Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 149

Thread: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

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

    Default PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    I would like to explore putting a little more structure on PvP mechanics. I think what we have for PvP battles is as good as we are going to get, but I am not a fan of mechanics for PvP on the strategic map.

    Some of my concerns:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    - We may get too many "frivolous" civil wars that are confusing, slow the game down and break immersion. I would like to narrow down the number of reasons for war and limit things to one war at a time.

    - The Chancellor recruiting units as if in peace time feels unrealistic and may overly bias wars to his side. They will become coups rather than genuine civil wars. And the whole idea of a Chancellor organising a coup seems silly - he is the Chancellor, he is in power already. It just feels contrived.

    - Voting on four movement mechanisms at the start of the war means that players will not know the mechanics for the war until it happens. This means planning for the war becomes something of a crap shoot. And the voting when it happens is likely to be swayed by players voting for the system that will favour their side. I much prefer rules to be transparent and fixed by impartial discussion (ie set now). I understand there is an issue about accelerating movement to avoid bloodless wars, so I would keep that as an option - but one for the GM to exercise at his discretion if the wars are bloodless.

    - I am worried that the game will become primarily competitive rather than cooperative. If the focus is on crushing other players, killing their avatars and taking their lands, then we should not be playing as a single faction in M2TW. Hence, I would restrict wars into a few more legitimate types - I suggest full blooded civil wars involving the King and more minor intra-House conflicts over oath-breaking. Houses should not war on other Houses, nobles on other nobles, in other ways.

    -It is very tempting to avoid the hard work of setting detailed rules for PvP and put all the onus on the GM by treating it as an event. I myself proposed that cop-out in the draft rules thread. But on reflection, I think absence or lack of clarity of rules may put too much pressure on the GM. I know from experience that some players can be very good at trying to persuade a GM to do things their way (or at least reveal what is the GMs way), while others are more laid back and consequently get very disadvantaged. Conversely, setting some basic ground rules may steer us more to playing the game rather than playing the GM.

    - I don't think that developing a more structured ruleset for PvP will necessarily over-complicate the game. The rules are likely to come into play only at specific times and so will not be a constant headache. Moreover, I think PvP action is a very important area and deserves at least as much attention as, say, feudal structure or Senate procedure.



    Players versus player conflict can only occur in one of two ways - civil war or oath-breaking war.

    Possible rules for a Civil war

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    1. A civil war can only begin when a Duke declares war on the King. This can only be done if there is no pre-existing civil war.

    2. All nobles must then declare their allegiance - to the King or to the rebellion. There can only be two sides to the conflict. These nobles are now at war. Nobles who do not declare are neutral. They may declare or switch an allegiance at any time.

    3. Civil war ends when one side has the allegiance of no nobles - they are dead, neutral or declared for the other side (surrendered/defected etc).

    4. The Chancellor is removed from office. He has failed his country. When the war ends, fresh elections are called to fill a new full term of office. The previous Chancellor may stand again.

    5. Taxes are all raised to VH.

    6. During a civil war no foreign wars may be started by anyone (not even the King).

    7. All available money is used to recruit troops. No buildings may be constructed or even repaired.

    8. The GM recruits one unit of his choice per settlement of a player at war until there is no more money or no more troops, going in order of settlement seniority. (Seniority is determined by starting population for the 5 starter settlements, then by the time at which the settlement joined the Kingdom). Neutrals can never recruit troops.

    9. Units of a noble who changes allegiance from one side to another during a war must take a loyalty test. The GM will roll a D6 - on a 1 or 2, the unit disbands.

    10. Only nobles and accompanying stacks may be moved on the map - ships without nobles must be returned to the nearest port. No noble may attack another on the first turn of war.

    11. If the war drags on too long, at his discretion, the GM may seek permission to “accelerate” the war using console commands, phased movement or instant battle. (consulting players first if he wishes). This may be particularly relevant if only one or two nobles remain on a side and are being hunted down.


    Possible rules for an Oath-breaking war

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    1. An oath-breaking war can only start if there is no on-going civil war or oath-breaking war. A noble may not break his oath if another House is already engaged in an oath-breaking war.

    2. An oath-breaking war can only occur if a vassal breaks his oath of fealty and his liege decides to declare war on him. Such a declaration of war can only be made on the same turn as the oath is declared broken.

    3. All nobles in the vassal chain below the liege must then declare their allegiance - to liege or to the cause of the oath breaker. These are the two sides - the liege and the oath-breaker. Only nobles in the same House may declare - any nobles above the liege (in the same House) may also declare, in which case all their vassals must declare. Nobles may be neutral, but failure to declare in support of ones liege can be regarded by the liege as oath-breaking, in which case the “neutral” counts as siding with the oathbreaker.

