Conquering System: Discussion

We've talked about it here and there but one thing everyone seems to agree on is that we need some kind of system for conquering countries. So I took it upon myself to make one. Post here with your thoughts, suggestions on how to improve it, or concerns you might have. After this thread has been up for a week I'll compile any updates and start a poll to try and get it implemented.

Basic Information

There are several countries in The World of Magic, and each has their own ruler who commands a standing army. These forces defend the ruler and their lands from all threats, both internal and external, making it very difficult for a lone fighter to have any hope towards conquering lands by themselves. However, through subterfuge and tactics, even a single combatant is capable of toppling a country in time.

There are two types of Conquer Threads:

• Conquer Jobs
  
• Conquer Events
  

Conquer Jobs:
These are jobs created by players and staff which are geared towards targeting the infrastructure of a target country's defenses. Successfully completing enough of these jobs will  lower the tier of a country's defenses. The goals of these jobs will vary depending on which field of a country's defenses is being targeted. These jobs could range from burning supply warehouses to killing a certain number of soldiers.

Conquering Events:
This is when a player or group of players decides that they are ready to make an attempt on a county's throne. After pmming staff and getting permission an event thread will be created in which the player/s tackle a country's current defenses.


Country Defenses

There are a number of factors regarding a country's defenses and how strong they are. Each country will have a different rank in these fields which will alter the state of their defenses:

• Standing Military and Militia
  
• Morale and Civil Unrest
  
• Supplies and Communications
  
• Economy and Trade
  
• Education and Training
  
• Special Traits/Forces
  

Honestly I think this system will work best with the current way you have presented it. It makes sense.

I like this system. It's quick and to the point and leaves one lots of room if one wants to mess with other countries or to conquer the one your character lives in. This also gives other players a chance to weigh in on how they want the flow of power to be. And yes, this is probably going to require people to actually build functional working relationships with other players and characters to make it happen.

And now for the part where everyone hates Fu.

What if there's more than one faction trying to conquer a country? Say there's one internal faction and one faction from another country altogether, does it become a moment of internal taking out the infrastructure while the external has taken out the army and race to the throne? Do we have situation-dependent rules?

Fu Yunling wrote:I like this system. It's quick and to the point and leaves one lots of room if one wants to mess with other countries or to conquer the one your character lives in. This also gives other players a chance to weigh in on how they want the flow of power to be. And yes, this is probably going to require people to actually build functional working relationships with other players and characters to make it happen.

And now for the part where everyone hates Fu.

What if there's more than one faction trying to conquer a country? Say there's one internal faction and one faction from another country altogether, does it become a moment of internal taking out the infrastructure while the external has taken out the army and race to the throne? Do we have situation-dependent rules?

I'm glad you brought this up. No hate is generated as I know this thing probably still has holes in it. I need members like you to help me find them.

That being said, I never really laid out the details of a conquering event, did I? I'll need to sit and think on a solution for this, but in the mean time, suggestions for how to address it are welcome.

Fu has an actual suggestion, it just may be silly.

Run it like a Dungeon.

I know, this is terrible. Hold your hats, I'm going somewhere with this. A free-for-all conquer is lovely but will result in a giant complex mess that no one will be able to keep track of and will end in a ruined nation. So, here's the Fu-logic.

Start it as an event (just like a Dungeon oh my). A maximum of three factions can sign up for this event with a maximum of four people to a faction (what, that's the requirement for building your own country) but you can only have two people to a thread with the exception of the faction camps. Break it down to Loyalists (who want the order to remain as is), Rebels (for those rebelling against their current government), and Conqueror (everybody else). Each Faction can only interfere with each other at their base camps (oh look it's a gate analogy) and has to make their way to the main showdown at their own pace. So one faction could be doing it politically and taking out morale and such, the other could be murdering their way to victory, what have you. At the end of the day, the final showdown can be invaded by the remaining faction who can either help or hinder.

It doesn't end until someone has the throne. Don't care if that's 'I killed everyone' or 'I negotiated to a peaceful end solution'.

Final conflict would have to be done on a case by case basis, because everybody has different ways of taking over countries.


In my head this is like a Dungeon but not.

I think some more factors need to be considered such as how one earns the right to participate in such events, how a country's remaining defenses are split between the factions, and what is required to end conflicts on non-aggressive terms. But I shall consider the Fu's suggestion during my ponderings. I'd like to sit on the idea for a day or so before crafting it into something which can be implemented.

Still, a great suggestion, thanks for taking the time to share it!

