PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[Andres]

I think we should start thinking out of the box.

The Total War game engine is not made for a civil war from players vs. players. What we are now trying to do is making insanely complex rules to make it work within the TW engine.

If a civil war is declared, we should lift that conflict outside the Total War game, so to speak and have it fought out in a simple format.

Yes, I know, it would be more fun to have a civil war going on for two or three years, with niceties as blocking mountain passes, shipping troops to do a quick attack on an unprotected province, but all of that candy cannot be done in an easy, convenient way.

I'm all for lifting out the civil war of the game and playing it on a different level.

In short:

1) Freeze the game for 5 days maximum when civil war is declared.
2) a) OR: peace treaty;
b) OR: One decisive battle; size of army determined by provinces and number of vassals; terrain advantage determined by rolling dice, taking into account command stars of leading generals; weather decided by fate. Once the circumstances are fixed proceed to table top battle or MP battle using TW engine. After the battle is over, the winner decides on the fate of the loser (release him, keep him captive and release later in return for whatever price, kill him). Winner can also do as he pleases with possessions of the loser.
3) Make changes through console if necessary because the decisions made in step 2).
4) Unfreeze the game.

Simple and quick and no need to bother with complicated rules.

EDIT: look at the tournament and duel thing. It's great fun, mainly because of its' simplicity.

[_Tristan_]

Simple and quick and no need to bother with complicated rules.

EDIT: look at the tournament and duel thing. It's great fun, mainly because of its' simplicity.

I would love it if we could accomplish something of the kind but I don't think it's possible.

Why ?

Simply because the tourney/duel minigame is in itself totally out of the game. It has simply no existence in game, even if we tried to create some basis out of the avatar game-stats.

However, Civil Wars are just that : Wars. And that's the whole point of M2TW, fighting wars, be it against the AI or against others players (think MP or PBeM Hostseat campaigns).

And we have already everything we need : units, terrain, etc and I think it would be shame not to make use of that basis in our PvP system.

Now, we may need to simplify but not too much. If I could, I would prefer to fight those PvP wars in MP (though I'm totaly inexperienced there) but I can't seem to make it work...

Why should we be able to use the strategic map to devise attack plans against the reportedly dumb and toothless AI and not be able to do that against capable players who are able to bite back...

[Andres]

I would love it if we could accomplish something of the kind but I don't think it's possible.

Why ?

Simply because the tourney/duel minigame is in himself totally out of the game. It has simply no existence in game, even we tried to create some basis out of the avatar game stats.

However, Civil Wars are just that : Wars. And that's the whole point of M2TW, fighting wars, be it against the AI or against others players (think MP or PBeM Hostseat campaigns).

And we have already everything we need : units, terrain, etc and I think it would be shame not to make use of that basis in our PvP system.

Now, we may need to simplify but not too much. If I could, I would prefer to fight those PvP wars in MP (though I'm totaly inexperienced there) but I can't seem to make it work...

Why should we be able to use the strategic map to devise attack plans against the reportedly dumb and toothless AI and not be able to do that against capable players who are able to bite back...

Because of the amount of rules required to make it work... The more rules, the more discussions/nitpicking about rules in the OOC threads = less fun.

Less complexity would make the game more accessable and, imo, more fun.

Maybe it's just because for me, personally, the bickering during the Senate sessions, gaining influence in the Senate, the behind the scenes plotting and intrigues to get votes in the Senate for a certain edict or a certain candidate are the fun part of the game.

Civil war is just another way to achieve something but it shouldn't go on endlessly or be emphasized too much. It's also a burden for the Chancellor and, imo, will inevitably slow down the game.

I'd prefer Civil wars to be decided quickly so that the rest of the game can move on asap.

But that's just my opinion, coloured by my personal preferences.

[_Tristan_]

I agree with you Andres that CW are just another tool to have fun in this game but by oversimplifying that part, we may lose some of that fun factor...

I would also like to see a quick resolution to CW but not to the detriment of the fun that can be had by out-thinking your opponent on the strategic map. That was one of the most fun part of hotseat campaings as some here can attest (Zim, Ramses ).