    4. Oath- breaking wars end when one side has the allegiance of no nobles - they are dead, neutral or declared for the other side (surrendered/defected etc).

    5. The Chancellor may perform no actions in Houses affected by oath-breaking wars. He does not recruit, build or move units in their provinces.

    6. Taxes in the House are all raised to VH.

    7. No buildings in the affected House may be constructed or repaired.

    9. At the start of each turn, before the Chancellor performs any action, the GM recruits one unit of his choice per settlement of a player at war provided France has the money. Neutrals in a warring House can never recruit troops.

    10. Units of a noble who changes allegiance from one side to another during a war must take a loyalty test. The GM will roll a D6 - on a 1 or 2, the unit disbands.

    11. Players in warring Houses can move only their own avatars and accompanying units. Captain led stacks in the territory of the House are moved by the GM to the capital. No noble may attack another on the first turn of war.

    12. Players cannot participate in oath-breaking wars of another House. They can transfer troops to a combatant in oath-breaking war. These troops then change ownership - there is no requirement they be returned. Such troops take a loyalty test - disbanding on a 1 or 2 of a D6.

    13. If the war drags on too long, at his discretion, the GM may “accelerate” the war using console commands, phased movement or instant battle (consulting players first if he wishes).


    I know there will inevitably be gaps in the above rules and we would be reliant on GM to fill those gaps. But I think it would be better to build some structure and then fill the gaps, than just sit back and expect the GM to construct the whole thing.

    I should also say that I am quite prepared to play under the existing PvP mechanics. I gather they worked ok in LotR and I suspect I would enjoy a game played under them well enough (although I confess I would be predisposed to neutrality throughout any PvP wars fought under them). However, I think we should consider if we can improve them before they are finalised. What I propose is that Zim has the final say on the starting rules, but if people are interested, we discuss possibilities until he calls time.

  2. #2
    King Philippe of France Senior Member _Tristan_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reigning over France
    Posts
    3,264

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    I rather like your rules, Econ... but for the sake of the game I don't think we should restrict wars to one instance only at a time.

    I can imagine times when a full civil war will be raging and it will be a perfect time for changing allegiances and Houses thus breaking oath (say from a neutral House).

    Moreso, I can imagine times when several low-ranking nobles will want to make a stand to their betters, breaking their oaths each from their Houses and siding together against whatever will be thrown at them.

    Your rules just prevent this from happening. I fear we may be sorry for the loss.

    Your rules as they are worded prevent any opportunistic wars such as we've seen in LotR, and which were rather fun in IMO.
    Last edited by _Tristan_; 07-05-2009 at 13:37.
    King Baldwin the Tyrant, King of Jerusalem, Warden of the Holy Sepulchre, Slayer of Sultans in the Crusades Hotseat (new write-up here and previous write-up here)
    Methodios Tagaris, Caesar and Rebelin LotR
    Mexica Sunrise : An Aztec AAR



    Philippe 1er de France
    in King of the Franks

  3. #3
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    We're playing in a feudal system, which means that all nobles have their own loyal retainers, no matter what rank they are. If a 'Count' level wants to attack/rebel against a 'Duke' level, he would realistically be able to do so. For these reasons, I would prefer no restrictions on when someone can declare war on another player.

    However, I am very much open to changes in the way that recruitment is done. If we can find a method that is fair and easy to implement while not being reliant upon the Chancellor, I would support it.


  4. #4
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    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.

    Last edited by econ21; 07-05-2009 at 20:18.

  5. #5
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    King Philippe of France Senior Member _Tristan_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reigning over France
    Posts
    3,264

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    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.
    Last edited by _Tristan_; 07-05-2009 at 17:32.
    King Baldwin the Tyrant, King of Jerusalem, Warden of the Holy Sepulchre, Slayer of Sultans in the Crusades Hotseat (new write-up here and previous write-up here)
    Methodios Tagaris, Caesar and Rebelin LotR
    Mexica Sunrise : An Aztec AAR



    Philippe 1er de France
    in King of the Franks

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by YLC View Post
    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.
    Last edited by econ21; 07-05-2009 at 17:36.

  8. #8
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    King Philippe of France Senior Member _Tristan_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reigning over France
    Posts
    3,264

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    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...
    Last edited by _Tristan_; 07-05-2009 at 17:42.
    King Baldwin the Tyrant, King of Jerusalem, Warden of the Holy Sepulchre, Slayer of Sultans in the Crusades Hotseat (new write-up here and previous write-up here)
    Methodios Tagaris, Caesar and Rebelin LotR
    Mexica Sunrise : An Aztec AAR



    Philippe 1er de France
    in King of the Franks

  11. #11
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by YLC View Post
    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.
    Last edited by econ21; 07-05-2009 at 17:49.