Just letting everyone know that I haven't forgotten about this. Once the poll for the new dungeons is over I will put a poll for this system up. There is just a lot of work I feel it needs before it's really ready to be added and until that work gets done I'd rather focus on things we can get done now while I work on this on the side.

Are comments/thoughts/suggestions for this still being considered?

They are always welcome.

At this time, staff is taking a laissez faire attitude with this, and we're pretty much just working with things as we go along and determine what is and is not believable/reasonable, counterbalancing events that have plot holes with staff created events.


But we are definitely interested in hearing what you might have to say on the matter. It's one of the reasons we've left the topic here instead of moving it to 'solved'.

So... I noticed there wasn't much said on here about the actual troops used. So I can try to propose some things to have em fit in with the way you're doing things here?

Troop Basics:This would probably be the more complicated part of the thing, yeah? So the first section listing the troop types (sword and shield, spear, bow, pike, mounted, etc.), giving a brief explanation of them and how much Huang they would cost per unit. OH! A unit would probably be something like like 500 soldiers per unit. Make it something they really need to work toward. Unless they receive some more through plot. The next section go into the ranking of the units and how they can be improved (more huang or training). This could affect their equipment/effectiveness in battle. For example D-tier archers shoot up to 20 meters, while C-tier archer shoot up to 30 meters. Or D-tier swordsmen have bronze swords, while B-tier swordsmen have steel swords, etc. etc.

Upgrading/Training:Improving these troops could happen one of two ways. Either a general or the ruler can take a job/assignment where they oversee the training of the troops. The word count for these could equal the specialization training or the ability training threads. The other method would be buying their upgrade with a larger amount of Huang.

Specialized Troops: Like mentioned above, certain regions and Kings would have certain advantages as far as their soldiers go. Reim has the Fanalis Corps. Imuchakk as their elite squadron. Magnostadt (only) has an all wizard unit(s). Dependant on the king, they could have other special units. These would have to be attained through Conquer Job and it would have to be approved by staff. Take for example if a King was a Dominance based user. Depending on their rank they could have a unit of different kinds of beasts. The catcher for this is, all of the special units have a lower number than standard units. standard units may be around 500 people. The special units would have to be AT MOST 200.

---

Actual Battle

Okay. So, how I sees it... there are two types of war scenarios/Conquer stages. One would be the field battle and the other would be the siege. Cause, let's face it, if you don't invade the city you can't win. Either way, both battles should be moderated. A post order given by Proxy or just one from each person on either side, then Proxy wraps up the "turn" by giving a summary of what happened, where the units are positioned on the battlefield, any troop losses, and the morale of both sides.

Morale: "0" could be the starting, neutral value of morale. If the situation arises where Proxy feels that the morale should raise (a stirring speech from a general, an enemy unit was routed, a general wins a duel, etc.) then it can go in the positive direction up to "10". If for some reason Proxy feels that the morale should lower (a much larger enemy force, an ally unit was routed, a strong ally retreats, a general loses a duel and is captured/killed, etc.) then it can go in the negative direction down to "-10". If two units of the same tier meet and they have equal morale, all things being equal, they would lose the same amount of soldiers. If one unit's morale is lower than the other's, it would lose more troops and vice versa.

Troop advantages: Okay. So obviously different troops would have an advantage over another yeah? It could look something like this.

Troop Pecking Order:

---

Stuff on the above system:

Conquer Jobs: KEEP THIS! This is a very good idear as far as the tactical side goes. However, there should be jobs on the opposite side to try and solve the problems before they get too bad. Maybe keep an eye on this by having a weekly capital update? (that's very involved I understand. I'll think of better solutions.)

Morale and civil unrest: Morale seems more of an on-the-field type of thing. I'd save it for that and have it affect the soldiers' performances. If morale is low, have them deal a tier lower and vice versa. Haven't thought of a way to decide troop losses when engaging, but morale should have a big impact on that.

Civil unrest strikes me as a tactical ploy. So this would run in play with the Conquer jobs. If the number of jobs to cause a riot in the city becomes too much then Proxy can have this come into play either right before the siege or during the siege. This means that there needs to be some serious plotting for this to be successful or fail. It should also take into account how the King is actually doing. Take for instance the Reim situation now. If Reim was under a siege and the invaders sent a signal for the rioting people on the inside to begin, the revolt should be minimal if it happens at all. Despite the fact that the amount of the job has been reached, Lagi has been quite good to those people and they all know it. That would cause some of them to not revolt; at the same time, there is suspicion of Kou being behind the Throne so there would be that number of people wanting to revolt. Those two competing factors could make it so it is a small riot, if at all.

