Occasionally there will be mention in
my posts, usually during campaigns, of a decision made by a "Council
of Officers", "Council of War", "The Elders of
the Tribe", "The Band" etc. etc. These comments will
relate to instances where I need a group decision for "my side"
or the enemy regarding policy, strategy, grand tactical action and so
forth (i.e when it's not just a case of the relevant commanders
obeying orders or me saying "You lot go there"). There are
several ways I mimic this...
Sometimes I will be lazy, list the options (occasionally just in my head) and simply chuck a dice.
Other times I will draw up a table of options, allocate "dice result" numbers to these, based on my assessment of the likelihood or advisability of certain decisions - THEN simply chuck some dice (example below using five x 6D).
Sometimes I will be lazy, list the options (occasionally just in my head) and simply chuck a dice.
Other times I will draw up a table of options, allocate "dice result" numbers to these, based on my assessment of the likelihood or advisability of certain decisions - THEN simply chuck some dice (example below using five x 6D).
Or do a
similar thing using my old Tell Me" dial....
However, for the scenario being played out at the moment I am using method described in the following examples using a pack of standard playing cards. I have found this method quite satisfying, particularly for long-term, grand-scale campaigns where politics, as well as military decisions, are part of the mix....
First I decide on the issue the make up of the council (the number of members), and the issue the council members are to discuss - in a "Yes/No" form. I then assess if anything is know about the council members (i.e have they an opinion known in advance, do they have a voting history/character/agenda?).
If it is pretty clear what their
opinion on the matter will be then cards are drawn from the pack
until one turns in the "colour of their opinion". This
represents both the individual's "vote" and their ability to
marshal their arguments.
Basically the higher value the card, the stronger the feelings of the person involved and the better his/her arguments so that. for example, someone drawing an eight of hearts (red) is deemed to have "out-argued" and convinced over to his side someone with (say) a two of clubs (black). Where the opposing cards add up to the same value as a character's card the character affected will abstain.
Where relevant a character might be granted a random additional card of that colour to further back his arguments (for example; when I have used this method to see if a defeated tribe will fight on against the Romans any Chief Druid in the Council is highly likely to be highly motivated to argue for fighting on. He will get an additional appropriate card in his personal draw).
Example 1: An isolated force has a newly-appointed commander (who has inherited command due to the C.O. being hors de combat) following an unanticipated battle in which a high number of friendly casualties were taken). He is unsure of what is expected of him under these new circumstances and so, while awaiting orders from a higher authority, he calls for a meeting with his senior officers in order to glean their opinions before making a decision.
In this case the question is "Should we conform to the orders issued to the force before the recent battle, and proceed as if nothing has happened, or retrench here ans await further instructions?"
On this occasion Black cards will mean a "Stay put & await orders" vote. Red cards will mean a "Yes to following orders" (in this case pressing on into possibly hostile territory with a reduced force) vote.
In the example we are following there is the new C.O. and his council of officers (eight of them). At this stage of the campaign none of them are "characters" and their opinions are unknown. They therefore have no Starting Cards. I draw a random card from the shuffled deck for each officer.
We see that opinion is divided.
The C.O. is pretty cautious about proceeding (Black 8), given the changed circumstances.
One of the junior Tribunes (Black King) and one of the Senior Centurions (Black Queen) are very much urging caution - and marshalling sound arguments as to why pressing ahead would be an unwise choice.
The other officers are split. Some have no real opinion, other than being vaguely uncertain (Black 2 ), others are arguing for different sides, but with little passion or solid argument (4-7s).
One of the Milliary Prefects however is pretty gung-ho (Red Jack) and putting forward a good case for following the orders laid down for them. The result is as follows:
"After a lively debate, and despite good points on both sides, it is decided that caution is the best policy. They will await orders from higher command".
How do I decide/know this?
I move and place the cards in order of seniority OR "strength of feeling" if there are no extremes in ranking. Thus, in the pic the Black King trumps the Red Jack - i.e. the Tribune out-argues the Prefect, who concedes.
The Black Queen (with its value of 12) outnumbers and so "out persuades" the Red. 6. The Black 7 ditto the Red 5, and the Black 5 beats the Red 4 (i.e. the officers arguing for caution defeat the arguments of those in favour of a "forward" policy).
With the Black 9 backing the C.O.'s position anyway, when it comes to a vote the Black cards have won the argument, and the Council unanimously votes for caution, the C.O. confirms the decision of the Council (he had his doubts anyway)..
Meanwhile I make a note of those individuals who have drawn Picture Cards - these will form "character notes" for future discussions (i.e the gung-ho Prefect will now always draw a red card, the noticeably cautious Tribune & Centurion always black).
Example 2:
Basically the higher value the card, the stronger the feelings of the person involved and the better his/her arguments so that. for example, someone drawing an eight of hearts (red) is deemed to have "out-argued" and convinced over to his side someone with (say) a two of clubs (black). Where the opposing cards add up to the same value as a character's card the character affected will abstain.
Where relevant a character might be granted a random additional card of that colour to further back his arguments (for example; when I have used this method to see if a defeated tribe will fight on against the Romans any Chief Druid in the Council is highly likely to be highly motivated to argue for fighting on. He will get an additional appropriate card in his personal draw).
Example 1: An isolated force has a newly-appointed commander (who has inherited command due to the C.O. being hors de combat) following an unanticipated battle in which a high number of friendly casualties were taken). He is unsure of what is expected of him under these new circumstances and so, while awaiting orders from a higher authority, he calls for a meeting with his senior officers in order to glean their opinions before making a decision.
In this case the question is "Should we conform to the orders issued to the force before the recent battle, and proceed as if nothing has happened, or retrench here ans await further instructions?"