  12. #12
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    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.

  13. #13
    The Search for Beefy Member TheFlax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,012

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by YLC View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    TheFlax needs to die on principle. No townie should even be that scummy.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by YLC View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlax
    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.
    Last edited by econ21; 07-05-2009 at 20:21.

  15. #15
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
    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.

    On the war weariness - it is partly intended to stop PvP wars dragging on endlessly.
    But only those who do not have the chancellor on their side grow weary of war? It seems heavily in favor of those who plot first to have the chancellor on their side first and simply exaggerates the issues we already have.

    I still think all involved in the civil war lose 1 unit per settlement that their opponents control to desertion at the beginning of the session, and those involved can acquire one unit from each of their settlements.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by YLC View Post
    But only those who do not have the chancellor on their side grow weary of war?
    Yes, it's the trade off for getting those five extra units.

    It seems heavily in favor of those who plot first to have the chancellor on their side first and simply exaggerates the issues we already have.
    You are right that having the Chancellor on side is still likely to be a big help (although not so much if many settlements are against him, leaving him with no florins after they have drafted their men). And it is true that the advantage from the Chancellor will grow over time due to war weariness of the rebels. However, it surely does not exaggerate the issues? At least, not exaggerate it compared to the current rules (maybe you are comparing it to some other proposed rules?).

    Suppose you don't have the Chancellor on your side, would you rather:
    (a) be able to pick 5 units per settlement
    (b) have the Chancellor give your quota of prioritised units (typically 1-3 per noble), no doubt after he has give the quota to your enemies and no doubt the worst units of their type available, and perhaps never if he has been smart enough to build up an army in advance so he does not need to recruit more than the quotas of his allies.

    I still think all involved in the civil war lose 1 unit per settlement that their opponents control to desertion at the beginning of the session, and those involved can acquire one unit from each of their settlements.
    That's an interesting idea - why don't you formalise your proposed rules? Then other people can comment. Are you thinking of one unit per settlement as a once and for all? If so, I'd still much rather have the five I am suggesting. Or one unit per turn? In which case, we will all be at (phoney) war all the time.

    I am open to discussion on all this. It is true that my system works against a long lasting rebellion and may favour short term phoney wars for recruitment. I am not that bothered about the former problem - five units per settlement is quite a lot and we do want civil wars to be decided without too much delay. On the latter, more thought may be required. Regardless of whiich rules we use, if we do allow some non-Chancellor recruitment in a civil war, it might be prudent to give the GM the power to declare nobles at peace, remove PvP flags etc if he thinks it is being exploited (as a phoney war to raise men).
    Last edited by econ21; 07-05-2009 at 20:45.

  17. #17
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Ugh, I am tired, but I shall try.

    The issue is I tend to think in examples, or in metaphors.

    Say we have to opposing sides, each with 5 settlements, and with my rules in place. So long as neither side does anything, no recruitment effectively takes place - what is gained is lost.

    If side A where to obtain a settlement, then they would hold advantage, and gain 6 units, and lose only 4. Side B would gain 4 and lose 6. a losing side would suffer more, preventing unit farming, since this would utterly cripple a faction, and force combat before the one at a disadvantage falls completely under the mercy of it's opponent.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by YLC View Post
    The issue is I tend to think in examples, or in metaphors.
    It's a good metaphor.

    So the recruitment and desertion would be annual.

    I think it goes a long way to solving the existing "Chancellor organises coup" problem, but perhaps not the "phoney war to recruit" danger of changing the current rules. Let's sleep on it.

    Ugh, I am tired, but I shall try.
    This can keep - get some rest. Sleep well.

  19. #19
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    I'm fine either way. You won't find me declaring war unless I think I can win with what I already have in my possession anyway. My concern is which of the PvP movement systems we're using. Has that been decided somewhere that I've missed?
    Last edited by TinCow; 07-06-2009 at 12:14.


  20. #20
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    I guess the issue of recruitment and movement are linked. If movement is normal (slow), then there is more time to recruit and recruitment issues become more important. Instant battle from the outset would of course make the issue of recruitment in war time irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    My concern is which of the PvP movement systems we're using. Has that been decided somewhere that I've missed?
    I'm suggesting what I understand to be the basic LotR system, but with the ability to switch systems if it is too slow:

    (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).

