PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

[econ21]

My only issue with them is that they state that in a civil war all money is spent FIRST on the civil war requirements.

I think it should be AFTER non civil war requirements are met.

I was thinking of conceding that point, but the problem is I am sure a Seneschal can manage to expend the budget on non civil war requirements BEFORE drafting, so that drafting becomes impossible. As I recall, some late stage buildings are very expensive in M2TW and if push comes to shove, the Seneschal could even give away money to foreign factions to make sure the cupboard is bare.

If you are worred about the drafting being unfair to non-participants, then we could just let them draft too, so everyone benefits equally. Bear in mind that TC wanted neutrals not to get any prioritisation at all. Personally, I could live with everyone being able to draft - if your neighbours are raising armies to attack each other, even a neutral might want a precautionary draft. I read that a large proportion of English counties - a third? - in the ECW, raised troops explicitly to keep the warring sides out of their lands (to avoid pillage etc). The war was actually a minority affair between King and Parliament - most people did not want to take sides.

I think we still need some disbandment or other penalty to drafting, so we don't see phony wars called just to allow nobles to get some more precious troops.

So we could have:

----

ECON's PROPOSAL (revised):

1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment of (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are done by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders.

3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).

----

[TinCow]

Bear in mind that TC wanted neutrals not to get any prioritisation at all.

The arguments presented over the past few days have steered my away from that point. My current preference is that prioritizations are treated as normal, except that Civil War recruitment (of whatever kind is decided upon) always comes first.

[AussieGiant]

Hmm,

so two lords call a civil war, and then the whole country has to give them resources first before the rest of the empire builds or recruits.

[econ21]

so two lords call a civil war, and then the whole country has to give them resources first before the rest of the empire builds or recruits.

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

[AussieGiant]

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

Ok then. That would be bloody inconvenient for those not interested in the civil war.

I LIKE IT.

[TinCow]

If, as in my revised proposal, we let all players recruit then it would not be just the two lords who get the resources - but everyone. Each noble would direcltly get more men, leaving less money for buildings or for a "national" army. In effect, civil war would marks a decentralisation of resources. I actually think this consequence is fitting: when everyone is tearing at each other's throats, people would be less willing to hand over troops to the centre. As I recall, under the feudal system, there was always a tension over getting troops from nobles to fight together under a national banner. It will tend to go pear shaped in a civil war.

The whole point of giving preferred recruitment to Civil War combatants was to reduce the Chancellor's ability to prejudice one side over the other. By treating everyone equally, we are faced with the almost guaranteed situation where there will not be enough money to meet all recruiting requests. Thus, someone will have to decide who gets their units and who does not and we're right back to the Chancellor (or some other random person) being able to support one side of the civil war and starve the other. This is fine with me, since I never saw that as a problem in the first place, but I recall this being a major complaint not too long ago so you should be aware of the implications of what you are now proposing.

[Vladimir]

It makes sense if the intent is for civil wars to add a level of excitement to the game. I don't see how encouraging civil wars is better than having players control different factions. I'd rather have a total ban on recruitment. Free settlement upkeep troops would be generated and remain in settlements for siege defense.

Vladimir’s simple rules for destroying the fleur de lis:

1. Players warring against each other are only allowed to utilize funds for the upkeep of the standing army under their direct control when hostilities begin.

2. A number of the most advanced troops available to the settlement that are eligible for and equal to the maximum allowable for free upkeep shall be generated by console command. These troops are for siege defense alone, are considered to have zero movement points, and are disbanded immediately after the cessation of hostilities.

These lines are fairly long but their effects are small. The number of lines doesn’t matter much, it’s the content of those lines. For example: E=MC^2 only involves three letters but its effect is complex.

Number 2 isn’t worded well but I hope you get the point. It could use some TinCow refining. You get the maximum amount your best, free upkeep troops for siege defense and nothing else. I don’t like malcontents taking away from (or especially having priority over) other players looking to expand the empire but that’s my personal opinion.

These two rules express my thoughts on this issue. Please take what you will from them. And I’ll accept whatever the group approves.

[econ21]

The whole point of giving preferred recruitment to Civil War combatants was to reduce the Chancellor's ability to prejudice one side over the other. By treating everyone equally, we are faced with the almost guaranteed situation where there will not be enough money to meet all recruiting requests. Thus, someone will have to decide who gets their units and who does not and we're right back to the Chancellor (or some other random person) being able to support one side of the civil war and starve the other. This is fine with me, since I never saw that as a problem in the first place, but I recall this being a major complaint not too long ago so you should be aware of the implications of what you are now proposing.

Good point. The reason for going through this brainstorming rather than jumping to a decision is for people to be able to identify unintended implications of proposed rule changes.

So we need a system for rationing out drafts? Drafting will be done by the GM, so let's just make it by rotation. No one gets a second drafted unit in the war (whatever turn it is) until everyone has had one; no one gets a third until everyone has a second etc. The order of rotation is not that important, but since drafting will be per settlement, I suggest the GM draft in order of the "seniority" of the settlement (Paris first, then the 4 other starter settlements in order of starting population, then other provinces by date of conquest).

----

ECON's PROPOSAL (v1.02):

1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed in rotation by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders (using settlement seniority to determine initial order of rotation).

3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).

(Changes over previous version in italics)

[TinCow]

Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.

I am also slightly concerned by the idea of allowing recruitment every turn in every province a person owns simultaneously. In LotR, it was not uncommon for a single person to own 4-5 provinces, and I think one person owned about 7 at one point. This means that even a massive budget surplus could quickly be drained into nothing by a single person's participation in a minor Civil War. While I do think financial issues are best left to IC discussions, the idea of someone who is not the Chancellor ruining the economy single-handedly unsettles me somewhat. I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.

[Vladimir]

Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.

Agreed.

I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.

I am not, however, I believe that is clear.