PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[TinCow]

(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.

[ULC]

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.

[_Tristan_]

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.

[ULC]

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.

Actually, it will - the AI will be able to respond faster and in greater force, while we bicker amongst ourselves. We already have limitations on expansion by insuring that any captured settlement will stagnate and rebel if not heavily garrisoned, basically causing us to hold off on jumping to the next settlement until the next council session.

Increasing the speed won't change much except allow us to get to each others throats better.

[_Tristan_]

I'm not convinced... I prefer we do not change too much of the original game files except for some "pruning" because we do not know the long-term effects on the game.

And I know that if I can move twice faster there will be no limits to my greed...

[ULC]

I'm not convinced... I prefer we do not change too much of the original game files except for some "pruning" because we do not know the long-term effects on the game.

And I know that if I can move twice faster there will be no limits to my greed...

I believe you have played BC, correct? Tell me, is the AI able to capitalize on the fast movement rates?

[econ21]

(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).

Good link, tx - personally, for the reasons I gave before, I would like to see use adopt something concrete like that before the game starts rather than work it all out as an event at the time.

Reading the thread, my impression was that it was not so much the strategic movement that slowed things down (I think you gave people only a day or so to submit orders), but resolution of the battles? We may need to think a bit more about battle mechanics.

That said, I honestly think (3) would be faster than (2).

I think the wars would be resolved faster, but I am not sure that is a virtue. I guess this is partly if we want to model a war or a Lothar/Trent style "execution".

If we are designing rules for a climactic civil war when people are losing interest, then yes, cutting to the chase is good.

But if we are allowing for minor borderwars and expect PvP wars to be ongoing for around one third of the time, then my preference would be to come up with some relatively unobtrusive rules that let unaffected parties go about their normal business and allow combatants to maneouvre and recruit.

I am wondering if a good way to proceed is incrementally and try to get agreement on some parts of the package of PvP rules, then bundle it all together. I can see at least four broad areas:

(1) rules for who can war on who
(2) rules for strategic movement
(3) rules for PvP battles
(4) rules for recruitment

At the moment, I think we are coalescing around:

(1) laissez-faire - anyone can attack anyone, any time
(2) either option [2], accelerated WEGO, or [3] risk style WEGO
(3) MP or put it to a vote - but may need to rethink that given issue of speed and GHs point about quantity of GM involvement required
(4) no agreement yet (various options - Chancellor recruits; no recruitment; econ21 drafting/desertion; YLC militia/desertion etc)

[TinCow]

Good link, tx - personally, for the reasons I gave before, I would like to see use adopt something concrete like that before the game starts rather than work it all out as an event at the time.

Reading the thread, my impression was that it was not so much the strategic movement that slowed things down (I think you gave people only a day or so to submit orders), but resolution of the battles? We may need to think a bit more about battle mechanics.

That's true, but it only applies to Tabletop battles. The two MP battles were very quick. Abbreviated Tabletop is (IMHO) a brilliant compromise between strategy and speed, but it was never used in LotR. Honestly, if PvP battles are rare (which was the case in every game we've ever played so far, even LotR), then sitting around for a couple weeks while one is resolved isn't a big deal. It's only if they start coming fast and furious that the time on the actual battles becomes an issue. MP is its own thing, removed from all issues, because it is not only the fastest method, it's also the most accurate way of representing the actual battle.

I think the wars would be resolved faster, but I am not sure that is a virtue. I guess this is partly if we want to model a war or a Lothar/Trent style "execution".

If we are designing rules for a climactic civil war when people are losing interest, then yes, cutting to the chase is good.

But if we are allowing for minor borderwars and expect PvP wars to be ongoing for around one third of the time, then my preference would be to come up with some relatively unobtrusive rules that let unaffected parties go about their normal business and allow combatants to maneouvre and recruit.

I am wondering if a good way to proceed is incrementally and try to get agreement on some parts of the package of PvP rules, then bundle it all together. I can see at least four broad areas:

(1) rules for who can war on who
(2) rules for strategic movement
(3) rules for PvP battles
(4) rules for recruitment

At the moment, I think we are coalescing around:

(1) laissez-faire - anyone can attack anyone, any time
(2) either option [2], accelerated WEGO, or [3] risk style WEGO
(3) MP or put it to a vote - but may need to rethink that given issue of speed and GHs point about quantity of GM involvement required
(4) no agreement yet (various options - Chancellor recruits; no recruitment; econ21 drafting/desertion; YLC militia/desertion etc)

The point isn't that wars should be faster, but that they need to result in actual fighting. The problem in LotR was simply that war would be declared and then people would sit around doing nothing. I don't have any problems with wars taking a while to play out, but it seems to me like the mechanisms that allow wars to last a long time are the same mechanisms that tend to make them Phony Wars. We just need to make sure that civil wars eventually result in a battle, or they become toothless like they were for a large part of LotR. If that can be accomplished while still allowing for a leisurely pace, it's fine with me, though I remain skeptical that we can find that happy medium.

