New War System

The idea is simultaneously simple and complex. Instead of having a simple 48 hour long invasion fest, we are considering completely revamping the system. The idea is too essentially have longer "series" of events based on the tactics the covenant leaders choose.

Think of it like a continuous war. The Knights attack the ToG and are beaten, so the Gravelords retaliate, but the Lifehunters cut off the knights retreat, etc. This system would likely lead to wars that are a month long or more, and. full of such things as assassination attempts and wartime alliances and truces.

So what does this mean for you? If you are a normal member,it just means that you will be doing smaller scale duels and such to represent lore "strikes" as opposed to just sitting and invading. If you are a covenant leader, however, it means your choices now get to start meaning something, and you get to make a lot of them. Be careful, choosing to attack at the wrong time may lead to a total defeat.

So, start the discussion and lets hear from the community!


The System
Generals, the time for strategy is here. No longer will wars be a mindless clash of steel and death. Now, control is everything. Control your troops, control the land, control the battle. Lead your units wisely, and all of Lordran can be yours! Fail, and death shall be waiting around the corner.

The Herald
The Herald is a neutral party who will be playing the role of gamemaster for this game of wits. All actions go through the Herald, who then determines how the fates lie. The Herald will also reveal information of the war to the sides and bystanders as the war proceeds.

Champions
The main "playing piece" of the game are the Champions. A Champion is the unit that generals use to move around the areas and perform actions, and each Champion represents one of the members of that covenant.

Actions
Each covenant is allowed one action and one movement for every turn. These actions do not have to be through the same unit. For example, you can fortify with one unit, and move an entirely different one. Some actions have been laid out below, although different actions will be considered if requested. Be warned: once chosen, your action is set. Be sure to consult with your Council Members before you act.

Fortify - Increase the fortification level of the occupied area (if controlled)
Sabotage - Lower the fortification level of the occupied area

Scout - Check the occupied area for signs of fortification or enemy champions.
Spy - Send a champion undercover in another army in order to try to uncover intel

Guard - Have a champion stay and defend the occupied area, as well as watch out for assassins.
Assassinate - Have a champion try to take out an enemy Champion in the occupied area for 3 turns.

Move - Move a Champion to an adjacent area. That champion can move an additional time if both are in controlled areas.
Attack - Attempt to claim control of the occupied area.


Fortification
Every zone has a fortification level. The level starts at 0 by default, and it can be built up by having a unit fortify that area if the area is under your control, or by sending a unit to sabotage the area. Every fortification or sabotage raises or lowers (respectively) the fortification level of that zone by 1, with caps at -5 and 5. If a battle occurs in that area, the fortification takes effect: If the fortification level is positive, the attacking side starts with a score of (-50 * fortification level). If the fortification level is negative, that penalty instead applies to the Defenders.

Assassination
So someone tried to assassinate you. Don't worry, it doesn't mean you are dead! You get the chance to fight them back! You and the assassin get to fight to see who "dies!" The loser's unit becomes useless for 3 turns and can't perform any actions. Don't worry though! If you have any allies on guard in the area, there is a chance they can back you up!

Areas
Areas are just that: an in-game area. An area is either controlled by a covenant or contested. Each area has a “Perk” that is granted to the covenant that controls it, as detailed below:

(NOTE: Some areas include more than one in-game area) (WiP)

Firelink Shrine
Lower & Upper Undead Burg
Undead Parish & Sen’s Fortress
Darkroot Forest
The Depths & Blighttown
Valley of Drakes
Anor Londo
Painted World of Ariamis
Duke’s Archives
Izalith
Tomb of Giants
New Londo
Ash Lake
Kiln of the First Flame
Oolacile


Battles
A battle is essentially a smaller version of the old style of war, with some changes:

1. Fortification bonuses apply
2. Area bonuses apply
3. The battle is shorter (6 hours?)

A battle lasts for 3 turns, each turn representing two hours of combat: If you "arrive" in the area on the third and final turn of the battle, you get 2 hours of combat. Every champion in an area can participate and score for the amount of time that their unit is eligible for, with one exception: Defending units who start in the area but DIDN'T last use the guard option lose 1 hour from their time.