    If we are going to have civil war about one third or more of the game, then I think just moving as far as the computer allows will be the easiest to implement. Players can do it directly without going via the GM. I also have a strong preference for this system on the grounds of transparency - everyone will know what they can do, how at risk they are etc. If it proves too slow and inconclusive, the GM can speed things up using the console etc.

    However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?

    One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.

  21. #21
    Alphonse la Hire Member Rowan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
    However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?
    We didn't

    Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
    One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.
    I'd much prefer the WEGO system, if only because there are players from multiple timezones. Otherwise the run-up to successful rebellion becomes "find a sympathetic seneschal from about the same timezone" or "find a sympathetic seneschal and be ready to stay up until 6am to check if new turn has been openend" .

    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

  22. #22
    King Philippe of France Senior Member _Tristan_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reigning over France
    Posts
    3,264

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    I'd much prefer the WEGO system.

    Same here... mostly because I'm in the GMT+1 timezone which means that most times the save had been opened for a few hours whenever I managed to get my hands on it, only to discover that what I had planned was no longer doable.
    Last edited by _Tristan_; 07-06-2009 at 13:32.
    King Baldwin the Tyrant, King of Jerusalem, Warden of the Holy Sepulchre, Slayer of Sultans in the Crusades Hotseat (new write-up here and previous write-up here)
    Methodios Tagaris, Caesar and Rebelin LotR
    Mexica Sunrise : An Aztec AAR



    Philippe 1er de France
    in King of the Franks

  23. #23
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by econ21 View Post
    I'm suggesting what I understand to be the basic LotR system, but with the ability to switch systems if it is too slow:

    (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).

    If we are going to have civil war about one third or more of the game, then I think just moving as far as the computer allows will be the easiest to implement. Players can do it directly without going via the GM. I also have a strong preference for this system on the grounds of transparency - everyone will know what they can do, how at risk they are etc. If it proves too slow and inconclusive, the GM can speed things up using the console etc.

    However, there is an IGO-UGO problem with just letting players make normal moves in civil war. What determines who moves first in a given turn? Moving first may be a big advantage if it allows you to catch or evade your enemy. Conversely, moving second in some situations may be an advantage as you have seen the enemy move. Both are complicated by the issue of a deadline for making moves. How did you handle that in LotR?

    One solution would be for the GM to identify which armies could potentially fight next turn (are in reach of each other) and ask players to submit orders to him rather than move directly. He could then work out some plausible implementation of simultaneous movement (WEGO) rather than rely on a rather gamey IGO-UGO. (Where armies could not meet in a turn, I would not worry too much about it.) This does somewhat negate the ease of implementation advantage I mentioned, but I gather the problem with this system was a lack of battles, so it may not crop up too much.
    Ug... well, IMO using the LotR system is a very bad idea. The LotR system was immensely aggravating and resulted in multiple wars with no fighting simply due to the distances involved. It was unrealistic, took all excitement out of civil wars, and frustrated a lot of players. As I noted, having the GM speed it up with the console is fine, but what do you do with neutral players? Do they also get bonus movement? Does the game keep advancing during the war? This stuff needs to be ironed out now. We have more than enough experience with PvP at this point to create a final system that works properly. Putting it off until it becomes a problem will just shift the frustration into the game instead of disposing of it right now.

    As for movement priority, in the LotR system movement was first come, first served. If you took the save first and moved into contact with an opponent who had not yet moved, then a battle occurred. This was intentional, and it worked fine. If you're in a civil war and an enemy is nearby, pay attention to the game time. This never caused any problems in LotR, even when it resulted in a battle. However, as I noted, I think the entire LotR movement system should be scrapped.
    Last edited by TinCow; 07-06-2009 at 13:31.


  24. #24
    King Philippe of France Senior Member _Tristan_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reigning over France
    Posts
    3,264

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Why don't we just double the movement rates of armies involved in a civil war (like crusading armies) ? This would require the GM to use the console to reset the movements of said armies.

    One would think that the commanders are eager to get to blows with their enemies or are busy running away/running to confront their challengers.

    This would prevent any delay for the neutral characters and would somewhat remedy situations such as what we had to face in the war of words and subsequent "battles" (or lack of).
    King Baldwin the Tyrant, King of Jerusalem, Warden of the Holy Sepulchre, Slayer of Sultans in the Crusades Hotseat (new write-up here and previous write-up here)
    Methodios Tagaris, Caesar and Rebelin LotR
    Mexica Sunrise : An Aztec AAR



    Philippe 1er de France
    in King of the Franks

  25. #25
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow
    This stuff needs to be ironed out now. We have more than enough experience with PvP at this point to create a final system that works properly. Putting it off until it becomes a problem will just shift the frustration into the game instead of disposing of it right now.
    Well, we can agree on that. These are the current draft rules for campaign movement in a civil war:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    (d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map: At the beginning of any Civil War the GM will decide how the war will play out on the campaign map. There are four methods by which the Civil War can be fought.