[_Tristan_]

Being one of the main participants in the War of Words, I think I'm entitled to my say about why it ended up like that. That may shed some light on what needs to be done to make things happen.

First of all was the distance that either Ioannis or Methodios had to cross to get to the opposition. Doubling the movement rates might have lessened that problem.

Second, I saw the rebellion at the time as a direct and potentblow against the power of the Komnenoi, one that I thought would bring swift retaliation, the more so when I witnessed almost every character flogging to the Imperial banner. Hence I prepared for a siege situation that never came. The PvP flagging or desertion mechanism could have forced one or both parties to get a move on.

Last, the way recruitment worked in LotR, Methodios had to make do with what he could in terms of unit (and that was not much), having the Chancellor fully against him and afterwards the treasury in the red. I must admit that if Econ's rules of recruitment had been implemented at the time, the bonus units would certainly have pushed me to bring the fight to Igno. As it was, I didn't even have a fleet to cross the sea to Greece and Asia Minor.

I don't know if any of this makes sense but at least these are some of the remedies that may prevent another war of words.

One thing to consider also is the fact that France and its neighbours are much more tightly packed than Byzantium with a lot of mountains and the sea as the main way of exapnsion.

Here, the conquests will either go towards Spain, the HRE or maybe Italy and the British Isles but the distances involved are much shorter unless we have the Duke of Rennes declaring war on the Count of Hamburg (and still...)

[TinCow]

One thing to consider also is the fact that France and its neighbours are much more tightly packed than Byzantium with a lot of mountains and the sea as the main way of exapnsion.

Here, the conquests will either go towards Spain, the HRE or maybe Italy and the British Isles but the distances involved are much shorter unless we have the Duke of Rennes declaring war on the Count of Hamburg (and still...)

I do completely agree that a game in which everyone was much closer geographically would solve lots of the problems. However, if KotR and LotR have shown us anything, it's that players like expanding to distant and hard-to-reach places. It's very likely that eventually the KotF players will reach spots that are pretty remote or otherwise hard to get to from France. Britain is an obvious and easy avenue of expansion, and Scotland would certainly be a pain to get to at normal movement rates for anyone not in middle or northern France. While Spain is relatively easily accessible, conquering Spain inevitably leads to conquests in North Africa. Getting to North Africa from France is just as hard as getting to Egypt from Constantinople. This is what we need to be concerned with: wars that begin after the game has been going for several months, not wars that begin while we're all still close to one another.

Perhaps multiple systems is the way to go then. The basic system works in the beginning, and the faster system only needs to be imposed after we expand. We just need to make sure the faster systems really are used later on when they're needed.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I suggest that whenever two hostile armies are in the same province a battle will occur. This means that armies don't have to be next to each other and PvP battles will be fought. If going with the LotR system(armies have to be next to each other) then there will be situations where there could be 1 tile between hostile armies but there will be no fighting. I think this is how battles were fought in MTW?

[econ21]

From the poll, it looks like the Risk style system will be implemented for the first civil war. I wonder if the following rules would do for what we want. They are a little long, but we can regard them as separate from the core rules - sort of like the tournament rules or rules for an event.

Rules for Risk style PvP campaign movement

A. Land movement:
1. PvP land movement is by province. Any turn players who are in a state of war with another player (combatants), they may use PvP movement. Alternatively, they may move normally subject to the constraint that they do not enter an enemy province. Non-combatants (neutrals) move normally.
2. Combatants on opposing sides may not occupy the same province at the end of a turn unless one is under siege by the other. If units happen to find themselves in enemy provinces other than by PvP movement – e.g. at the start of the war – then the GM will “teleport” them to the nearest friendly province.
3. Each turn, a combatant may move each unit to an adjacent province. This is done by submitting written orders in secret to the GM. The GM will then simultaneously execute all orders.
4. On the campaign map, the GM will place units moving by PvP movement in or adjacent to the settlement of the province they enter or reside (it is possible to use PvP movement to stay within a province, but group up at or adjacent to the settlement). Combatants wishing their units to be placed at alternative locations in a province (e.g. to hold a bridge against the AI) should use normal movement.
5. Should orders result in enemy units occupying the same province, a PvP battle may be fought. The GM will inform all sides of the units occupying the province and then both sides should secretly give the GM their pre-battle option: (a) fight; (b) retreat; (c) retreat behind settlement walls (if the player controls the settlement)
6. All battles that take place in a given turn are resolved before any retreats are executed – even pre-battle ones. If there are multiple battles in a turn, they are resolved sequentially in a random sequence.
7. Retreats are executed by units retreating to the province they came from or, if they were stationary, to an adjacent province not occupied by an enemy unit (their choice). If there are no such provinces, the army cannot retreat.
8. Only 20 units can retreat behind settlement walls (whether damaged or not) – any excess are disbanded. Units can be merged prior to retreat. If there are any disagreements between allies on which units retreat, the owner of the settlement decides.

