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?
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
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?
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
I think this should do the trick (and answer Vladimir's query about money):Originally Posted by TinCow
-----
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.
Last edited by econ21; 07-09-2009 at 11:00.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
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.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
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.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
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.)
Last edited by TinCow; 07-09-2009 at 14:12.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
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
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
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.
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.Feudal lords may have raised larger armies during times of war, but they still had to pay them. No money meant no army.
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.
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.3) Neutrals who are not involved in the Civil War cannot prioritize any units while the Civil War is in progress.
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.5) At the end of the Civil War, there is no automatic disbanding of units ...
Last edited by econ21; 07-09-2009 at 15:07.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Econ, your trying to control to many factors. Let the players politic it out in the council if someone is unit hording - they can do it outside of wartime as well, the civil war mechanic does not actually enable people anymore then it would outside of it. If you look previously at LotR, the Order and the Asteri both horded units like mad outside of civil war.
Second, disabling unit prioritization may be bad in minor skirmishes, but it is good in the sense of forcing people to act. A compromise would be to reduce the number of prioritization to 1 for all neutral players. This will allow unit recruitment outside of the civil war to continue, at the kingdoms detriment, and also gets those not involved to try and broker peace between the two nations hating each other. Couple that with the dueling mechanic, and the stigma that will likely go along with grinding the kingdom to a halt over a minor border skirmish, and this won't be abused at all.
I have nothing against adding money to the bank so long as it is returned to it's previous level, but that may be a bit of a hassle for the GM.
And as far as Bankrupting the country - you really think the other players will allow that? This is another thing that should be fought IC. If the Seneschal is trying to drive the kingdoms economy into the ground, then we as players, who oppose this, need to do something about it, not let rules support us.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
And we've already seen how possible it is in LotR...
Frankly, most times, for all of our debates in the Magnaura, there were almost never any consequence in game. Most debates were sterile and remind of the U.N. of nowadays : a lot of good will but very few actions...
So, I think it is better to prevent in the rules the "hoarding" of drafted men rather than be confronted by a player who would have all the cards in his hands by having cheated the rule...
Philippe 1er de Francein King of the Franks
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Ah, I see. Sorry for misreading. However...
The reason Zim got away with bankrupting the faction in LotR was because most people were tired and no longer interested in the game at that point. Simply put, no one cared enough to do anything about it. This was due to fatigue with the game, and was the reason it was wrapped up. I very much doubt that will be a problem in KotF. There's a lot of energy in here right now, and I can personally guarantee you that if someone other than me bankrupts the faction, I'll raise a pretty massive stink about it IC. I very much believe IC actions will be enough to handle it in this game. I would expect intentional bankruptcy to result in impeachment at best and Civil War at worst.
Heh, it was actually attempted again. Check the main throne room for threads with the "V&V" prefix. They came up with a simpler and more efficient method, but it still didn't get very far. Financial independence will likely forever be an elusive dream for us. It opens up so many more possibilities for great RPing and interaction, but I doubt we'll ever be able to implement it.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.
It only cripples everyone if money is low. If the economy is healthy, the mandatory recruitment for the civil war shouldn't deplete the treasury by very much. If there's money left over, the Chancellor can continue constructing buildings and recruiting units for everyone else, the only difference being that no one can use their prioritizations. If the Chancellor uses this rule to weaken neutrals he doesn't like, they can respond in an IC manner, including declaring war to get access to the mandatory recruitment. Thus, a Chancellor who utilizes a Civil War as an opportunity to injure his enemies may find the war spreading, which seems fun and realistic to me.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.
On the other hand, if the economy isn't healthy, everyone else will indeed be penalized because they won't get what they want. However, it makes sense that a Civil War that occurs during a period of weak finances would have an increased risk of dragging the entire country into a greater crisis.
