less of an issue to a powerful player with many units and/or settlements.

Note that since drafting imposes a financial cost on the Kingdom, there will be a pressure from non-combatants for civil wars to end. This seems fitting.

Ugh, far to complex - however, their are a few gems in there. I was thinking of not a draft, but a militia that could be automatically generated, without cost to the treasury, by the GM, for each settlement under the declared and/or the declaree's settlements on turn one. No further units are generated by the GM afterward.

OR

Each participant in a civil war may recruit a a unit(s) based on their rank each turn or hire mercenaries. This overrides unit prioritization, as it would be done by the GM once each term. However, using this ability forgoes your ability to use unit prioritization.

[econ21]

Ugh, far to complex

What exactly is complex about it? The proposed rules are 400 words, replacing the current 1000. I think PvP is such a big part of the game it deserves some rules. Feudal ranks have 1500 words in the rules.

Yes, I know word count is not exactly a proper measure of complexity, but still... What is complicated? The new elements over what we have are:

Declare you are PvP flagged or not
Keeping a tally of war weariness (counting 1, 2, 3, ...)
The GM recruiting one unit per settlement at turn
The GM disbanding on unit per PvP avatar

I don't really see this as complex. The main thing, about from very trivial book keeping, is that it requires the GM takes possession of the save each turn but I am not convinced this is a biggie.

- however, their are a few gems in there. I was thinking of not a draft, but a militia that could be automatically generated, without cost to the treasury, by the GM, for each settlement under the declared and/or the declaree's settlements on turn one. No further units are generated by the GM afterward.

OR

Each participant in a civil war may recruit a a unit(s) based on their rank each turn or hire mercenaries. This overrides unit prioritization, as it would be done by the GM once each term. However, using this ability forgoes your ability to use unit prioritization.

The problem with these ideas is balancing - who does not want extra troops? The war weariness, desertion and other rules are to introduce a downside.

[ULC]

What exactly is complex about it? The proposed rules are 400 words, replacing the current 1000. I think PvP is such a big part of the game it deserves some rules. Feudal ranks have 1500 words in the rules.

Yes, I know word count is not exactly a proper measure of complexity, but still... What is complicated? The new elements over what we have are:

Declare you are PvP flagged or not
Keeping a tally of war weariness (counting 1, 2, 3, ...)
The GM recruiting one unit per settlement at turn
The GM disbanding on unit per PvP avatar

I don't really see this as complex. The main thing, about from very trivial book keeping, is that it requires the GM takes possession of the save each turn but I am not convinced this is a biggie.



The problem with these ideas is balancing - who does not want extra troops? The war weariness, desertion and other rules are to introduce a downside.

The issue is that each unit is checked to see if it deserts, and we have another tally that must be kept separately per player. PvP already has significant risk, and the extra troops are not extra troops - just simply what you receive form your unit prioritizations, the recruit done once at the start of each term by the GM who is impartial.

[econ21]

The issue is that each unit is checked to see if it deserts, and we have another tally that must be kept separately per player.

Each unit does not need to be checked - the PvP flagged players tell the GM units which units are to be drafted and which units to be disbanded (deserted).

PvP already has significant risk, and the extra troops are not extra troops - just simply what you receive form your unit prioritizations, the recruit done once at the start of each term by the GM who is impartial.

The regular prioritisations seem rather small in the context of a civil war. I think they are 1-5 units per 10 turns depending on rank? Under the current rules, you get your prioritisations anyway but is not enough to not stop the "Chancellor backed coup" issue we've been concerned with.

The draft/desert mechanic is an attempt to give the side without the Chancellor more recruitment power without giving them a big advantage over others in the long term.

[ULC]

Yet, why on earth would the side that has prepared this entire time bother having themselves be PvP flagged when they have the chancellor on their side?

In either case, I just simply disagree with the war wearniness, as it's simply compounding the reasons not to go to war with another, and our objective is to bring PvP to the forefront. A Compromise would be to have a unit or two units desert every chancellor term per settlement under the control of those involved in the war, coupled with getting one unit every term.

The fewer numbers we have to keep track of, the better.

[TheFlax]

and our objective is to bring PvP to the forefront.

That's highly subjective, not everyone wants a lot of PvP.

Now about Econ's ruleset, I have a question. How exactly do you unflag yourself from PvP? Unless I read something wrong, it seems to me people would flag themselves from 5 turns, get the extra units and then unflag themselves to avoid desertions.

[econ21]

Yet, why on earth would the side that has prepared this entire time bother having themselves be PvP flagged when they have the chancellor on their side?

As I said in the commentary, I don't think they would. PvP flagging is for the folk who haven't had the Chancellor on side, so need to recruit but won't be able to under the current rules.

How exactly do you unflag yourself from PvP? Unless I read something wrong, it seems to me people would flag themselves from 5 turns, get the extra units and then unflag themselves to avoid desertions.

Good point. Let's say you can only switch the PvP flag off when you are no longer at war. I've now inserted:

(Edit:) A noble automatically stops being PvP flagged when at peace - once switched on, the flag cannot be switched off while the noble is still at war.

On the war weariness - it is partly intended to stop PvP wars dragging on endlessly. Fans of Civ4 may see some inspiration for the concepts of war weariness and drafting units.

[_Tristan_]

I really like this new set of rules, Econ. Under those rules, I think that Methodios' rebellion would have stood a better chance than it did.

The whole PvP flagging concept is revolutionary and would work for me.

EDIT : @ YLC : I don't see why you find this too complex... I don't think yours would be simpler or would be as much tied to the situation in-game.

[ULC]

I really like this new set of rules, Econ. Under those rules, I think that Methodios' rebellion would have stood a better chance than it did.

The whole PvP flagging concept is revolutionary and would work for me.

EDIT : @ YLC : I don't see why you find this too complex... I don't think yours would be simpler or would be as much tied to the situation in-game.

To many variables to keep track of. The GM would be forced to pause the game each turn, recruit, tally the war weariness, reduce if necessary, check units to see if they desert (all involved in the war).

Mine simply requires forwarding each players prioritizations at the start of the term to the GM, who then recruits them, impartial to the current war. This is a once check thing, that does not require any tally checking beyond what we are already asking to be kept.

[_Tristan_]

The problem with your set of rules is that I can already see some people declaring states of "phoney wars", to gain the benefit of the extra recruitment and then concluding an equally phoney ceasefire.

With Econ ruleset, we at least have a downside to being at war. And a not too complex set at that... Both make me want to play under those rules. Proof that they are not too complex is that even a dummy like me can understand them...