    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 - 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).

    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. 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.


    I totally agree with TC that it would be better to settle on a system now. Putting it off until it happens saves us a headache in the short term, but:
    (a) we have time now to brainstorm
    (b) sorting it out in advance means no one is arguing for a particular system because it is best for their "side", as we don't know our sides
    (c) it takes some of the pressure of Zim: leaving it to the GM would mean a lot of people would be asking him how is going to play it and trying to persuade him etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    I'd much prefer the WEGO system, ...
    I agree, so what does that imply in terms of rules? Should WEGO be on all the time for those at war or just for those who could give battle that turn?

    ie should opt for:

    (a) WEGO all the time: players in a state of war cannot directly make moves on the map. They must submit orders to the GM who will execute them.

    or:

    (b) WEGO when a battle is possible: at the start of each turn, the GM will check if players have sufficient movement to attack an enemy. If they do, the GM will post the name of the affected players in the Chancellor's report. Named players cannot directly make moves on the map. They must submit orders to the GM who will execute them.

    Having written the rules, WEGO all the time sounds the more straightforward system. What do other people think?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tristan
    Why don't we just double the movement rates of armies involved in a civil war (like crusading armies) ? This would require the GM to use the console to reset the movements of said armies.
    I think this is a brilliant idea. And it would work well coupled with a WEGO system for warring players mediated via the GM. Submit orders to the GM and he can implement them at double speed.

    Do you think it is enough, TC, to remove your worries about the LotR system?

    I don't think there is an issue of disadvantaging neutral parties - think of double speed as a "force march". And personally, I would not like to see too many meddling neutrals, turning coat at the last minute.
    Last edited by econ21; 07-06-2009 at 13:48.

  26. #26
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Well, in the list of possible movement systems you just posted, all but (1) use WEGO. Since (1) is the system I think should never be used anyway, WEGO would be the result, regardless of which one is finally chosen. As an aside, I prefer (3). If it was good enough for MTW, it should be good enough for us.


  27. #27
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    So double speed WEGO - I guess a variant of (2) - would not work, in your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    As an aside, I prefer (3). If it was good enough for MTW, it should be good enough for us.
    Could we combine risk-style movement for civil warriors with normal or even risk-style movement for neutrals? If the civil war were just a localised border dispute involving few, we surely can't make everyone else tread water?

    PS: Sorry, I don't want to turn this into an interrogation, TC, it's just you've had the most experience handling PvP campaign mechanics so your view is very important.

  28. #28
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    (2) would work... in fact it did work in the final civil war of the game. We got sick of the problems with the basic LotR system, so I used my 'event' power to make the final game-ending war into (2). As for making (2) double speed, (2) already is double speed. More than double actually because the War of the Four Basileis was done at 2.5 times normal movement ranges. That said, I honestly think (3) would be faster than (2). (2) requires that everyone submit orders that then have to be processed and implemented by the GM. So does (3), but it involves far fewer orders and easier calculations. If you're worried about neutrals getting bored, you can allow the game to keep moving and treat neutrals according to the normal rules while the PvP movement only applies to combatants. Perhaps just add in some rule that PvP combatants cannot take advantage of the movement bonuses if they are going after the AI.


  29. #29
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    OOOOOOORR...

    We could go into descr_character, and double all the action points for all campaign models, basically negating the need to bother with having the GM do it. This means the whole of France could be traverse by a general in 2 turns however - but the AI can do that as well.

  30. #30
    King Philippe of France Senior Member _Tristan_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reigning over France
    Posts
    3,264

    Default Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

    Quote Originally Posted by YLC View Post
    OOOOOOORR...

    We could go into descr_character, and double all the action points for all campaign models, basically negating the need to bother with having the GM do it. This means the whole of France could be traverse by a general in 2 turns however - but the AI can do that as well.
    I'd prefer we didn't and that comes from someone who played a character whose traits could make him cross the Sinai in a single turn...

    Allowing our characters and anyone else to move faster will do nothing to curb our expansionism, which seems to be one of the main concerns.
    King Baldwin the Tyrant, King of Jerusalem, Warden of the Holy Sepulchre, Slayer of Sultans in the Crusades Hotseat (new write-up here and previous write-up here)
    Methodios Tagaris, Caesar and Rebelin LotR
    Mexica Sunrise : An Aztec AAR



    Philippe 1er de France
    in King of the Franks

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

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