I've been brainwashed by AussieGiant here. He's been the main proponent for resolving as many issues as possible IC rather than OOC, and he converted me to that line of thought a long time ago. IC resolution of issues results in more of the politics we all like, so it's best to use it when possible. The way I see it the "unscrupulous player who just goes to war to get the drafted units" is the perfect target for some IC spanking.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.
Last edited by TinCow; 07-09-2009 at 15:43.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
What you say is true, but I honestly think that was a failure by the players rather than a failure of the rules. There were plenty of IC methods of taking action, but no one had the guts to do it. Why should someone be stopped from exploiting a position of power if no one is prepared to stop them? Seems fair to me.And we've already seen how possible it is in LotR...
Frankly, most times, for all of our debates in the Magnaura, there were almost never any consequence in game. Most debates were sterile and remind of the U.N. of nowadays : a lot of good will but very few actions...
So, I think it is better to prevent in the rules the "hoarding" of drafted men rather than be confronted by a player who would have all the cards in his hands by having cheated the rule...
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Agreed, fellow DC area resident.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
There's a clear approach.
Create a sandpit with a boundry. A nice wide boundry.
Then three rules:
1) IC
2) IC
3) IC
Why, because we have a voting system that can create the necessary IC legislation to limit or expand IC actions and behaviour. We don't want stuff OOC because;
a) it undermines the role playing experience
b) undermines the IC legislation Diet mechanism
c) creates confusion.
d) removes from the Diet excellent topics for debate.
You create the boundries/OOC rules, keeping them nice, simple and vague, and then let role playing and IC politicking resolve the issue(s).
Classic example:
HOUSE Armies from KotR.
We didn't have em, we realised the Houses wanted and needed em, the Dukes needed em, so we voted em, bingo house armies.
Why because the voting system and the weighting mechanism is where the action and IC effort is expended.
If you want the Chancellor with extra power, vote!! You want different ranks, vote!!
It's all kept IC and simple. Any expansion on rule sets or fundamentally IC issues like ranks can be modified IC using our base line political mechanism.
Again, it's too much. Very much like LotR. I personally and sincerely appreciate the efforts that have been made to create additional concepts but there is a real art to creating a rule set that creates a nice simple boundry and then doesn't try to go further.
The aim is to create four railway sleepers (those big solid pieces of wood), 3 tonnes of yellow sand, a small shovel and some water. That's it. Leave it at that and let people create the rest. Don't be tempted to over cook the OOC rules when there are already IC rules about how things are going to be handled IN the sand pit.
Our sheer mass is going to cause mayhem by itself. But, we are creating a rule set that boggles the mind and will.
I found KotR an excellent experience and the basis for a great game. We dodged a train wreck at the last minute with LotR because we over cooked our rule set. Lets not go down the same path again.
Here ends the sermon.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
We seem to be quite close on recruitment mechanics, so if you want to formalise your proposals, TinCow, we can see if there is enough difference of opinion to warrant further discussion or even a poll.
There seem to be two main areas of disagreement on recruitment:
(1) should you be allowed to draft if the Kingdom has no money?
(2) should you be allowed to keep drafted units when war ends?
These are sufficiently clear cut choices to be amenable to a poll, although it may not be necessary.
I can see the bankrupting exploit being stopped by IC vigilance, especially now it is well understood.
I am not so sure about the "phoney war to accumulate units" exploit - as the exploiters can use the drafted units to resist IC pressure. Let's suppose Duchy A declares a phoney war on Duchy B, leaving neutral Duchies C and D unable to prioritise. After A and B have maxxed out their drafts, they declare "peace" and promptly launch a war on an outgunned C and D. It just seems "gamey" and better to stop by OOC rules.
My example may seem contrived, but what has been said about long periods of civil war in LotR with no fighting makes me think we should think about.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Correct me if I'm reading this wrong.
The Civil War mechanism is an OOC event.
Given this, the rules MUST be restricted to the Civil War.
It only applies to those in the Civil War and only applies while the civil war is active.
The game already has an in-built drafting mechanism. We use that. Why overlay something the game already deals with perfectly well.