I really wish I wasnt sick/my own computer was working. I would be so much more motivated to do this. Ok firstly how complex are we going? DO you want people to simply organise a lot of small events, or do you want to get to the level where we have 1 token per active member and we can use those to do things?

I would suggest that the Cov leaders use skype to organise which contests occur when and make the decisions that way.

Also perhaps a Gamemaster is chosen from the cov leaders so that there is one overriding voice.

Choosing a cov leader is a bad idea due to bias. We will need a nuetral ref though. Bunny? Though she might not want to get involved. Maybe an admin?

Well why not Shkar seeing as it is his improved model.

DoughGuy wrote:I really wish I wasnt sick/my own computer was working. I would be so much more motivated to do this. Ok firstly how complex are we going? DO you want people to simply organise a lot of small events, or do you want to get to the level where we have 1 token per active member and we can use those to do things?

I don't think it would be that hard to keep track of who's out for a time, assuming we want to keep that rule.

For now, I see the issues we should discuss are these:

Should resources and areas give bonuses to covenants?
Should the planned actions be visible to other covenants, or only when the affects become visible?
Do we want to pick a "gamemaster" who isn't a leader for the war to act as the coordinator for the war?
Do we want said "GM" to plan bonuses, or just events?

EDIT: And you guys go and post that exact thing while I'm typing away on my phone haha.

1. I want to have area bonuses. Dont know what you mean by resources.
2. Common sense should be applied by the GM here. If they send an army the other side will know about it soon. WOrd of mouth of traders and adventurers and all that. If they send a stealth mission the other side has to find it etc
3. Yes.
4. What do you mean bonuses?

DoughGuy wrote:1. I want to have area bonuses. Dont know what you mean by resources.
2. Common sense should be applied by the GM here. If they send an army the other side will know about it soon. WOrd of mouth of traders and adventurers and all that. If they send a stealth mission the other side has to find it etc
3. Yes.
4. What do you mean bonuses?

Basically, I was talking about creative tactics: "What if I want to fortify my position?" "What if I want to cut off their supply lines?"

Do we want to have a committee talk over the likely stuff first, or just have the GM decide how much of a bonus each tactic is worth each time?

If we do give area bonuses lets not make them too complicated or over powerd. Make them simple and hard to dispute. The last thing we want is one covenant arguing that their powers are weaker than everyone elses.

On that thought I would suggest that area give benefits to the strategic aspect of the game. Were the Cov leaders decide on how and when areas and factions should be attacked and less emphaisis on affecting that actual war.

Should covenant movements be visible to all covenants..... well thats why I would suggest we come up with a system of actions that can be taken per turn. perhaps a scouting action would allow for this information to be visible to one covenant.

In all honesty it really doesnt matter to me if a Gamemaster is in one cov or not we wont have cheating as every other cov leader would be privvy to the information being exchanged between leaders.

The Game master would plan/ generate the events when one faction takes action against another, and perhaps could hold special free for all events with one time use bonuses.

ViralEnsign_ wrote:If we do give area bonuses lets not make them too complicated or over powerd. Make them simple and hard to dispute. The last thing we want is one covenant arguing that their powers are weaker than everyone elses.

On that thought I would suggest that area give benefits to the strategic aspect of the game. Were the Cov leaders decide on how and when areas and factions should be attacked and less emphaisis on affecting that actual war.

Should covenant movements be visible to all covenants..... well thats why I would suggest we come up with a system of actions that can be taken per turn. perhaps a scouting action would allow for this information to be visible to one covenant.

In all honesty it really doesnt matter to me if a Gamemaster is in one cov or not we wont have cheating as every other cov leader would be privvy to the information being exchanged between leaders.

The Game master would plan/ generate the events when one faction takes action against another, and perhaps could hold special free for all events with one time use bonuses.

On the issue of actions being public information, it could be an issue as it is hard to police metagaming. It could lead to issuea of "Ok, I'm going to flank them!" "Yeah, well I'm going to ambush your flanking party!"

