PvP mechanics brainstorming thread

**econ21** · 07-10-2009, 19:35

Originally Posted by Andres

What's a WEGO system?

Simultaneous movement.

We go.

Versus sequential movement:

I go, you go (IGO-UGO).

**econ21** · 07-10-2009, 20:21

Pursuing the mercenary option, before YLC made his specific proposal, I sensed a consensus forming that all players - neutrals as well as combatants - should have access to any extra recruitment during in a civil war. I think the arguments were that: (a) from AG, it would be a foolish Duke who stayed out of a war, if neutrals could not get extra men when his rivals could; (b) from Cecil, some players may want to remain neutral - a plague on both your houses - but be able to defend themselves. Do we want to consider a version of the system that allows that?

Given Cecil likes the YLC rule set, but wanted neutrals to be able to recruit, I am going to name this proposal after him:

----

Cecil's proposal v1

1. Mercenaries can only be recruited during a civil war, or by an edict
2. At the end of a civil war, all mercenaries not recruited through edicts (that have not expired) are disbanded
3. In a civil war, any player may only recruit 1 mercenary per turn but only up to a total number of their prioritizations per term.
4. In civil war, mercenary recruitment takes precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders, recruiting by player in a random order, but with priority given to players that did not recruit mercenaries in the previous turn.

(Changes to YLC v1.01 in italics.)

----

It would be convenient if supporters of the merc option could decide this question among themselves prior to any poll.

**Vladimir** · 07-10-2009, 20:40

Why isn't it called the YLC rule then? I'm still concerned that civil war actors will take their priority recruitment and use it against smaller neutrals.

**ULC** · 07-10-2009, 20:52

I say no, simply because it allows undeclared neutrals to suck the very small mercenary pool dry - if they want them, join the side that has them. If an aggressor attacks them, then they become involved in the civil war and may recruit them.

**TinCow** · 07-10-2009, 21:01

The issue about neutrals having access to the Civil War recruitment pool came up because my early proposals had neutrals not getting anything. Under the current system, neutrals still get their usual prioritizations and the only way they won't is if we're out of money. If we're out of money, it doesn't matter what rule system you put in for them, because there's no way to recruit anything. So, I think the issue of neutral recruiting is now moot.

**Cecil XIX** · 07-10-2009, 21:51

Originally Posted by econ21

Pursuing the mercenary option, before YLC made his specific proposal, I sensed a consensus forming that all players - neutrals as well as combatants - should have access to any extra recruitment during in a civil war. I think the arguments were that: (a) from AG, it would be a foolish Duke who stayed out of a war, if neutrals could not get extra men when his rivals could; (b) from Cecil, some players may want to remain neutral - a plague on both your houses - but be able to defend themselves. Do we want to consider a version of the system that allows that?

Given Cecil likes the YLC rule set, but wanted neutrals to be able to recruit, I am going to name this proposal after him:

As Tincow intimated, I don't want neutrals to be able to recruit mercenaries during a Civil War. I simply want them to be able to continue with their own unit prioritizations, with their powers unaffected by warring neighbors. I also don't think AG's concern is much of a problem. It would be if PVP combatants could keep their extra units, but since all the systems for wartime-recruitment require combatants to lose an equal amount of units after the war is over, I don't think that's a problem. It wouldn't give PVP combatants any extra strength after a war, and it's hardly enough to influence people to attack other opponents during a war they're already in.

Thanks for naming it after me though, econ.

**ULC** · 07-10-2009, 22:30

Actually we should name it after Andres - he came up with the core rules for it, but his post was ignored. The only change I made was to add in the "1 per term, no more then their prioritizations" part.

**econ21** · 07-11-2009, 01:38

OK, scratch the "Cecil proposal". I suggest we keep this discussion open for another day for any last minute tinkering with the proposals or new ideas.

Then I will PM Zim, drawing his attention to what I have called the YLC v1.01 proposal and the econ v1.04. He can either pick one himself or we can set up a 48 hour poll, with the status quo as a third option.

YLC, TC or any other supporter of the mercenary option is free to improve on the wording of the YLC v1.01. If there is a poll, I won't call them YLC/econ options but mercenary-based/draft options.

**deguerra** · 07-11-2009, 02:23

Originally Posted by econ21

Simultaneous movement.

We go.

Versus sequential movement:

I go, you go (IGO-UGO).

'ats not an acronym at all...accursed english and its accursed flexibility

**Vladimir** · 07-11-2009, 02:53

NVM. Sounds like complaining.

**AussieGiant** · 07-12-2009, 18:02

Recruiting: While the all or nothing is easier to manage, the GM is a GM for a reason. I think we can let him keep track of things in the "ordered" recruiting system.

I've still got an odd feeling that someone is going to call a civil war in order to override the recruiting system in their favour.