On this occasion Black cards will mean a "Stay put & await orders" vote. Red cards will mean a "Yes to following orders" (in this case pressing on into possibly hostile territory with a reduced force) vote.
In the example we are following there is the new C.O. and his council of officers (eight of them). At this stage of the campaign none of them are "characters" and their opinions are unknown. They therefore have no Starting Cards. I draw a random card from the shuffled deck for each officer.
We see that opinion is divided.
The C.O. is pretty cautious about proceeding (Black 8), given the changed circumstances.
One of the junior Tribunes (Black King) and one of the Senior Centurions (Black Queen) are very much urging caution - and marshalling sound arguments as to why pressing ahead would be an unwise choice.
The other officers are split. Some have no real opinion, other than being vaguely uncertain (Black 2 ), others are arguing for different sides, but with little passion or solid argument (4-7s).
One of the Milliary Prefects however is pretty gung-ho (Red Jack) and putting forward a good case for following the orders laid down for them. The result is as follows:
"After a lively debate, and despite good points on both sides, it is decided that caution is the best policy. They will await orders from higher command".
How do I decide/know this?
I move and place the cards in order of seniority OR "strength of feeling" if there are no extremes in ranking. Thus, in the pic the Black King trumps the Red Jack - i.e. the Tribune out-argues the Prefect, who concedes.
The Black Queen (with its value of 12) outnumbers and so "out persuades" the Red. 6. The Black 7 ditto the Red 5, and the Black 5 beats the Red 4 (i.e. the officers arguing for caution defeat the arguments of those in favour of a "forward" policy).
With the Black 9 backing the C.O.'s position anyway, when it comes to a vote the Black cards have won the argument, and the Council unanimously votes for caution, the C.O. confirms the decision of the Council (he had his doubts anyway)..
Meanwhile I make a note of those individuals who have drawn Picture Cards - these will form "character notes" for future discussions (i.e the gung-ho Prefect will now always draw a red card, the noticeably cautious Tribune & Centurion always black).
Example 2:
A Tribal Army has just suffered a
serious defeat, so bad that it seems appropriate the tribe considers
its options. The choices on the agenda are "Do we continue the
fight?" or "Do we sue for terms".
We have a Council of Elders and Chiefs made up of six elders, a senior druid, the current High Chief /Warband leader and the chiefs of two allied contingents (I normally have one "elder"/chief per division/unit but this will vary depending on the scenario).
It is already known, as part of the background to this event, that Druid is strongly for fighting on, as is the Chief of the Albi contingent (as long as the fight in on someone else's ground he is all for it..) so they each get a starting card from the red suits (drawn at random) to represent this.
The High Chief, wounded in the fight and shocked by their defeat and the casualty rate, two Elders (whose units broke in the previous battle) and the Chieftain of the allied Catoni (whose chaps lost heavily) are not so keen, so they get get random starter cards from the black suits (see the left had Starter Positions on the pic below) .
Then we shuffle the pack and draw for the debate - laying cards for all the participants who do not already have cards. The Druid - because of his inter-tribal spiritual influence and powers of persuasion - will get an extra card randomly drawn from the red suits.
We have a Council of Elders and Chiefs made up of six elders, a senior druid, the current High Chief /Warband leader and the chiefs of two allied contingents (I normally have one "elder"/chief per division/unit but this will vary depending on the scenario).
It is already known, as part of the background to this event, that Druid is strongly for fighting on, as is the Chief of the Albi contingent (as long as the fight in on someone else's ground he is all for it..) so they each get a starting card from the red suits (drawn at random) to represent this.
The High Chief, wounded in the fight and shocked by their defeat and the casualty rate, two Elders (whose units broke in the previous battle) and the Chieftain of the allied Catoni (whose chaps lost heavily) are not so keen, so they get get random starter cards from the black suits (see the left had Starter Positions on the pic below) .
Then we shuffle the pack and draw for the debate - laying cards for all the participants who do not already have cards. The Druid - because of his inter-tribal spiritual influence and powers of persuasion - will get an extra card randomly drawn from the red suits.
The result is as follows:
We then assess the "debate".
Cards are laid down in order of seniority. Once a card has been laid it cannot be moved again.
We see that all the High Chief can do is persuade Elder 6 to abstain.
The Druid however can use his red Jack to trump the black 10 of Elder 1 (winning him over) and his red 9 the black 7 of Elder 3.
The Chief of the Albi uses his red 7 to counter the black 5 of Elder 5 and the Chief of the Catoni his black king to beat down the red 9 of Elder 2.
This just leaves Elder 5 to play (the only card neither played nor covered by another card). He can trump the High Kin's black 2, talking Elder 6 back to the "war party" AND "see" the High King's 2 with the "unused" pips, causing him to abstain.
We therefore see below the red (for war), black (for peace) and abstaining (blue) final positions....
The party wishing to continue the fight wins the debate - the High Chief giving in to the pressure from his council. Note, however, that the Chief of the Catoni has NOT been persuaded at all and has very strong feelings (untrumped Black king). As an independent chief he will withdraw his forces from the forthcoming battle.....
I have used this method in large and small campaigns - and even mid-battle - when a serious decision needs to be made and find it quick to use and achieving pleasing results; with untrumped high cards leading to all sorts of actions by junior commanders which upset matters for both the AI AND the live solo player....
Neat idea with the Cards
ReplyDeleteCheers. It particularly works when I "have a narrative" to work with. I ran a mini-campaign the other year where my tribal army had all sorts of discipline & coordination issues, thanks to folks getting "heated in debate". Including "sulking on the field" in some quarters... All adds to the imponderables & fun.
Delete