|
Post by Lidhuin on Aug 23, 2019 19:50:49 GMT
This is a piece in development.
The core idea is to have various stages of conflict.
At the very lowest level are insults. At this point, there are no in-game consequences for stating that your opponent has "wit’s as thick as a Tewkesbury mustard". But theoretically, such consequences could be implemented as "Decrees", so TBD.
At the next level are contests: Simply contesting holdings is not an act of war. It can never be construed as an act of war. A character who regards someone contesting their holdings as an act of war will be ridiculed by NPCs and will suffer disadvantages as a direct consequence.
However, friends also do not contest each other's holdings, and neutral parties will generally only contest if there's no further room to grow. To simulate this:
Contesting must be a viable action. A common issue in Birthright is that contesting takes up an entire action that could be spent ruling, so isn't just inefficient to contest - it's downright counterproductive. Therefore, a successful contest will be immediately followed by a free regular rule holding action, which may or may not succeed on its own merits.
Corollary to contests: For bookkeeping purposes, every player is assigned an initiative and acts in turn order. Rather than potentially lose their turn, a Rule Holding in a province that becomes full of that holding will instead be assumed to be a Contest against the player of choice. If left up to the GM, that'll generally be the player presumed to be most hostile to the Ruling player. Players are, of course, free to place whatever simple criteria they want on their actions.
War: While neither insults nor contest are acts of war, there's nothing stopping someone from issuing a declaration that they're fed up with you and will now take up arms. However, failing to declare war because "well they contested my holdings" will make you a subject of ridicule, as noted above.
Questions to consider: Should there be a level of conflict between Contests and War? Something like raids?
Is the proposed Contest/Rule method viable to address limitations of the original contest action?
How should war be handled with regards to holdings, units, victory, actual declarations, and whatnot?
|
|
|
Post by Lidhuin on Sept 4, 2019 17:29:22 GMT
Action: Contest
You spend considerable time and resources advancing the causes your domain at the expense of another. You attempt to decrease the level of one of their holdings and immediately increase the level of one of your holdings.
This is a two-part action:
If the first roll is successful, you decrease a target opponent's Affiliation or Property by +1D, and then take a free Rule Holding action of the same type (see Rule Holding).
Base Obstacle: Versus test - Appropriate skill & modifiers vs opponents skill & modifiers
If holding unowned: Versus test of appropriate skill & modifiers vs Holding Level*2+1 & modifiers (prosperity)
Note: Prosperity affects both rolls equally, so prosperity -3 adds three automatic successes to both sides (cancels out), and prosperity +3 adds three dice to both sides (more volatile).
Ties go to the defender.
|
|
|
Post by Lidhuin on Sept 4, 2019 17:43:09 GMT
Units:
Units are generally abstracted via holdings and characters: A unit exists when a player character has hired help and holding somehow bound together. Examples could be a Bishop leading a Sanctum, a Country Witch leading a Coven, or a Knight managing a Manor. There are many possibilities.
When engaged in conflict, the character and the holding together represent the abstract unit. In this instance, conflicts may be simple raids and all the way up to full-scale war. The more drawn-out and complicated the conflict, the greater the amount of rolls involved. Each unit (holding + hired help) will rely on the character leading them (the hired help) rather than the player, unless the player is personally leading them in the conflict.
When multiple units are involved in a conflict, there may be a strategic or logistics element that other hired help could assist with: Quartermasters, generals, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Lidhuin on Sept 4, 2019 17:44:27 GMT
Conflict:
More serious than mere contests, the physical use of force either through raids, skirmishes or sieges may place holdings or even the player themselves at great risk.
Ultimately, a series of rolls between the parties in conflict will determine the outcome of skirmishes, battles & ultimately the outcome of the war. It may take place in a single season (a simple raid or border skirmish) or over the course of several seasons (a drawn-out war). Hired help may become injured or even die, and holdings may temporarily or permanently be reduced (or increased) due to losses or disorganizations (or gains and experience).
Generally, wars will consist of versus or bloody versus rolls, and longer conflicts will include linked tests.
Meeting the obstacle of a linked test in a war is a success for the defender (but does not add or remove dice).
Exceeding the obstacle of a linked test in a war will add +1D to all future rolls in that war.
Failing a linked test in a war is -1D to all future rolls in that war (rather than +1Ob).
