PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[econ21]

I like TinCow's system as it is.

OK, I am happy to go with TinCow's system if - as seems likely - the Risk sytem wins the poll.

Anyone want to offer any opinions on the issue of recruitment during war?

I think the basic idea I presented a while back about allowing players to opt out of Seneschal recruitment and instead train their own men at their own settlement is solid, but the details need more thought.

In the spirit of trying to keep things simple, how about:

Recruitment in Civil War
(a) Nobles in civil war cannot prioritise recruitment. They can train (draft) one unit per turn at each settlement they own. This is done by giving the GM their recruitment order at the same time as they submit their movement orders. The GM recruits drafted units before the Seneschal takes the save, using the console to generate more funds if required.
(b) On turns in which a unit is drafted, the drafting settlement cannot train other units that turn or start new buildings (they can repair), and must set taxes to VH if possible
(c) Every unit drafted raises the combatant's war weariness by 1. Every full strength unit disbanded lowers a combatant's war weariness by 1. War weariness can never be allowed to rise above 5. As soon as the player stops being a combatant or every 10 turns of being at war, sufficient units must be disbanded so as to return war weariness to 0. If this is not possible, any units that come into the player's possession must be disbanded until war weariness is zero. To avoid exploits, players with positive war weariness cannot transfer units to others (or have their units seized by others).

[TinCow]

I like your abbreviated recruitment system, as it is simple and clean. My only concern is the war weariness, as that requires us to keep track of precise numbers of recruits and disbandings for every player. Keeping track of stats like this is one of the things that resulted in some of the worst rules nightmares in LotR. Can you think of a method of doing (c) that doesn't require quite as much number crunching?

Apologies for the continued push for short, simple rules, but the excessively complex rule system was one of LotR's biggest flaws. I think a lot of Throne Room players shrink back in horror now when they see a wall of rule text. If it's not short and punchy, people tend to run screaming for the hills.

[Ramses II CP]

Okay, so I just took a look at the LTC map and crunched some numbers on what I consider to be our likely first term expansion, taking for granted that there won't be a civil war until after the first term at least, when we have something worth fighting over. Five provinces is definitely too much movement, I over-estimated there, but I'd say 2-3 is absolutely necessary. For the first term I think two is enough, but later if we expand through Germany, Italy, or into Africa we may want to consider revising the number upwards.

The idea that you have to defend your settlements only makes sense if one side has overwhelming force at their disposal, if both are relatively equal then strategically the aggressor can't afford to tie himself to a siege with a mobile opponent in the area.

[ULC]

What about a draft cap? Number of Settlements controlled by Noble X Number of Prioritizations they can use per term. This draft cap is limited, and does not reset after each council session.

Simple, no?

[econ21]

Can you think of a method of doing (c) that doesn't require quite as much number crunching?

I think this should do the trick (and answer Vladimir's query about money):

-----

Recruitment in Civil War
(a) Drafting: Nobles at war with other nobles cannot receive or order prioritised recruitment. They can train (draft) one unit per turn at each settlement they own. This is done by giving the GM their recruitment order at the same time as they submit their movement orders. The GM recruits drafted units before the Seneschal takes the save, using the console to generate extra funds if the Kingdom’s balance at the start of the turn is insufficient to draft all requested units.
(b) Draft penalties: On turns in which a unit is drafted, the drafting settlement cannot train any other units nor start new buildings (they can repair), and must set taxes to VH if possible.
(c) Demobilisation: The GM will keep a record of all units drafted by each noble. When a noble ceases to be at war, or if the noble has been at war for a full Council term (10 turns), the GM will carry out a process of demobilisation. Demobilisation will be done by the GM disbanding units that collectively are of equivalent combat power to those drafted. Disband decisions are entirely at the discretion of the GM, who may merge units where it helps the process and who can use purchasing costs to guide assessment of combat power. To avoid exploits designed to avoid demobilisation, players who have drafted units cannot transfer units to others nor have their units seized by others.
(d) National debt: The GM will keep a record of any funds created by the console - the national debt - and use the console to repay it as soon as possible.

-----

There is still some book keeping, but only for the GM. Since the GM will have written orders for any drafted units, it should not be too hard him to keep a tally of them, and of any extra funds he has given to the Kingdom by the console in order to afford the drafts.

[ULC]

Err...demobilization should be handled IC, methinks, instead of by the GM.