My approach would be to use the in game mechanism for the Civil War as well. Therefore you don't have to write OOC rules.
Again anything handled by the game should be and must be in my view used in the first instance. Otherwise you are directly overlaying rules on top of rules. CA have already codified a whole bunch of rules to create the game in the first place. Why would we want to supersede them.
Last edited by AussieGiant; 07-09-2009 at 16:50.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
To resolve your example - put a limit of one full term to prevent a person who has just declared civil war to declare peace, and then promptly declare civil war again.
And in the council, we can always pass legislation for demobilization for that term, but again - IC, IC, IC, IC, IC, IC!
Last edited by ULC; 07-09-2009 at 16:51.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
If you can indulge us just a little bit longer, AG, I predict we will wrap up the PvP rules within 24 hours with couple of paragraphs written by TC covering PvP movement and recruitment that will actually shorten the draft rules.
IC rule making is great for IC issues, the politics if you like.
But I don't buy it for solving OOC issues, the physics if you like.
The problem as I see it, AG, is that with PvP issues we are trying to do something with the game - allow a faction to fight itself - that just is not modelled by the game engine. To make it plausible, we have to decide some OOC things.
For example, how far can an army march? The game gives us one answer to that. But apparently, that's too slow, so we go for Risk and have to write some rules for that.
Recruitment is another issue - how many units can we recruit? The game again tells us something - but it does not tell us how many should go to each side in the war or the neutrals. That surely can't be decided IC.
The counter-arguments to letting OOC rules grow organically during the game - which will no doubt happen - is that sorting them out now, at the beginning:
(a) it let's players know their in-game capabilities (can my army in Calais reach Edinburgh next turn? can it attack Metz next turn? will I be able to draft any men if I am attacked by the Seneschal's clique?)
(b) we can discuss it now without being biased by our in character self-interest, as we don't know our characters, let alone their self interest.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
What about the go to war with what you have truism (demonstrated in early Iraqi Freedom)? Spawn the maximum amount of the most basic free upkeep troops for garrison purposes and disband them when the conflict it over. Don't let the combatants recruit any additional troops (except for mercenaries, maybe?) This will create an in-character incentive to ensure no avatar controls too many units.
Get rid of all this confusion and wasted effort. Let’s try to be respectful of people’s out of character time.
Last edited by Vladimir; 07-09-2009 at 17:02.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Free upkeep troops are poor troops, so I don't think it addresses the issue that motivated discussion of this topic - the desire to model genuine civil wars, rather than military coups. In most civil wars I know of, most of the combatants were levied during the war. The early Iraqi Freedom was not a civil war. The insurgents in the more civil war like later Iraqi Freedom were "units" that did not exist when Iraq was invaded.
This is a brainstorming thread - there's no obligation to waste any of your time reading it. When we have identified the best solution or clear options, Zim or a poll will decide. As I said, I think we are nearly done.Get rid of all this confusion and wasted effort. Let’s try to be respectful of people’s out of character time.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
You’ve misinterpreted my entire post.
The point is that the US went in with an army unprepared for the fighting they encountered and weren’t able to use consol commands or wait X amount of turns to train additional forces to attack. That is merely an example.
I’m not concerned with civil wars you or anyone else know of. I’m concerned with civil wars in LTC Gold. My belief is that if a noble wishes to start a civil war he does so with the troops he has direct control over. No drama.
The free upkeep troops are to protect the settlement while the avatar and his army are away.
How much time will the GM, Senchel/Chancellor thingy, or whoever, waste with a lot of monkeying around? If you want them to be able to raise troops, let them use an in-game function: Mercenaries.This is a brainstorming thread - there's no obligation to waste any of your time reading it. When we have identified the best solution or clear options, Zim or a poll will decide. As I said, I think we are nearly done.
You're too deep in the weeds on this one.