A party to a war may be forced to surrender if either the player is ever sufficiently injured such that one of their stats is 0 (from injuries), or if they have insufficient actions to wage the war, or such that one of their rolls, after modifiers, has 0d (from injuries, modifiers & linked tests).
|
|
|
Post by macSlainge on Sept 15, 2019 15:28:48 GMT
This is a piece in development. The core idea is to have various stages of conflict. War: While neither insults nor contest are acts of war, there's nothing stopping someone from issuing a declaration that they're fed up with you and will now take up arms. However, failing to declare war because "well they contested my holdings" will make you a subject of ridicule, as noted above. Example: If a character has a manor holding (level 1), and another regent tries to take his manor/home estate from via contest (i.e. forced to leave the estate), then I think that would be viewed as a hostile action by the character and his supporters. If he can't declare war over the hostile takeover of his lone holding out of fear of "ridicule", then it seems raids would be the only other viable military option? (of course there are non-military response options). Or would that be ridiculed too?
|
|
|
Post by macSlainge on Sept 15, 2019 15:37:09 GMT
This is a piece in development. The core idea is to have various stages of conflict. Questions to consider: Should there be a level of conflict between Contests and War? Something like raids? Is the proposed Contest/Rule method viable to address limitations of the original contest action? How should war be handled with regards to holdings, units, victory, actual declarations, and whatnot? Yes, based on the above, Raids would be an appropriate level of conflict to place between Contests and War. I like the proposed Contest, then if successful free attempt at Rule. A nice balance might be the Rule is only successful half of the time, or perhaps at a slightly increased difficulty level compared to a straight up Rule only action (or if not that, then perhaps the Rule only action gets a bonus compared to the Contest then free Rule option). I think the third question can go a lot of different directions, probably merits it's own thread!
|
|
|
Post by Lidhuin on Sept 15, 2019 23:00:05 GMT
This is a piece in development. The core idea is to have various stages of conflict. War: While neither insults nor contest are acts of war, there's nothing stopping someone from issuing a declaration that they're fed up with you and will now take up arms. However, failing to declare war because "well they contested my holdings" will make you a subject of ridicule, as noted above. Example: If a character has a manor holding (level 1), and another regent tries to take his manor/home estate from via contest (i.e. forced to leave the estate), then I think that would be viewed as a hostile action by the character and his supporters. If he can't declare war over the hostile takeover of his lone holding out of fear of "ridicule", then it seems raids would be the only other viable military option? (of course there are non-military response options). Or would that be ridiculed too? In the example above, he may declare war over it. What may not be done is pretending that they are already at war, nor may diplomatic agreements regard contests as acts of war (without facing the same limitations as you otherwise would). So if someone contests your holdings and you decide it's enough to wage war over, you must first declare war and then proceed to wage it. Waging a surprise war (without declaring it) is generally frowned upon with few exceptions. You can also choose to accept your newfound reputation as a brigand.
|
|
|
Post by Lidhuin on Sept 15, 2019 23:06:04 GMT
This is a piece in development. The core idea is to have various stages of conflict. Questions to consider: Should there be a level of conflict between Contests and War? Something like raids? Is the proposed Contest/Rule method viable to address limitations of the original contest action? How should war be handled with regards to holdings, units, victory, actual declarations, and whatnot? Yes, based on the above, Raids would be an appropriate level of conflict to place between Contests and War. I like the proposed Contest, then if successful free attempt at Rule. A nice balance might be the Rule is only successful half of the time, or perhaps at a slightly increased difficulty level compared to a straight up Rule only action (or if not that, then perhaps the Rule only action gets a bonus compared to the Contest then free Rule option). I think the third question can go a lot of different directions, probably merits it's own thread! With regards to the contests: If contesting an opposing culture, you're likely facing a penalty when contesting/ruling ( +1+x ob where x is holding level, or maybe just +x ). A simple +1ob on the free rule during contests should be enough to encourage ruling holdings up first and then contesting. If the culture penalty is then +x ob, then the +1 creates the +x+1 ob scenario. Thus, war becomes the best way to oppose a different culture - including province levels.
|
|
|
Post by Lidhuin on Jul 4, 2020 22:54:42 GMT
Currently, holdings provide a benefit to the character that ruled them.
Should it be possible to create holdings that are negative? e.g. a Manors +3 Ob, which might represent a large group of brigands in the region, opposing others in attempting to take actions related to Manors.
|
|