Again, I think my solution is quite simple, and only requires that the GM keeps a tally of the number recruited, not where, when, and what type as well. It would simply be a larger prioritization number, that would bypass the Chancellor. Things such as demobilization should be something we fight about IC - it's known that wars leave the victor with a larger army then before he went to war, and if everyone else is going to be that lazy and let them keep those units without restriction or outright disbandment, then they deserve to be crushed under his heel - in this era, you did not keep what you were not willing to spill blood for.

[econ21]

Err...demobilization should be handled IC, methinks, instead of by the GM..

My concern is that we have a mechanism that prevents players declaring war just to get more troops. Forcing them to disband any additional recruits on peace, or after a long interval (turn 10), achieves that quite simply.

[TinCow]

One of the things I don't like about the proposed system is that they units are 'free' from cost in that the money is given back to the treasury with the console at the end. That is complex and it also isn't realistic. Feudal lords may have raised larger armies during times of war, but they still had to pay them. No money meant no army. If civil war drafting bankrupts the nation, then that's an added incentive for the neutrals to intervene and end it before it ruins the country. I find this realistic.

I do like the idea of 'drafting' or some form of special Civil War recruitment, but I would prefer if it meshed better with the existing rules rather than using a completely new system. My ideas aren't solid enough to start modifying your proposed text just yet, but here's a general sketch of the outline I currently have in my head (with commentary in parens):

-----

1) All Civil War participants can prioritize a maximum of one unit per turn, regardless of their normal prioritizations, to a maximum total of 5 units every 10 turns. (Utilizing the existing prioritization system will keep the system closer to the existing rule base and will reduce confusion. The numbers chosen above are just picked out of thin air and can be freely adjusted to suit whatever balance is deemed appropriate.)

2) These units can only be recruited in settlements owned by the Civil War participants or settlements they have conquered during the war. (Same as in the draft proposal.)

3) Neutrals who are not involved in the Civil War cannot prioritize any units while the Civil War is in progress. (If there's a Civil War going on in a country, most manpower is going to be drawn towards that conflict. Other people are going to have a tough time recruiting, because active fighting was historically more attractive to potential soldiers because of the increased opportunities for looting. This also ups the stakes of a Civil War, and encourages neutrals to get involved in some manner. Civil Wars that drag on for a long time may start weakening the armies of the neutrals, which could make them vulnerable to the AI or otherwise ruin plans that they were working on. This will result in political pressure on everyone to make Civil Wars quick affairs. Those that stall and drag out a Civil War for their own benefit may find the neutrals turning against them, and possibly joining in on the opposite side, just to end the war faster.)

4) Civil War prioritizations take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game, and they MUST be done by the GM/Chancellor/Whoever if the treasury has sufficient sums to fulfill the recruitment requests. (This mimics the 'draft' aspect of the proposed rules, as it makes the recruitment guaranteed to occur as long as there is money in the bank to pay for it. Unless the faction is broke, you will get your units.)

5) At the end of the Civil War, there is no automatic disbanding of units or recouping of expenses. (Players can voluntarily disband some of their units just like they would during normal play. One of the terms of a Peace Treaty could require both sides to do mutual disarmament of some sort, or if it was a lopsided victory, the loser could be forced to disband much of his surviving army. It makes sense that someone who won big during a Civil War would want, and be able, to retain a good portion of his army afterwards. In addition, by depriving the neutrals of prioritization during the Civil War, the risk of a budget over-run is reduced. In any case, I think budget shortfalls and other economic situations are wonderful issues for IC resolution. If a Civil War bankrupts the nation, then it bankrupts the nation. Civil Wars should not be painless for the country, they are massive internal upheavals that result in great loss of life and wealth.)

[ULC]

I agree, and like TC's rules.

Simple, to the point, and they create more IC interaction by their very nature and can make the game more prone to diplomatic conflict, giving one more thing to argue about in the Council sessions.

Sorry Econ

[econ21]

One of the things I don't like about the proposed system is that they units are 'free' from cost in that the money is given back to the treasury with the console at the end. That is complex and it also isn't realistic. ... If civil war drafting bankrupts the nation, then that's an added incentive for the neutrals to intervene and end it before it ruins the country. I find this realistic.

There may be some misunderstanding here. There's no "recouping of expenses" in my proposals. The units aren't free - they come from the Kingdom's coffers. The console is only used to give the kingdom money if the Kingdom is so bankrupt that not all units ordered can be drafted. As soon as possible, this money is "repaid" - subtracted from the Kingdom using the console. Drafting does risk bankrupting the nation and does give neutrals an incentive to intervene to stop it.

