GAMBIT Conflict Resolution System

[STRATCOM]

The GAMBIT Conflict Resolution System is a lightweight addition to diplomatic communiques to allow for fair resolution of a military, diplomatic, or political event between two diplomats. Here is how it works:

One diplomat begins a thread as usual and in their first post specifies the scale of the conflict in Force Units (FU). Diplomats should agree on the scale (amount of FUs) and scope (what is fair game) of the action beforehand. Diplomats post normally as before, but at the end of the post a diplomat can choose to make their post a GAMBIT, wagering an FU on the actions in the post. If a post is a GAMBIT, the diplomat appends 1d6 rolled for a total of: 3 (3) to the post and submits.

The other diplomat must then devote their next post to the counteraction, appending the post with 1d6 rolled for a total of: 1 (1) and submitting. The diplomat with the higher roll wins the GAMBIT, their opponent loses an FU, and the thread proceeds on from the events of the GAMBIT. In event of a tie, the diplomat with the higher word count communique wins the GAMBIT.

A GAMBIT thread ends when either one side runs out of FU or one player withdraws. This has whatever consequences are relevant to the thread (an army routs, negotiations are concluded with unfavorable terms for one party, an election goes poorly for one side).

EXAMPLE 1, MILITARY:
1. Esteemed Diplomat RED begins a thread with 3 FU, a military action by the robber-baron state of RED against the robber-baron state of BLUE. RED's post details the deployment of a tank battalion over the border. RED wagers an FU and rolls 3.
2. Esteemed Diplomat BLUE writes the counteraction, a scrambling of anti-tank helicopters from a local airbase. BLUE rolls 5 at the end of their post.
3. RED sees that their gambit has failed and notes they have lost an FU with 2 FU remaining. They write about the tank losses and start another gambit in the same thread, detailing mechanized anti-air units in the tank battalion targeting and firing on the helicopters. RED wagers an FU and rolls 6.
4. BLUE writes the counteraction, a post about friendly armor and air units moving up to crush the interlopers, and also rolls a 6! This tie is resolved by comparing post word count: BLUE's post is significantly longer than RED, and RED is punished for their hasty post by losing yet another FU.
5. RED notes they have only 1 FU remaining, and rather than lose embarassingly choose to abandon the assault. Their next post details the losses from the last gambit and the withdrawal of forces from BLUE territrory which consitutes a withdrawal from the thread. BLUE is victorious and immediately transitions to Pure Total Meritocracy to escape the evils of robber-barony.

EXAMPLE 2, DIPLOMATIC:
1. Esteemed Diplomat RED begins a thread with 3 FU, negotiations to determine the terms of a trade and customs union between the robber-baron state of RED and the robber-baron state of GREEN. RED's post details the opening of the summit and beginning negotiation on the first item, free movement of people within the union, where RED pushes their attempt to restrict all unvetted movement into their borders. RED wagers an FU and rolls 5.
2. Esteemed Diplomat GREEN writes the counteraction, making the case for free movement and calling in favors behind the scenes. GREEN rolls 3 at the end of their post.
3. RED sees that their GAMBIT to keep a free movement clause out of the union has succeeded and acknowledges this in their next post, writing the remainder as another GAMBIT about the next item, the amount of foreign fishing allowed in national waters. Hoping to completely abolish the practice, RED wagers an FU and rolls a 2.
4. GREEN writes the counteraction, proposing that union members have the ability to purchase natural resource rights just like native businesses. GREEN rolls 4 at the end of their post.
5. Seeing that they won the GAMBIT, and wanting above all else to secure the free movement of peoples across the union, GREEN seizes the initiative before RED responds with another GAMBIT reopening the subject and wagers an FU, rolling a 5.
6. RED writes the counteraction, rolling a 3. RED now has 1 FU and GREEN has 2 FU. Going all or nothing, RED reopens the subject a third time, rolling a 4.
7. GREEN writes the counteraction, rolling a 3. Each side now has 1 FU. GREEN pushes the subject one final time, rolling a 1.
8. RED writes the counteraction, giving it a longer post than GREEN's to ensure he wins even in the event of a tie. RED rolls a 3 and the conference is ended. At this point, the trade union negotiators have only setted two matters under great contention. From here, the diplomats may wish to conduct a second summit, focus closed-room talks on contentious issues, or pull out of the union talks altogether.

[Ayzek]

Sounds simple enough, and can work as a medium to relatively fairly resolve a contestation. Do you suggest that the number of force units a player start with depend on any particular values or would it be largely arbitrary and circumstantial per "battle"? I suppose if the players vehemently disagree on whether or not one of them has a unit advantage, they can just start equal?

Regardless, I'm skeptical that quantity alone should determine the winner in the case of a tie. Quantity =/= quality, after all, and promoting quantity alone isn't ideal. Admittedly, rating quality may not always be simple and is liable to be a pain. And if we make the process too much of a hassle, it'd be a hassle.

I can see rolling dice playing a role in select scenarios, though.

[STRATCOM]

Esteemed diplomatic facilitator, the GAMBIT system can be extended in many ways for accuracy. The system is exposed to robber-baron diplomats in its barest form to accustom them to the concept. Starting FU count can be adjusted to account for starting conditions: in the coming record of the Mandate-Miljeon Wars, Mandate forces start with 3 less FU to account for the blitzkrieg invasion. Ideally, each state has a global FU count as an approximation of national power that they must invest carefully in GAMBIT threads to avoid overextension. This concept will be trialed in the coming space-future simulation, EXTRASOLAR INITIATIVE, where not only will states have an FU bank to spend in military, diplomatic, and political threads, but can build up that bank by posting diplomatic communiques of their simulacrum state's economic activity.

[Aerandariel]

Sounds too much like the board games Risk or Stratego to me. Don't get me wrong I like both games and would whip anyone here on it but when you try to adapt to this kind of setting, its a bit of a turn off to me.

[DeSchaine]

I agree with most of what AA said there, at least as far as it applies to the military component.

[Miljoen_vuist]

Based on how the gambits go so far, it is very nice and let me think about the step that I have to take to continue the war! But I think that 10 is long when done 1 by 1, that the ability to gamble different amounts of fu for different gambits might be better, if I love certain gambits or you want to finish in one go.

It also seems important to be clear what your gambit is. I started writing what my gambit is at the bottom of the post, so it is clear.

I also see the chance of spin off threads which is very new and interesting for me !! For example, if you win this next round, I think it would be reasonable for you to take Miljoen prisoner from the rear force and question them as their own thread. Maybe the prisoners try to oppose the interrogation, and if we can change the bet amounts, they can try something big, like suicide attempts for 8fu, if they succeed there are fewer prisoners to question, if they fail they lose hope. Very good !!

[STRATCOM]

Esteemed diplomat, thank you for your input. The Mandate International agrees with your assessment on dynamic gambit sizes and a natural conflict resolution flow moving into multiple diplomatic threads based on the outcome of individual gambits.

For this thread, please feel free to specify gambit sizes larger than 1.