We would need to have nuetral GM because their is info we cant allow any leader to know. Everyone will be putting people on watch for stealth groups, so no leader can know who has people on watch otherwise they could metagame. Same to other way. They would know when someone puts a stealth mission into play. And while I doubt people would cheat, that doesnt matter, Because once you know "stealth mission coming at you" you know cant put people on wtach even if you were gonna, otherwise you'll be accused of metagaming. Thats just one exaample. Its not to prevent cheating, its so people arent forced into bad decisions.

Also think about how complex you guys are willing to go.

Shkar wrote:

ViralEnsign_ wrote:If we do give area bonuses lets not make them too complicated or over powerd. Make them simple and hard to dispute. The last thing we want is one covenant arguing that their powers are weaker than everyone elses.

On that thought I would suggest that area give benefits to the strategic aspect of the game. Were the Cov leaders decide on how and when areas and factions should be attacked and less emphaisis on affecting that actual war.

Should covenant movements be visible to all covenants..... well thats why I would suggest we come up with a system of actions that can be taken per turn. perhaps a scouting action would allow for this information to be visible to one covenant.

In all honesty it really doesnt matter to me if a Gamemaster is in one cov or not we wont have cheating as every other cov leader would be privvy to the information being exchanged between leaders.

The Game master would plan/ generate the events when one faction takes action against another, and perhaps could hold special free for all events with one time use bonuses.

On the issue of actions being public information, it could be an issue as it is hard to police metagaming. It could lead to issuea of "Ok, I'm going to flank them!" "Yeah, well I'm going to ambush your flanking party!"

Which is exactly why we need a nuetral GM who knows all this info.

Fair enough. Lets make scouting reveal the previous turns actions. Perhaps that could help you plan out how you want to take action.

Scouting would work, but I dont think it would tell you if a stealth mission was launched. But thast a kink to work out further in. What step do you think is next? Planning what you cando in a round or planning the events?

DoughGuy wrote:We would need to have nuetral GM because their is info we cant allow any leader to know. Everyone will be putting people on watch for stealth groups, so no leader can know who has people on watch otherwise they could metagame. Same to other way. They would know when someone puts a stealth mission into play. And while I doubt people would cheat, that doesnt matter, Because once you know "stealth mission coming at you" you know cant put people on wtach even if you were gonna, otherwise you'll be accused of metagaming. Thats just one exaample. Its not to prevent cheating, its so people arent forced into bad decisions.

Also think about how complex you guys are willing to go.

If I'm chosen as GM, I'm willing to go pretty damn complex. However, its best if we have some guidelines for basic stuff so that accusations aren't thrown around about rules being bent or judgements being unfair, and etc.

I mean, obviously trying to scavenge for supplies in ToG won't be nearly as beneficial as doing the same in the forest, and we should come up with a system for ambushes, spies, and etc.

That is, unless the leaders decide its fine to just let the GM plan all that out so that even the odds of success aren't known.

DoughGuy wrote:Scouting would work, but I dont think it would tell
you if a stealth mission was launched. But thast a kink to work out
further in. What step do you think is next? Planning what you cando in
a round or planning the events?

I personally think it would work best if the events weren't planned ahead of time (except for the actual starting conditions). I think it would greatly enhance the team unity and general excitement if its based off the covenants actions, so that it actually seems like their actions have lasting consequences.

I'm saying we should plan a set of events that can be used as a basis to make it easier.

Scavenging for supplies? How would that even work, what beenfit would it bring? I think thats going too far. Also the GM wouldn't neccesarily plan that. Arent we designing the system here? The GM would just be the ref.

Also get on skype you 2 lazy bums.

Before we get too detailed on one topic, I think we should have a general look over any parts that come up. So, do we want to have a resource system? As in, should each covenant have to worry about supply lines and making sure they have enough food? Nothing quite like the ability to starve your enemies in order to make them less effective in combat.

Also, how do we cover character death? Do we let it happen at all, or only in excessive cases? People start to get incredibly ticked when their characters get murdered, so unless everyone wants to work under the assumption that PC's are always taken hostage when involved and players can take control of NPCs for certain missions, we should probably get to this later on.