Feudal lords may have raised larger armies during times of war, but they still had to pay them. No money meant no army.

The reason why I think we should allow drafting even if the country is broke is to stop the "Seneschal bankrupts the country prior to civil war" exploit. That may have been fine for LotR, but now we everyone knows about it, I am not sure we should leave it open as frankly it strikes me as a little gamey. The whole point of introducing recruitment rules is to balance things a little against the faction with the Seneschal/ex-Seneschal in their pocket. I don't find it plausible that a ruler who had bankrupted the nation could stop discontented people raising arms against him. Quite the converse - most revolutions start because the government is bankrupt. If anything, the side that has bankrupted the kingdom should be the weak one because they can't afford to pay their men.

The most realistic solution would be to have decentralised budgets, so that nobles pay for their men from their provinces own incomes. However, we both know from the kotr trial that that is a spreadsheet nightmare.

I doubt we will have to access the console unless the Seneschal has deliberately bankrupted the kingdom. Even if we do, its operation will be infinitely less complex for the GM than Risk movement, tabletop battles, tournaments etc. It's just a matter of noting down what add_money command you use each turn.

3) Neutrals who are not involved in the Civil War cannot prioritize any units while the Civil War is in progress.

Personally, I don't like this. It may be fine for a "real" civil war that divides the kingdom into two. But if we allow any noble to declare war at any time, I suspect we are going to see some minor "border disputes" which are very localised to a few players. it seems a little excessive to let that cripple everyone else.

5) At the end of the Civil War, there is no automatic disbanding of units ...

This goes back to my point to YLC - we have to think about an unscrupulous player who just goes to war to get the drafted units. Automatic disbandment does that. I don't see anything in your proposals that does. The disbandment I am trying to model is not a political peacedeal type disarmament. Its a corollary of a draft. In a conflict, you can take men from the fields. But sooner or later, you have to let them go. Unlike the core of men you started with in peacetime who can stay with you. In other words, I see it as an OOC realism mechanic - like not allowing 2000 men to travel in one cog - and not part of an IC political settlement.

[econ21]

No! Don't go off on the mercenary tangent, I thought we were so close on drafting.

I would assume LTC mercs are just like vanilla - too few and no substitute for a nice fortress pumping out troops.

Can I suggest a consensus be formed around TinCow's draft recruitment rules:

1) All Civil War participants can prioritize a maximum of one unit per turn, regardless of their normal prioritizations, to a maximum total of 5 units every 10 turns.

2) These units can only be recruited in settlements owned by the Civil War participants or settlements they have conquered during the war.

3) Neutrals who are not involved in the Civil War cannot prioritize any units while the Civil War is in progress.

4) Civil War prioritizations take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game, and they MUST be done by the GM/Chancellor/Whoever if the treasury has sufficient sums to fulfill the recruitment requests.

The only thing I would like to add is some automatic disbandment. For simplicity, I suggest:

5) At the end of the Civil War, each player must disband one full strength unit for every unit they have drafted.

If people are not happy with that, I am content to go with just TCs points 1-4. (His point 5 was redundant IMO).

[Vladimir]

OK, I am happy to go with TinCow's system if - as seems likely - the Risk sytem wins the poll.

Anyone want to offer any opinions on the issue of recruitment during war?

I just want to know how the money works. If the civil war is against the sovereign he should loose all revenue from those settlements. Any corruption from those settlements could be reduced or limited because it's based on distance to capital. The rebel leader would receive all money from the settlements but also be responsible for all the upkeep; but, what were his starting funds?

Then, once the war ends, how are the remaining funds calculated? What is done with the money? What about agents in the service of the rebel leader? I hope the king keeps a stable of good assassins because I see civil wars are a pain in the arse.

Okay, so I just took a look at the LTC map and crunched some numbers on what I consider to be our likely first term expansion, taking for granted that there won't be a civil war until after the first term at least, when we have something worth fighting over. Five provinces is definitely too much movement, I over-estimated there, but I'd say 2-3 is absolutely necessary. For the first term I think two is enough, but later if we expand through Germany, Italy, or into Africa we may want to consider revising the number upwards.

There are three that need to be taken straight away, and I have a plan for that. The fourth is also necessary and the fifth is a bonus. Watch out for Milan/Genoa.