Education and Training: I, personally, don't see how this section is very viable. It just seems like an extra defense to balance out the Special Traits section, which could be easily fixed with Magnostadt's 3 layer borg instead. At least, that is IF my suggestion for the troops and their training is accepted by you all. If not, then by all means make this work lol.

First I'd like to say that I enjoy and agree with the points made in Bahir's post. There is little more to be said about Troops from that. So I will move on to my suggestions of how battle should play out.

Initial Post
The initial posts should contain the amount of Troops involved in the players side of the battle, as well as the number and types of troops. Any and all Npc Commanders, which would be considered kill viable in these threads, and any and all special tools. Special tools being siege weapons like the battering ram, catapults etc, or magic tools that are in your armies arsenal. 

This should also be the post where you describe in depth the positioning of your troops, and your position as well. Troops and Tools not mentioned in this post can not be used for the remainder of the battle. 

Strategics 
To better emulate how a battle would take place strategics should be an actual thing. When the thread for the battle is made, there should be a "Game Master" assigned to over see the battle. The game master also has the responsibility of receiving tactics that players would like to keep from their opponents. Now this is to eliminate the risk of metagaming, and to make the battles authentic. Please allow me to explain. 

When I say "Strategies" I do very well mean exactly what you plan to be doing. Not a skill or predetermined effect. For example. Say Leader "A" was in a battle with Leader "B", the armies were fighting alongside a forested Area. 

Now Leader A has stashed a unit of Archers in the woods parallel to the battle, and at some point he was aiming to run away into the woods, leading his enemies behind him, only to be ambushed by the Archers.

It would be problematic if he spelled out exactly what he was going to do so that player b would be able to react to it. The entire point of a strategy is for your opponent to NOT be able to react to it (So that player B couldnt simply find a reason that he did not want to run into the woods). What keeps players from making things up out of  the blue, is that strategies must be sent to the Game master at least a post before it was done.

So this is what the battle post would look like with my system. This is under the same scenario I stated above. 

Player A:

Player B's post:

Player B's Defeat:

This system right here requires players to actually devise plans to defeat their enemies, and makes it impossible for the other players to know exactly what their opponents are thinking without proper cause. So every action you make against a player comes with a risk, you very well may fall for their traps, and you would not as a player be able to predict "The best" coarse of action. Meaning if you were player B you would not have known there was anyone lying in waits for you, so rather you make a mistake and end up dead like Player B's army, or somehow make a brilliant victory, everything you did would be 100% legitimate. 

A Closing
Now I know there may be holes among this suggestion, however I'd love to see them pointed out, it would help me and the community devise a better way of doing things. I also want to know, how and why this system might fail, and here any complaints about it.

I've kind of had a change of heart on my stance towards the conquering system. It would be nice to see, but my biggest concerns are in overcomplicating things, member participation, and forum focus. I'll go into each of these three points below. Some might have suggestions on how to improve the conquering system while some might simply be an argument against having one all together. I'm very much on the fence about the whole thing.

Complexity: The forum is already kind of complex enough as it is. Some people decide not to join simply due to the learning curve of getting through all the mechanics we already have in place. This kind of system adds a whole other level of intense complex systems people need to read through. Especially considering that the general desire seems to be to have wars with thousands of units in play.

-The first suggestion I have is to do away with all concepts of quantifying the number of troops available with numbers. It will get very complex very quickly when there are hundreds upon hundreds of individual units to be accounted for in the midst of battle. Instead, simply keep in line with the tier system and base the size of armies on a text description rather than a numerical value. For example:

D-rank Force: The rank associated with this tier is "novice". A d-tier force is equivalent to a small gang with about a dozen members.
C-rank Force: The rank associated with this tier is "veteran". A c-tier force is equivalent to a small mercenary army or a single battalion.
B-rank Force: The rank associated with this tier is "General". A b-tier force is equivalent to a branch of an army with several battalions and hundreds of soldiers.
A-rank Force: The rank associated with this tier is "Ruler". An a-tier force is equivalent to the standing army of a nation. It has a few generals running several branches with troops numbering in the thousands.
Omega rank Force: The rank associated with this tier is "Conqueror". An omega tier force is equivalent to a massive force with countless units.

This would make the exact numbers more or less flavor text. An A-tier army with "5,000 soldiers" vs an A-tier army with "7,000 soldiers" would basically be even in regards to man power. Even though one has significantly more bodies than the other, because they are in the same tier they are considered to be more or less equal.