B. Implications of PvP movement for land battles
1. If units from one player enter a province occupied by units of his enemy, then the entrant is regarded as the attacker. In a PvP battle, the GM will give the defender some suitable advantage in terms of choice of terrain (e.g. first pick of map side in Multiplayer). After a battle, the attacker must retreat unless he defeats the defender (draws and standoffs are treated as victories for the defender).
2. If neither side began the turn with a unit in a province, then the battle is regarded as a meeting engagement. Neither side will have an advantage of terrain
3. Bridge battles: if on the strategic map, all attacking units side could only have entered a province via a bridge, the battle will be modelled as a bridge battle.
4. The losing side of a battle can retreat any surviving units according to A7 (but the GM implements this only after all battles are resolved)

C. Implications for siege battles
1. If one side has retreated behind settlement walls, then the attacker may assault the settlement that turn or besiege the settlement.
2. Besieged armies can only exit the settlement if all enemy units leave the province, if they win a sally battle or if a relieving army attacks the province and wins. The GM will specify how besieged armies can hold out before automatically surrendering and may model attrition, guided by how the game engine models sieges involving the player vs the AI.
3. If a relieving army enters a province, there is a field battle with the besieger’s positioned between the relief army and the besieged garrison. For simplicity, the settlement (and the garrisons need to exit through the settlement gates) need not be represented in the battle.
4. If a garrison loses a sally or relief battle, survivors may retreat behind the settlement walls at the GMs discretion. They cannot retreat anywhere else. If garrison is in good order after the battle (it sallied only to impose some losses on the attacker), a retreat is appropriate. If it is utterly crushed, the GM may just declare the siege won.

D. Naval movement
1. While PvP land army movement is by province, PvP sea movement is by port. Unlike land movement, combatant ships may NOT move normally. All combatant owned ships must start each turn either (a) in a friendly port; (b) blockading an enemy port; or (c) a transit area (represented on the campaign map by being placed somewhere in the relevant zone at sea).
2. Each turn, players can give the GM secret orders to move their ships to any other port in the same sea zone or to the transit area for an adjacent sea zone. There three sea zones: the Black Sea; the Mediterranean; and the Atlantic – Gibraltar and Constantinople demarcate those zones.
3. Each sea zone has an associated transit area. No sea battles between combatants can take place in transit areas. Enemy ships may share the same transit area. Ships may stay indefinitely in a transit area. (These are all abstractions made for simplicity).
4. If orders lead to enemy fleets being at the same port, then a naval battle may result. The parties communicate their orders: (a) fight; (b) retreat; (c) retreat inside port – if the port is friendly.
5. If opposing combatants both fight, then the GM will resolve the sea battle. All sea battles are resolved before retreat options are executed.
6. Retreat orders are executed by returning ships to the port they originated to, provided it remains friendly and not subject to blockade. If the ships did not move, or their port of origin is no longer eligible to receive them (e.g. it is captured or blockaded), they may move to any non-blockaded friendly or neutral port (note: in the latter case, they would become owned by the neutral!). Ships may not retreat to transit areas. If no ports are eligible to receive a ship, that ship may not retreat before battle and is disbanded after battle if required to retreat.
7. If one side retreats inside the port, it is blockaded. Blockaded ships cannot leave a port except to fight a sea battle against the ships blockading them. Such a battle expends their movement for that turn.

E. Naval movement of land units
1. Land units that begin a turn in province that has a unblockaded port with friendly ships may be transported by those ships (2 units per ship). The GM will disband land units travelling with ships if losses from sea battles mean there are no longer enough ships to carry them (which units are lost is randomised).
2. Land units transported by ship end the turn in the destination province provided only if any of the following conditions apply: (a) it has a friendly or neutral port that is not blockaded by enemy ships; (b) it has an enemy port unoccupied by enemy ships; (c) it has an enemy port under blockade by friendly ships. (This implies, as in Shogun, that an enemy province can only be subject to naval landings if it has port infrastructure – this is rationalised by supply issues. It also implies that the blockading side effectively controls the surrounding waters, facilitating or obstructing landings.)
3. Land units transported by sea to a province held by enemy land units are treated just as if they entered by land. They may retreat before battle (effectively a feint or threatened landing), but not after battle (think Bay of Pigs).

[Cecil XIX]

I would still prefer to pick rules systems for PVP on a case-by-case basis, which econ quoted as the current draft rules. There seems to be a trade off between the speed with which the war is resolved the and the control players have over the armies. LotR rules should work fine for wars between adjacent provinces, and we can move toward faster rulesets as distances warrant. If we work out what these rulesets are before hand I don't think it will be a big deal to decide which to use on a case-by-case basis. Finally, this would allow us to test a variety of rule sets, and I think more testing is something our PVP could really use.