We must not forget that how much we want it to be otherwise this is a wargame (with an element of RPG) and not the other way round... If Iwanted to play a RPG with a touch of wargame, I'd go play D&D or WoW or whatever would suit the definition...

So let us stick to the maximum to the original game, enacting rules (as simple as possible, if need be) that makes the most of the system at hand.

I know this is just my point of view but I think some may share it.

[AussieGiant]

This is a little like discussing van Gough in an art class.

I'm all for discussion but there needs to be decisions and some leadership on this as to what the best overall solution is.

[econ21]

This is all starting to get very complicated.

I should have started my proposed rules for the Risk system like the opening of the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy. "Don't panic!"

While I was waiting at a squash court, I happened to look on the rules for squash posted on the wall and they were very long, seemingly complex. It was not light reading. But once you start playing squash it is pretty straightforward.

Personally, I think the phased movement system would be simpler to write rules for because it is constrained by the M2TW game engine - all you do is give your orders to the GM to make it WEGO and he uses the reset command on the console to double your movement.

If, as the poll suggests, we go for the Risk system, it will inevitably be a little more tricky to operationalise because we are trying to mimic a first generation TW engine (STW/MTW) with a second generation one (M2TW). However, I do think it will be simple in practice.

I suggest we start off just letting combatant units move to an adjacent province each turn. [We could allow faster movement, but I think that will just make things complex.] And that is the system. The rest is just commentary. To make it work, I think only one side's units should be allowed to end the turn in a province (unless besieged). Let neutrals move normally. That's it.

I think half my rules are about naval movement, which we will need - especially given TCs plausible scenario about us taking Britain. However, that again can be simple to a Shoggie/MTW vet. You move by ports. If enemy ships block yours, you have to beat em or beat it.

It's not complicated really, except to document.

Also is the intent that forces can only move a *single* province per 1.5 years? This could still end up making for a very slow war once we expand. Or is a 'turn' a set of moves within the game's 1.5 years, such that, for example, each force gets 5 turns to move (Across five provinces) per that 1.5 years, resulting in some ability to maneuver?

In the draft rules, TC suggested moving 2, 1, 3, provinces per turn whatever. I think it will make life a lot easier to start with one. Then it is just like the Shogun/MTW we know. I don't think you would gain anything by allowing 5 movements each of one province in 1.5 years. It would take about the same player time as just playing out five game turns. But it would weight the odds heavily in favour of the larger starting armies in the civil war, which personally I am not keen on (going back to the coups vs wars argument). One province per game turn would also sync well with allowing recruitment of one unit per settlement per turn (as in STW/MTW).

Okay, do we need specific mechanics for forts? Consider Adana; if the passes are held by forts then it would make little sense for a field battle to occur just because two armies were present in the province on different sides of a fort. What if the fort is held by a neutral party?

We could do. My principle in writing draft rules for the Risk system was to mimic STW/MTW which had no forts. Overlooking some terrain features seems part of the price for choosing the Risk system over the phased one. However, if people really want it modelled, it might be the kind of detail we could leave the GM to iron out when we see the actual war front.

I'm all for discussion but there needs to be decisions and some leadership on this as to what the best overall solution is.

Please bear with us a little longer - we are getting there. The poll is deciding what people think is the best movement - it's still looking like Risk. After that, the only thing left is recruitment during a civil war, which I don't think we have discussed enough to identify a best solution.

[Ramses II CP]

Mmm, let me suggest this: Allow armies to move 3-5 provinces 'Risk' style per year but make the commanders issue all the movement orders at the start. For example Party A orders a move from Paris to Marsellies while Party B wants to go from Toulouse to Metz. The parties send the list of provinces they want to move through to the GM and the GM implements each province hop simultaneously. If they run into each other in the middle there's a battle.

If we stick to the one province rule wars are still going to be extremely slow and almost absurdly predictable. The two sides will essentially have to agree, OOC, on where they want to meet up to prevent wandering all over chasing each other one step at a time. I don't mind slanting things towards the larger standing army because, well, they have the larger standing army. Isn't that supposed to be an advantage?

If I had realized the Risk system was tied to single province movement I might well not have voted for it, although I suppose I should've figured that out from the Shogun/MTW comparison.