No resources. This is a game, not bookeeeping.
You need a person's permission to kill their character. That's something we'll have to do on a case by case basis.

Bio brought up an interesting point in skype which you 2 should be on. Troops and ranks. Is a rank 1 troop in my army worth less in the game than a rank 2 troop in Billys army?

So lets see. In terms of actions, I can think of the following for outside of battles:

Fortify
Scout
Spy
Guard
Attack (as in, full on battle)
Assassinate (stealth, basically)
Sabotage (Like assassination, but weakening troops as a whole by poisoning water, Poison Mist, stealing weapons, etc.)
Messenger
Quest (As in, "Go consecrate the ground!" or "Go raise more skeletons!")

For actual battle, we could allow flanks and retreats. I can't really think of anything else without getting too bogged down.

Shkar wrote:So lets see. In terms of actions, I can think of the following for outside of battles:

Fortify - Send a troops token to an area
Scout - Send a troops token to find info
Spy - Send an experienced toekn to find more info with greater risk
Guard - How is this different from fortify?
Attack (as in, full on battle) - Self explanatory
Assassinate (stealth, basically) - Send a very exprienced token to kill a high ranked member
Sabotage (Like assassination, but weakening troops as a whole by poisoning water, Poison Mist, stealing weapons, etc.) - This will be very hard
Messenger - Send a troops token with a message
Quest (As in, "Go consecrate the ground!" or "Go raise more skeletons!") - Ummmm

For actual battle, we could allow flanks and retreats. I can't really think of anything else without getting too bogged down.

Added some clarity and some questions.
Also should we agree that one days travel is one in game area?

DoughGuy wrote:Bio brought up an interesting point in skype which you
2 should be on. Troops and ranks. Is a rank 1 troop in my army worth
less in the game than a rank 2 troop in Billys army?

My
gut says no, because then every covenant would just promote all of their
members for an easy advantage. Now, obviously CM's or coleaders could
help advise their leaders though.

And sorry, I'm out of town so I don't have skype right now.

As for Acarnatia, I'm not sure those really work that well in Dark Souls. It's not exactly that hard to roll past a guy or two (for the most part).

Ok well since Ive alreay said it. Each active member gives you 1 troops token. Lets say 1 in 10 can be an experienced one, or you can do quests to promote people to more experience (

DoughGuy wrote:

Shkar wrote:So lets see. In terms of actions, I can think of the following for outside of battles:

Fortify - Send a troops token to an area
Scout - Send a troops token to find info
Spy - Send an experienced toekn to find more info with greater risk
Guard - How is this different from fortify?
Attack (as in, full on battle) - Self explanatory
Assassinate (stealth, basically) - Send a very exprienced token to kill a high ranked member
Sabotage (Like assassination, but weakening troops as a whole by poisoning water, Poison Mist, stealing weapons, etc.) - This will be very hard
Messenger - Send a troops token with a message
Quest (As in, "Go consecrate the ground!" or "Go raise more skeletons!") - Ummmm

For actual battle, we could allow flanks and retreats. I can't really think of anything else without getting too bogged down.

Added some clarity and some questions.
Also should we agree that one days travel is one in game area?

Allow me to explain a bit. Fortify and Sabotage were meant more along the lines of preparing for an actual battle, which is sure to eventually happen. For example, if X forification tokens are in one area, an invading force loses Y number of points in an all-out battle, representing the actual increased defensibility. Sabotage would only work so well before it would become obvious that something is up.

Now, these troop tokens seem like a very neat idea. Are they meant to represent NPC soldiers? If so, we could give each side a certain number of them, with a few types.:

Normal: A basic soldier. Used in battles or for guard duty/messengers.
Experienced: a better, more skilled soldier. Higher chances of success.
Specialist: Spies, Assassins, Necromancers/Clerics, Ritualists, anything that doesn't fit the general rules.

Give each kind of token certain certain success rates for the actions and compare it to whatever they are trying to beat, with PCs being a step above. If a token has to fight a player, it could be represented by a member of that covenant with weak equipment.