-Sadly, even with numbers simplified into tiers, the system itself still brings several more layers of "game" into the forum. Between managing morale, gear, number of troops, and everything else, it's asking a lot from our players just to keep up with an opponent's army let alone manage their own. If this were a video game where a computer managed all of these things for us then it would be a much easier addition to make. But due to the in-depth nature of the proposed system, it creates a large content barrier which could potentially lose future members who otherwise would have joined without a giant wall of text system about how to raise an army and conquer an enemy nation.


Member Participation: One of the largest factors contributing to my hesitation is what the conquering system means for people who don't want to participate in it. Personally, I don't plan on having an army. Ever. I want my character to be king of a wandering group of people and while I'd like to have them be capable of defending themselves, I have no intention of doing a ton of work to make them into an active war force. How will the conquering system affect me and my wandering nation? How will it affect the people rping in a nation under siege?

-The system kind of demands that everyone participate in it. If your character lives in Balbadd and their country gets invaded, they kind of need to worry about getting involved in the conquering system. But we've seen first hand that lots of our member base has no interest in getting their characters involved in wars. After Reim was taken over it took months for more than one person to do the jobs that would start a revolution or embrace the Kou invaders. When asked what they thought of the invasion, most people didn't care and just wanted to focus on their own characters personal plots.

-It is important that when we proceed with ideas about the conquering system that we don't alienate people who wouldn't want to be a part of it. But not just that. We would need to make efforts to ensure that choosing to opt out of it doesn't bring down horrible consequences.


Forum Focus: The last point that makes me wary of implementing the conquering system is the general focus of what kind of experience this forum is trying to be. I was under the impression that the focus was on personal character plot development. Combat has always been a sort of back seat thing in favor of people advancing their character plots. Plots are what get encouraged by staff and they are what drive developments in the world so far. Even without a conquering system, if a player has a plot driven by and centered around raising an army for war, they can currently do so. But if we add a fully fleshed out conquering system, I fear it may shift the focus towards a more competitive and "game" styled forum.

-Members who see and read the system may come to believe that it is the "end game" of the forum. It could imply to people that the point of rping here is to raise and army and go fight wars. This could segregate our current member base and repel future potential members.

-If people who can only post a couple times a week are forced to compete with players who are posting daily and advancing the growth of their army at a fast pace, they may feel like there is no point in trying to develop their character army in their home country since some guy is quickly growing a huge force to take it over. A force which they have no hope of matching due to activity limitations.

-The competition itself could also create conflicts. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for IC conflict that extends to OOC. I believe that having rivals and enemies on the forum is healthy for its growth. I've seen time and time again how a good villain both IC and OCC can kick tons of butts into action. But that isn't what I'm talking about. What I mean is that the system makes it very possible to abuse another member with IC actions. Lets say I have already done to work to build up my army and I don't like a new member or the plot plans they are excitedly talking about. What is to stop me from marching my forces into their character's country and completely making a mess of things? What is to stop me from slaughtering everyone in an area including all their NPCs? Or killing the character themselves when they try to desperately defend their country in the war that ensues when I invade it? This kind of conflict is unfair and simply drives new people away. I'm not saying that this is going to happen, but it is a real possible threat that must be evaluated and mitigated if the system is to move forward.

-Instead of a fleshed out conquering system, it might be better to just trust in staff to DM interesting and interactive war events when a character's plot reaches a point where it would justify one. This keeps the focus of the forum on character and plot development instead of dividing it between those who want to plot and those who want to fight in massive wars.

While I like the idea of a conquering system to have epic battles, I actually have to agree with most of Yaku's points. From alienating member base who have no interest in the system to new members joining under the impression that the conquering system is the name of the game. I believe the addition of a conquering system could become unbalanced with just a few members who are actively dedicated to raising an army. At the same time, I guess that would be up to staff to step in during unbalanced situations to "level" one side, whether it be a surprise attack by a mercenary gang that cripples a large portion of the army or insane weather that dampens morale drastically. Regarding the complexity factors, I completely agree that it starts to head towards a point where a video game would handle it better.

I did like Bahir's ideas and most of Jahan's, though I felt the tactics strategy seemed to "final". Just because player B followed player A's army, they are in the woods, so visibility would have to be a factor. Also, using flaming arrows to light an area of trees that you are nearby isn't a good idea either. What if Player B had raised their shields and moved in a tight formation towards the archers to cut them down? I'm not sure if the system you were thinking of is so final or if it was just the example.

Is this still being considered for adding to, because I believe that with a little tweaks and flaws you can get a simple non-complicated system, where large battles are fun.

We have decided that for established country conquering, this will be done via Staff run events. When the Country Creation System is established, we may revisit this topic.