Last edited by Vladimir; 07-09-2009 at 18:28.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Hmmm.... the mercenaries concept is interesting. The game already provides mercenaries at a limited rate, and once a province is depleted of them, it takes a while for them to reappear. That could be used as a method of limiting the number of units that could be 'drafted' without needing to count turns: just restrict Civil War recruitment to 1 Mercenary unit per player per turn. This is somewhat realistic, as mercenaries formed the bulk of many, many armies throughout the entire timeperiod covered by M2TW. In addition, using mercenaries opens up an easy method to implement econ21's post-war disbanding without relying on anything other than the game engine itself. Mercenary units are very easy to distinguish from normal units in an army. We could simply say that all Mercenary units owned by all participants in a Civil War are disbanded when the Civil War ends. Clean, efficient, and requires no one to take notes of which units were recruited when. The only issue would be mercenary units that were owned before the war began, but those tend to be few and far between, since they cannot be gained by prioritization anyway, so they would be rare and small in number and thus relatively easy to keep track of.
My main concern with mercenaries would be that I'm not sure whether the replenishment rate is slow enough to properly fit into the limits we want to impose on civil war recruitment. Does anyone know how fast mercs 'spawn' in LTC?
Last edited by TinCow; 07-09-2009 at 18:42.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
That's a good point. I wasn't thinking about simulating the historical role of mercenaries but I like it.
Disbanding them once conflict is over is also a good idea. They're much easier to track.
The merc spawn rate always seems slow to me but I don't know the rate.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
If it's capped at one unit per player per turn then we don't have to worry about the replacement rate, right? There's a trick to mercenary recruitment everyone should know about; if you disband a partial unit in it's usual recruitment zone (And outside a settlement) then next year there will be a full company of that same merc available (In vanilla anyway, not tested in LTC). This makes common sense but I've found people to be surprised that things work that way. There are a few circumstances where this can be useful as opposed to retraining the mercs in a settlement.
Now, would merc recruitment by participants be first come, first serve?
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
First come, first serve wouldn't matter because only one person can own a province at a time. Since you can only recruit mercs in provinces you own or have conquered, other people wandering through your lands won't be able to recruit them there.
Or should we change that? Recruiting only in your lands might tie people down to their lands for longer and discourage them from attacking like we want them to. Would it be better to allow merc recruitment anywhere, as long as they were available?
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
TC, I made that suggestion EONS ago, minus the disbandment afterwards.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
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:
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).
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
I thought mercs would make it easier to implement what you wanted. I'm not sure I understand why they are less desirable.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Mercs have a more than one province wide recruitment zones. The same mercs I can buy at Bordeaux will deny the player at Paris from buying them. I think there's a map somewhere of the exact zones.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Ramses achieved miracles with mercs in the cataclysm, IIRC, but I think most of us admired him for that because mercs are rather limited in their capabilities. Without the console, you won't get that many and they tend to be spears/missiles. I suspect important civil wars will happen late, when the factions have access to high end troops with upgraded armour etc. I think most combatants would prefer to be able to train one unit per settlement for some period than rely on the vagaries of available mercs.
How do people feel about disbandment of this kind:
-----
5) At the end of the Civil War, each player must disband one full strength unit for every unit they have drafted.
------
It requires minimal book-keeping and is easy to implement. As players will tend to disband lower quality units than they have drafted, they will still come out of civil wars with a modest military edge.
If people are still unhappy, could we forget disbandment and go with TCs rules 1-4? They work for me.
----
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.
Re: PvP mechanics brainstorming thread
Strange, I've always thought mercs generally offered higher quality than was available except from heavily upgraded castles. I'd like to get more info on merc availability from someone who knows about it better than I do. If they simply aren't supplied with sufficient numbers to make this system work, it's a moot point.
If they are supplied, I'd like to hear which proposal people would prefer as they're frankly both fine with me. If we go with the non-merc version, I am satisfied by your proposed (5) for disbanding after the war is over. It's simple and clean and easy to implement. We should probably have a poll just to check whether people want this recruitment option in the first place though. This could just be you and me spinning our wheels for something no one else is interested in.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks