OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

[_Tristan_]

As I see it you will need to find them on your own or with your vassals by conquering and occupying/sacking/exterminating and declaring the secession at the same time...

Only then would the taxes from the city you own go to your treasury instead of into the Basileus' coffers...

[TinCow]

Wait, do you want to actually try and calculate the income and expenses of each individual city in the separate kingdom? If so, I'm almost positive that is way, way too complicated to implement. The first time I read this I thought all income was just via conquering/sacking/ransoming from battles. That's relatively easy to keep track of. However, in the very old HRE Test game, we tried to figure out an actual income and expense breakdown for each city in the game, which seems to be what you're talking about now. It was extremely complicated, required an excel spreadsheet that few people even understood, and in the end turned out to be completely inaccurate anyway. IMO, if you want to do this you have to figure out a way to deal with the economics without doing major number crunching.

[_Tristan_]

Maybe use some approximate number depending on variables such as number of cities and size, upkeep of units and agents, recruitment and building orders.

Expenses of the secession wouldn't be subtracted from the Empire treasury but from the secession treasury but Taxes from the Secessionist cities shouldn't be added to the Empire treasury neither.

Working with an approximation seems best and should only require some small adjustment at the start or end of each turn.

The secession shouldn't have to be on the offensive to remain alive, hence it needs some kind of regular income. The sacking bounty is just to egt it started so that the upkeep of the secessionist armies doesn't drag its treasury in the red right from the start.

I'm open to any suggestion about how to handle this in the best way.

[woad&fangs]

Cool idea:grin:

A simple formula could probably be developed with # of cities, # of castles, market/port/agriculture upgrades all as variables. How much they would be worth would be determined by a consensus of what kind of army a nation with that kind of economy could field.

For example, using the above variables on my 4 settlements we could come to an agreemant(when this rule is created) that a reasonable army for the Woadistan Empire could be 3 units of militia, 2 skythikons, and 1 Trebizond archer. I could then have an army which costs up to the equivalent of the before mentioned army.

Does that make any sense?:dizzy2:

[Zim]

That's a great idea. :yes:

I'd volunteer to handle the math for at least one secession if necessary, although I can see the desire for simplification for very large ones. :dizzy2:

[TinCow]

I very highly encourage anyone discussing this rule to read the HRE Test OOC Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73107) and the HRE Test Imperial Orders Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73095). The former is the discussion of what we were trying to do with the rules. The latter is the proof of how impossible it was to keep track of the financial information, and why the idea was completely abandoned for KotR.

Unless the financial information is extremely easy to keep track of, I will not volunteer to do it. Someone else will have to do the math.

[ULC]

Actually, the math could be rounded off I suppose, from the base treasury - X settlements of Y total settlements = Z amount of income. So, say we have 4/30 settlements, then that player receives 4/30ths of the total amount of the factional income. If the Total faction income is 20,000 per turn, then that player receives 2,667 Florins per turn. This automatically takes into account wages and upkeep as well. As a possible bonus, the player then receives a "Princes Purse" of 250 florins per settlement, thus increasing total income by the above formula by 3,667 per turn - this should be more then adequate.

Is that easy enough?

[Zim]

Ooooh, spreadsheets.

I see the potential nightmare in the accounting of a rebel state, even for a fairly small secession.

I take it a secession could result in a semi-stable splinter state (assuming the new state and one they're rebelling from reach a point where they are too powerful/unwilling to absorb eachother in a war). If so infrastructure improvement is likely to become a concern to the rebels after the defeat of any immediate threats (i.e. large loyalist armies).

Maybe as far as the armies go we could use the same rules we currently have for how many troops a House are entitled to. If the rebel armies fall below this point they can retrain or recruit troops to top off. Sackings, ransoms, etc. would allow one time expenditures on troops and infrastructure.

Assuming a successful secession, available money for infrastructure improvements could be figured out with a similar system, or maybe just give the secession leader the ability to prioritize, say, 1 building twice a term for every 4 settlements he owns (the exact ratio used would likely need tweaking ,trying to strike a balance between allowing the new state to spend some funds on buildings without favoring them so the real empire is getting cheated out of florins).

It would still add work but wouldn't be as hellish as having to constantly monitor wages, corruption, income, etc.

[ULC]

What am I, chopped liver? :shame:

[Zim]

If that's a reference to me, I was writing my post when you posted your own. I was trying to run with Woad's idea and add a way to allow infrastructure improvements as well as armies for the new state. :clown:

[ULC]

And I was trying to take care of the financial situation :yes:

Thoughts?

[TheFlax]

A static amount, while simple makes every province absolutely equal, let's say in the example above you have the three worst provinces of the Empire, you shouldn't be able to pull out as much troops as if you had the three best. Also it makes building any economic improvement buildings largely irrelevant for their cost.

Then again, if we don't implement something static like YLC's proposes then we risk over complication for nothing. I don't think we should need an accountant to make this rule work.

[Ignoramus]

Why don't we rank the income on the level of the settlement, with city settlements generating more than castles?

For example:

Village: 300 florins
Small Town: 500 florins
Large Town: 750 florins
City: 1000
Large City: 1500
Huge City: 2000

Castles:

Motte and Bailey: 200
Wooden Castle: 450
Castle: 600
Fortress: 900
Citadel: 1250

Something like that. It would mean the secessionist didn't get as much value as the real in-game income, but that's the price for being a rebel.

[TheFlax]

I like that better than a plain static income.

Could economic structures give a % bonus on the settlement's income?

Then there is the matter of setting taxes, why set them at anything but low in this system?

[Zim]

And I was trying to take care of the financial situation :yes:

Thoughts?

I think that pretty much what we all are doing. :yes:

:clown:


A static amount, while simple makes every province absolutely equal, let's say in the example above you have the three worst provinces of the Empire, you shouldn't be able to pull out as much troops as if you had the three best. Also it makes building any economic improvement buildings largely irrelevant for their cost.

Then again, if we don't implement something static like YLC's proposes then we risk over complication for nothing. I don't think we should need an accountant to make this rule work.

That's pretty much the my biggest concern with my plan. :yes:

As far as the armies, Houses already get their required armies without concern to settlement quality, and poorly developed settlements would make weak armies. They also have cheaper upgrades, which may balance things out a bit (more developed settlements generally making more money, but also having more expensive upgrades).

YLC's plan greatly simplifies figuring out the secessionist's income, and is reasonably fair (slightly less so if their settlements contribute very little income or are richer than average, but I'd imagine most decently sized groups of contiguous settlements would average out as, well, average).

I could see some problems. For example if Woadistan was lucky enough to secede with several full stacks under their control (perhaps after getting a friendly Megas or offering to join a war important to him) they'd be costing an upkeep far out of line with the contribution of their fairly small number of settlements to the faction's coffers, and they'd still be getting the same percentage of the faction's income. In a way they'd be taking money from loyalist settlement contributions to pay their upkeep.

[Zim]

Bah, I'm posting too slowly. :clown:

Iggy, under your plan would the secessionists have to use that money to pay upkeep on their units or would they always make a profit? ~:)

[Ignoramus]

They would have to pay the upkeep of their units. Maybe there could be a reduction, considering the secessionists would obviously command a lot of local loyalty and prestige.

[KnightnDay]

As a newcomer, I have to tell you honestly I think this is not a good idea.

Getting into the game in the first place with the SS Mod and LOTR patching and all, then figuring out who's active, who is not, what are the houses, etc... it's a pretty daunting exercise. Really, look who has come on board lately. They're not exactly lining up now, and if you add this in, my feeling is you'll be hard pressed to get any fresh interest by adding in more complex rule sets.

I realize that many of you HRE vets are dying for more civil war action and PvP battles. Personally, that's not why I joined but I understand that it may be the price of admission. IMO, TC has done a phenomenal job in running this game and the active players do a great job doing what they do.

If my count is right, there are about 14-15 people currently active in the game. About 8 for one reason or another are essentially inactive. If you want to go down this path, I'd just ask you to consider exactly what the game might look like down the road in terms of participation if you want to substantially modify the game to include a brand new set of rules with a whole layer of accounting to the mix.

[Ignoramus]

I understand where you're coming from, KnightnDay. But I think that secession will be like civil wars - they aren't that common due to the huge risks involved. And if you throw in these juicy wars then people will try to recruit new players to increase their power. Zim and deguerra joined the HRE KotR in the Swabian Civil war, and immediately got picked up the rebel(me) and because things were a bit elastic they quickly learnt the rules.

[woad&fangs]

KnD does bring up a good point. Also, with the rules we currently have in place, and a Megas who isn't adverse to giving the secessionist a bit of supplies for roleplaying's sake I think we can get by just fine.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Perhaps, instead of including rules for secession in various "basic game" sections of the rules, include it in a separate "Rare but cool stuff" section along with civil wars. That way it seem too intimidating for a first-time player and gets the official designation as "rare" (which, I suspect, Ignoramus is correct on).

[Northnovas]

I would have to concur with KnightnDay.

looking at rules I had some concerns doing the Megas job and avoided it in KotR. Its actually not that bad or complicated and would encourage anyone else playing to think about it. However, adding any further complexity to the game regarding finances may not be in the best interest of the game at this point. I can appreciate what is being talked about and can understand the reasoning behind it but I feel it would not work on the level you would like with LotR. I think if you review the links of the test game it is self-explanatory.
Maybe a small game of players you could add that level to the finances but with the involvement of players and the fluidness of the game like LotR you won't achieve the results you wished for. :2cents:

[Ignoramus]

Maybe if it was agreed that it was the secessionists' job to work out the finances(submitting them to TC to audit them) then it wouldn't add anything extra to the Megas load?

[Zim]

As mentioned I joined in the middle of a civil war, and one I think was in some ways more complex than some of the ideas discussed here (certainly more of a departure form regular peacetime rules, although somewhat mitigated by the degree to which TinCow kept track of everything and implemented all the changes himself).

When I first saw KotR starting I found the rules somewhat intimidating (the main reason I didn't join early on) but later all of the events of the Cataclysm (including the civil wars) drew me in. The great wall 'o text that constitutes the rules in these games became less frightening when I realized I didn't really need to know all of the rules to play. The hardest stuff is invariably taken care of by the Chancellor/megas and to a lesser extent House leaders. You can be as deeply involved or not in the rules as you wish. For my part I just had fun playing low ranking characters and trying to get into battles. :yes:

Getting back to the Civil War (more like the secession rules here than LotR Civil Wars), I think it had an opposite effect. KotR players then, like LotR players now, were always welcoming of new players. However, after the empire becomes big enough for all the players there is less of an urgency as far as courting new avatars. Everyone is mostly cooperating, wars are easy, and everything begins to slow down (even the Venetian War here has hardly been a threat to our faction, despite some big losses as far as armies and generals).

When I joined it was a fairly big deal which House I joined. Players weren't just welcoming my character, several of them really needed him. It was the same for deguerra as I recall. I was instantly immersed in an exciting part of the game and started out as an asset for the side I joined. I would have the same luck with my next character, but largely because I worked to have him join Outremer which was in a desperate situation (as a result of the Cataclysm). All the other fronts became fairly quiet after a short period of retaking lost settlements.

I think stuff like these secession rules are a great idea now that we've reached that point of no return, where we could probably take on the rest of the map combined.

I can see how the extra rules could intimidate people, but I think they'd have relatively little actual effect on new players, and that in fact an situation like a secession might provide an exciting backdrop in which new people could join.

Maybe some of the starting conditions should be dropped, and instead of anyone meeting the conditions being able to secede, it should be limited specially to one of the events TinCow has for the game. Players wanting to try it could talk it over with TinCow, and if it seems like there character is in position to try such a thing an event could be created.

To make things as easy as possible on the GM and other characters, the secessionists could watch their own finances, sending reports to the Megas. Alternatively, I would be happy to do it as long as one of the simplified proposals made is chosen rather than the original rules. :bow:

On a last note, we might not need the rules at all in cases like woad mentioned, where a neutral Megas could just make the decision what bones to throw the rebels. It's an attractive option since everything could then be handled within the normal Civil War rules. The only problem I can think of is that the bigger side could easily just install a Megas that would give their enemies nothing the next term, but that could just be the price of rebelling.

P.S. Just in case it was missed or eyes glazed over while reading that wall of poorly written text, I somewhat crazily offered to manage the finances for any upcoming secessions, assuming we decide to add them to the game. :clown:

[flyd]

TC is dead on. You can theorize all you want, but the only actual test of a financially decentralized game showed it very clearly to be completely impossible. It was so clear that the idea was completely dropped for KotR and never even considered or discussed for LotR. It would be unwise to try to drop it into a running game and just expect it to work out. Although I'm not too active in the game right now, I will use my OOC vote to vote down any proposal that adds accounting, until the completion of Cecil's Vassals and Valor test. If that test has a result contrary to the HRE test, then it might be worth considering putting in a very simplified version into LotR.

[Zim]

Well, if we have someone that is going to vote down the idea pretty much no matter what I better vote for it no matter how godawful or arcanely complex the proposed rules may end up*. :laugh4:

* Well, not really, but I couldn't resist. :clown:

More seriously, if the secession rules don't include some method of making the secessionists more or or less self sufficient if they avoid being destroyed (which is pretty much guaranteed to add some extra accounting), then I'm not sure how they can be any different than an especially large civil war (if anything they'd be a bit worse for the guys seceding because of the moderately tough conditions to secede and the ability to go bankrupt, as well as losing non-contiguous settlements). It would just be a rather complicated set of rules added that don't do anything the current ones can't.

TinCow has already shown flexibility regarding gaining money from things like sacking (or seizing the "baggage train" of a defeated army) and likely could be persuaded into showing the same in response to reasonable requests by characters in a Civil War.

I like the idea of the Empire really being able to splinter as opposed to being limited to Civil Wars where one side likely completely controls the purse strings of all the others (I suppose a neutral Megas is possible but the larger the conflict the worse the fallout if he doesn't choose a side).
However, if it's going to cause a lot of problems maybe we should just handles such events as well as possible under current rules?

[Ignoramus]

TC is dead on. You can theorize all you want, but the only actual test of a financially decentralized game showed it very clearly to be completely impossible. It was so clear that the idea was completely dropped for KotR and never even considered or discussed for LotR. It would be unwise to try to drop it into a running game and just expect it to work out. Although I'm not too active in the game right now, I will use my OOC vote to vote down any proposal that adds accounting, until the completion of Cecil's Vassals and Valor test. If that test has a result contrary to the HRE test, then it might be worth considering putting in a very simplified version into LotR.

That is true. The test for KotR proved that going too far into the finances was waaaay too time consuming and would require that the players hire a full-time accountant to manage the game's finances.

However, the way we are proposing contains only three things:

(1) The incomes of the secessionist towns be subtracted from the faction income.
(2) The upkeep of the secessionist units be added to the faction income.
(3) The secessionist get a certain amount of money per level of settlement.

Now that cannot take too long to add up and get the figures, in fact if people have a problem then like Zim I am willing to do the maths.

I really think this idea completes LotR. Look what happened to the Byzantine Empire after the Fourth Crusade - it split into four rival empires. The fact is that the game has stalled because the intrigue has gone out of it. In KotR, the intrigue was kept strong by stable rival houses. In LotR, apart from a few conflicts with the Order and Caesar Ioannis, there hasn't been enough internal intrigue to keep the game different from a "let's conquer the AI with 20 intelligent TW veterans".

[TheFlax]

To further Ignoramus' point, look at the current situation. Ramses, YLC and Cecil have really revitalized the game by bringing in strife and uncertainty. Yet for those who want to rebel and keep their land, the situation is pretty impossible. Either they destroy all competition and establish a new order or they die. Success in this case is almost impossible without a large coalition.

With the many troubles and the large size of the Empire, anyone seceding with some of the more backwater provinces would have somewhat of chance of surviving. Also, with the state of things, getting three adjacent provinces would be pretty hard.

Nevertheless, the rules should be pretty straightforward and shouldn't be included in the basic rules, as suggested by GeneralHankerchief.

[Ituralde]

Isn't it fun to wake up to a huge discussion! :2thumbsup:

The following quote, though I must admit I have taken it out of context, pretty much sums up the feelings I have about the proposed Rule Change.


It would just be a rather complicated set of rules added that don't do anything the current ones can't.

Really, what are the net gains from this rule? Some huge number crunching added to the mix with the benefit that some special areas within the Empire can choose their own building and recruitment from their limited funds. That's all, or am I overlooking something?

Beside the point many here made, and on which I agree, that keeping track of income and upkeep is a very complicated task in the TW games, nobody has touched on the finer legal points that I am sure will come up as soon as any secession starts.

How does our current system incorporate the secession system? When will the money be reduced from the treasury? Will it be Prioritized Units, Secessionist stuff, Prioritoized Buildings and then the rest, or Secessionist stuff first and then Prioritized Units? What happens if one side spends all the money there is and nothing is left fot the other side?

I don't dislike the idea in general but I dislike this huge set of rules that comes along with it. If you truly wanted some more priviliges for your corner of the world, why not just start a Civil War and fight for those rights. Declare your independence and fight any other Senator until the Senate allows you to have the rank of King, an extra rank that works along the same lines of being Megas, Basileus, or Prince.

This new rank entails the following benefits:
+2 Prioritized Units, +1 Prioritized Building, 2 PUs can be explicitly named (not just Infantry/Cavalry/Archers).

This would guarantee the desired benefits you seek from secession. Only this time you fight first, win or loose and then get the benefits. Instead of the secession system where you fight, immediatelly get the benefits, and then win or loose.


So before we run off and add new rules we should see how far we can go with the current ones. And if they are truly not sufficient, discuss the thing with TinCow and get an Event started, and only if those two options fail, then we should think about introducing new rules to spice things up.

I think we are far from having reached the true potential of our current set of rules and before we have done that I don't see any need for new rules.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[ULC]

Actually, that's not a bad idea Ituralde! However, what if say, someone were to capture Rome, and wish to be crowned the true Roman Emperor? I'd love to have competing crowns, but how would one work that into the Rules?

[Ituralde]

Eithe he settles for also being King, or he tries to force the new rank of "Roman Emperor" upon the existing Empire, while maybe at the same time removing several privileges from the current Basileus rank. There really are no limits here. All you need is to have 2/3 of the Magnaura on your side. Either by being such a great chap or terrorrizing people with war. The third option would be to threaten Senators with death, but that could get complicated.

Of course some agreement would have to be made on how this works as I can already imagine people hiding at the opposite corner of the world from the warmonger and then just vote against his proposals anyways. Mabye we should add something in the rules that the Magnaura has to be held in the capital. This would give a big benefit to anyone holding the capital in a Civil War with a huge army, as he would be able to "persuade" Senators to vote in his fashion. But that's really just rambling on my part here. I'm sure TC would be open to any suggestion if Senators were too stalwart.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[_Tristan_]

However, the way we are proposing contains only three things:

(1) The incomes of the secessionist towns be subtracted from the faction income.
(2) The upkeep of the secessionist units be added to the faction income.
(3) The secessionist get a certain amount of money per level of settlement.

Now that cannot take too long to add up and get the figures, in fact if people have a problem then like Zim I am willing to do the maths.


Iggy summed up perfectly what I had in mind when writing the rule. And don't forget that the secession would have to get a "war chest" before being able to secede.

I would add that I wrote the rules at the request of Tincow but I would be ready to play this as an event written by Tincow, as a sort of Civil War.

The point being to shake and stir things up...

[TheFlax]

Actually, that's not a bad idea Ituralde! However, what if say, someone were to capture Rome, and wish to be crowned the true Roman Emperor? I'd love to have competing crowns, but how would one work that into the Rules?

Isn't there already a Western Roman Emperor? The emperor of the HRE. How many Roman emperors can you have? :clown:

[ULC]

I am simplifying the situation actually. If the Pope is killed, then the HRE loses it's legitimacy, and whoever controls Rome is the real Roman Emperor, so therefore, it would only be 1 Emperor :mellow:

[Ignoramus]

Isn't it fun to wake up to a huge discussion! :2thumbsup:

The following quote, though I must admit I have taken it out of context, pretty much sums up the feelings I have about the proposed Rule Change.



Really, what are the net gains from this rule? Some huge number crunching added to the mix with the benefit that some special areas within the Empire can choose their own building and recruitment from their limited funds. That's all, or am I overlooking something?

Beside the point many here made, and on which I agree, that keeping track of income and upkeep is a very complicated task in the TW games, nobody has touched on the finer legal points that I am sure will come up as soon as any secession starts.

How does our current system incorporate the secession system? When will the money be reduced from the treasury? Will it be Prioritized Units, Secessionist stuff, Prioritoized Buildings and then the rest, or Secessionist stuff first and then Prioritized Units? What happens if one side spends all the money there is and nothing is left fot the other side?

I don't dislike the idea in general but I dislike this huge set of rules that comes along with it. If you truly wanted some more priviliges for your corner of the world, why not just start a Civil War and fight for those rights. Declare your independence and fight any other Senator until the Senate allows you to have the rank of King, an extra rank that works along the same lines of being Megas, Basileus, or Prince.

This new rank entails the following benefits:
+2 Prioritized Units, +1 Prioritized Building, 2 PUs can be explicitly named (not just Infantry/Cavalry/Archers).

This would guarantee the desired benefits you seek from secession. Only this time you fight first, win or loose and then get the benefits. Instead of the secession system where you fight, immediatelly get the benefits, and then win or loose.


So before we run off and add new rules we should see how far we can go with the current ones. And if they are truly not sufficient, discuss the thing with TinCow and get an Event started, and only if those two options fail, then we should think about introducing new rules to spice things up.

I think we are far from having reached the true potential of our current set of rules and before we have done that I don't see any need for new rules.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Ituralde, I agree that the rule could become a nightmare if made too complicated. But like I've pointed out before, we are not doing anything drastic. We are simply allowing civil wars to have permanent results.

The current system makes almost all civil wars unsustainable. Whoever has the Megas wins the war. With that kind of advantage no one will start a war without a friendly Megas, and as we've seen we have had a grand total of 1 battle from three civil wars, two of them which involved at least half the players.

All the complicated things: prioritised units, prioritised buildings, who moves who avatar and what not do not apply to the secessionists. In fact, it would make it easier for the Megas, as there are less players' SOTs to worry about.

The financial side looks daunting, but I feel that too many comparisons are being made with the KotR Test Game. There, we were trying to micromanage each settlement's recruitment and construction with it's own income. Here, we are reckoning each secessionists' settlement as generating a set amount of florins per level. No fuss, no problem. You have a minor city? It gets you 1000 florins in taxes. As simple as that. Whether it has 6000 or 60000 people, it still generates you 1000 florins. You want a 20 unit elite army? Then you better make sure you have enough settlements to afford the 6,000 florin upkeep bill.

All of the adding and subtracting would take less than 20 minutes, and two people have already offered to spend their own time implementing this rule. It would not bother TinCow, it would not bother the Megas. All the adding and subtracting would be taken care of.

[_Tristan_]

Exactly, the brunt of the work falls on the shoulder of the Secessionist player.

It is up to him to keep track of what he is able to do with the funds at his disposal.

The idea has been trotting in my head since the Komneni-Tagaris war. Noone wanted to commit themselves because any gains would have been short-term only.

The secession cuts off any Megas intervention and thus allows Civil Wars to be led even when confronted with a hostile Megas.

[Ituralde]

But Civil Wars can have permanent results if you pull them through to the end. This way as I said you put the results before the actual War for which I see little reason. If people want changes and they can only accomplish them through war they should first fight and then see what results they can get. Long term results are possible, people have just not been willing to accomplish them yet.

Also to your Megas argument. You had a friendly Megas in power and still did not win the Civil War. Since people keep their PUs even during a Civil War they still have some means to sustain their efforts.

None of you has adressed where the funds will come from when there isn't enouh money to supply both the loyalists and the secessionists. It is good if someone else takes care of the financial side of things, but if the system is so complicated that the guy in charge of the finances could make errors we wouldn't be able to find out due to the complexity then that doesn't sound like a good system.

If you really fear that waging a Civil War is not sustainable, I would be open to changing the rules where you get a certain amount of income during a Civil War to hire mercs and troops and what not. But then there would still be the problem where exactly that money is coming from and what happens if the Megas decides to spend it on building a Cathedral for example.

[ULC]

Bingo!

:idea2:

What if we the secessionists were allotted "Mercenary Slots" - depending on some unestablished variable that pertains to their success rate, they can recruit a certain amount of mercenaries, and the amount paid for the mercenaries is automatically refunded from the treasury. IN this way, one could properly represent someone using their personal fortune to fight said civil war. This allows some independence from the Megas as well.

[_Tristan_]

The fact is that during "my" civil war funds from my provinces kept on going to my enemy's treasury (blasphemy, if you ask me).

As to having a friendly Megas, it surely did not feel that way, though I'll have to admit it was not hostile either.

The purpose of the rule I proposed is to give the rebel party in a civil war some kind of financial autonomy and also to make the loyalist feel that they are losing something, hence to spur them into action.

If you're the Basileus and you've lost three or more of your most valuable provinces, you'll certainly be hard pressed to regain control of them. It should be a risk-cost assessment about whether you're willing to commit X number of troops (with a cost of Y) to retrieve the lost provinces and their Z income of taxes.

As to the problem of the shortage of funds, the problem should not exist as the rebel funds will be part of the main treasury. And do not forget that bankruptcy will spell the doom of the secession.

[_Tristan_]

Bingo!

:idea2:

What if we the secessionists were allotted "Mercenary Slots" - depending on some unestablished variable that pertains to their success rate, they can recruit a certain amount of mercenaries, and the amount paid for the mercenaries is automatically refunded from the treasury. IN this way, one could properly represent someone using their personal fortune to fight said civil war. This allows some independence from the Megas as well.

I do not like this idea...

I prefer to have the secession rely on "real" funds as it leaves a sword hanging above its head. This is why I chose to require that any secessionist lay its hands on an "ingame war chest" by way of sacking or ransom or any other means that generates large amounts of ingame cash.

The rebels have all the facilities of their cities to provide them with troops without having to resort to mercenaries, though they still may do it from the mercenary pool and from their own funds.

[Ituralde]

As to the problem of the shortage of funds, the problem should not exist as the rebel funds will be part of the main treasury. And do not forget that bankruptcy will spell the doom of the secession.

During my term as Megas there was always more things to spend money on than there was money, meaning the treasury was always empty at the end of the turn. Sometimes throuhg PUs, sometimes throuhg PBs alone.

If I have the time I probably do it myself, but has anyone bothered to actually count the amount of taxes "lost" and the amount of upkeep gained for free? Sure the Empire gets your taxes, but then your army is paid no matter what. Maybe if we knew these numbers we could better judge how a Civil War party would stand financially.

Also you can always put your taxes as low as possible during a Civil War. I understand your concerns but I don't think the rules you proposed would truly solve the problem and then not without themselves creating a score of problems we hadn't thought about. Before anyone doesn't wage a full Civil War where he committs all of his possessions to victory and still fails due to the unfairness of the situation then I might be willing to concede some of the points. Right now, I'm just not convinced the benefits are worth the cost.

[Ignoramus]

If three of your best three cities secede, then you'd expect to be in financial trouble. If Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch went, then there would be a massive hole in the budget, yes. But that also would mean that the Megas and Basileus couldn't just sit on their backside until boredom brings an end to the civil war.

And the rebels would not get free upkeep. They'd have to pay their own troops out of their own money. No free handouts here.

BTW, all this debate is good for the game. Look at how many posts we've had today.

[ULC]

I do not like this idea...

I prefer to have the secession rely on "real" funds as it leaves a sword hanging above its head. This is why I chose to require that any secessionist lay its hands on an "ingame war chest" by way of sacking or ransom or any other means that generates large amounts of ingame cash.

The rebels have all the facilities of their cities to provide them with troops without having to resort to mercenaries, though they still may do it from the mercenary pool and from their own funds.

Thats the idea - sorry if I wrote it half-formed.

The idea is that it provides the necessary independence from the Megas - that is what is needed - without massive calculations. Say you sack a city for 5000 florins. This will be recorded down as your private war funds. The total gained form the sacking that would go to the treasury is removed, and the game continues as normal, until you wish to use your money. Like normal, you would pay for it, and the amount would be subtracted from your private funds. This of course has the negative side effect of subtracting from the treasury, but that can be fixed by adding the total back in - essentially achieving what we are after without massive calculations, without fear of a belligerent Megas, and with the benefit of control. We can add in Iggy's "certain florins for certain places" plan to sum it up.

[TheFlax]

Thats the idea - sorry if I wrote it half-formed.

The idea is that it provides the necessary independence from the Megas - that is what is needed - without massive calculations. Say you sack a city for 5000 florins. This will be recorded down as your private war funds. The total gained form the sacking that would go to the treasury is removed, and the game continues as normal, until you wish to use your money. Like normal, you would pay for it, and the amount would be subtracted from your private funds. This of course has the negative side effect of subtracting from the treasury, but that can be fixed by adding the total back in - essentially achieving what we are after without massive calculations, without fear of a belligerent Megas, and with the benefit of control. We can add in Iggy's "certain florins for certain places" plan to sum it up.

But with this idea, doesn't the Empire still pay for your troop upkeep? So basically when you sack you just get a bunch of money to recruit units and then the other side has to pay their upkeep, while they still have to purchase their units normally and pay their upkeep cost. Or am I getting this wrong?

[Ignoramus]

My idea was to simply cut the income generated by secessionist settlements from the loyalists and add back in the unit upkeep of the secessionist units.

That way, the loyalists do not pay anything for the secessionists, and the only negative is not gaining the income from settlements they don't control. Seems fair to me.

[TheFlax]

In case there was any confusion I was referring to YLC's idea.

I'm in favor of secessions being possible by the rules as long as the math is kept simple and can be understood by all players.

I think this rule would give a fighting chance for those who rebel without necessarily a political cause or and ideological one and still remain fair to both parties.

[ULC]

TF, the upkeep would be factored in as a cost - it would be taken care of much like the how the Crusade was handled.

The problem with civil wars is overall independence from the Megas so that you are not unable to wage the civil war. Otherwise, all you have to do is elect a Megas loyal to your House, and then go stomp on everyone else's anthills - there won't be a thing they could do about it, since they would lack the proper funding.

So, if there are to be any rules changes, IMHO they have to offer simplicity+indepedence. I think thats what my proposal is :sweatdrop:

[TheFlax]

If I remember correctly, in the Crusade the upkeep of unit was reimbursed to the Empire coffer by TC. Going that route still requires calculation, although to a lesser degree. My biggest concern is still that these are free units. This means you can just roam around and dodge other armies, fight only when you want to. With the secession rules, you have to defend your settlements or risk losing income for maintaining your troops. While its more complicated to manage, I personally find that idea more appealing and already two people offered to do the number crunching. Heck, I'd be willing to do it if it means adding more tensions in the game. :yes:

[ULC]

Well, my suggestion only took into account the training and maintaining of troops and the constructions of buildings. I then offered my theory be partnered to Iggy's for actual income. The idea is to separate the two incomes effectively so that the secessionist can have independence without hampering the loyalists treasury.

[Ituralde]

I still don't see why the current system is not sufficient for the purposes you want.
Income from your settlement would probably be negated by your army upkeep anyhow.

As I said before, if you want independence from the Megas declare Civil War and fight for that right.

If you only want Civil Wars then the current system has enough to offer as well.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I really don't see the problem. We haven't had one proper Civil War yet. Nobody steamrolled the opposition with a friendly Megas and no one was crushed because of an evil Megas.

[TinCow]

Getting back to the Civil War (more like the secession rules here than LotR Civil Wars), I think it had an opposite effect. KotR players then, like LotR players now, were always welcoming of new players. However, after the empire becomes big enough for all the players there is less of an urgency as far as courting new avatars. Everyone is mostly cooperating, wars are easy, and everything begins to slow down (even the Venetian War here has hardly been a threat to our faction, despite some big losses as far as armies and generals).

When I joined it was a fairly big deal which House I joined. Players weren't just welcoming my character, several of them really needed him. It was the same for deguerra as I recall. I was instantly immersed in an exciting part of the game and started out as an asset for the side I joined. I would have the same luck with my next character, but largely because I worked to have him join Outremer which was in a desperate situation (as a result of the Cataclysm). All the other fronts became fairly quiet after a short period of retaking lost settlements.

I think stuff like these secession rules are a great idea now that we've reached that point of no return, where we could probably take on the rest of the map combined.

This is why PvP was built into LotR from the beginning. Both of the previous games (WotS and KotR) reached this point eventually and then turned to a round of PvP as kind of a celebration before ending. PvP was incorporated into LotR so that the in-fighting could occur much earlier and thus make a longer and more sustainable challenge for the players. Unfortunately, no one wanted to do it until we got so large that we were essentially at the WotS and KotR end-game levels. I still don't understand where this aversion came from, but trust me, it was caused by the players, not the rules. The AI will NEVER provide the same challenge that other players will. I tried to encourage this internal competition from day one, but no one really took it by the bit until very recently. You can change the rules, but you can't change the inclinations of the players.


That is true. The test for KotR proved that going too far into the finances was waaaay too time consuming and would require that the players hire a full-time accountant to manage the game's finances.

However, the way we are proposing contains only three things:

(1) The incomes of the secessionist towns be subtracted from the faction income.
(2) The upkeep of the secessionist units be added to the faction income.
(3) The secessionist get a certain amount of money per level of settlement.

Now that cannot take too long to add up and get the figures, in fact if people have a problem then like Zim I am willing to do the maths.

Actually, that can take a very long time to add up. You have to open up the info scroll for every single secessionist unit and the trade screen for every single secessionist town. You then have to add that all up, format it, and post it in some conceivable pattern. I know how long updates like this take, and that would probably take an extra hour to do properly. And the key is that it has to be done at the beginning of every single turn of the game. If the Megas is not doing it (I will veto any RC that puts that burden on him, because no one will want the job), then the game is frozen until the 'Economist' downloads the saves and does all the math. What if that person isn't around for 12 hours? 24 hours? You're talking about a major slowdown in LotR just to do this 'minimal' amount of calculations. If there's one thing I've learned from the LotR rule set, it's that efficiency must trump all other considerations when you're creating a game that is this ambitious. Any system that requires calculating the actual income and expenses of a certain segment of the Empire is not efficient.


I don't dislike the idea in general but I dislike this huge set of rules that comes along with it. If you truly wanted some more priviliges for your corner of the world, why not just start a Civil War and fight for those rights. Declare your independence and fight any other Senator until the Senate allows you to have the rank of King, an extra rank that works along the same lines of being Megas, Basileus, or Prince.

This new rank entails the following benefits:
+2 Prioritized Units, +1 Prioritized Building, 2 PUs can be explicitly named (not just Infantry/Cavalry/Archers).

This would guarantee the desired benefits you seek from secession. Only this time you fight first, win or loose and then get the benefits. Instead of the secession system where you fight, immediatelly get the benefits, and then win or loose.

I like this idea a great deal. I specifically made the 'rank' system extremely flexible so that we could add in stuff like this. It would be very easy to make a special 'Rebel' or "Secessionist' rank that achieves everything that people want, without the math. I've got to go to work at the moment, but once I get there I'll draw a basic outline of what this rank could be.

[Andres]

We've had quite a few rule changes in the course of this game. Personally, I don't like rules being changed while a game is still going.

I know it is inevitable to a certain extent in this type of game, but is this really necessary?

Personally, I liked the original setup (the rules as they were when the game started). A correction here and there if rules seem to be contradicting themselves or if they are unclear, ok, but changing them to the extent that you get a game that is completely different than how it started?

As a player and just speaking for me personally, frequent rule changes in the course of a game take away the joy.

a) I play games for fun. b) I was having fun => I don't see the need for change :shrug:

EXAMPLE : in the beginning you needed to acquire a certain rank to have your own private army and to have some real fun. So, I tried to get my character to a sufficient rank, only to see the rules change. Now, you can just jump on a captain led stack and there you go: you have an army. With this secession thing, rank is no longer important, land is. These rule changes interfere with my approach. Yes, I play a game with ruleset A. So, I work to a goal within the framework of rule set A. If rule set A is turned into B and thus the framework changes drastically, well, that's not fun.

[Ituralde]

I agree with Andres. Before we change any rules and put all of our energy in this OOC discussion, why not put it into the game and try to achieve those things there. Who knows where it leads. I would find it more interesting to have these things appear naturally out of the game context than have the script laid out by a new set of rules and then just follow them.

[_Tristan_]

Please remember that said set of rules was proposed because I forwarded to Tincow a plan I had in mind, which he said could be enabled only through a Rule Change...

I am all for trying and going with my plan inside uour current set of rules, provided that my concerns with regard to the particular situation are taken into account.

I am not trying to create an undue advantage for my avatar but rather trying to create a believable and entertaining situation of Civil War, one that will condition action on both parts and not some dilly-dallying like we've seen until now (and for which I'm partly responsible :whip:)

The essential part being that by entering into a state of Civil War parts of the Empire should be cut-off from Central Power, funds should be on the wane and fortunes of war should belong to the taker.

A civil war is simply not a simple feudal quarrel : it has more scope. It should endanger the very essence of the Empire, things which the current set of rules do not create, IMHO.

[TinCow]

Ok, here's a rough draft of a way to implement a secession system through ranks only. This cuts out all the economic issues and keeps things consistent with the current rule set. If a secession system is going to be included, this is the format that I would prefer to have it in. I will not get involved in the discussion as to whether a secession system is good for the game or not. I can live with it either way, so I leave it up to the players to decide via a vote on a Rule Change.


Rebel:
Requirements:
(1) Must own at least 2 contiguous provinces and then declare oneself a Rebel in a public thread OR
(2) Be a vassal of a Rebel.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Rebel are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Rebel Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) If the Rebel rank is obtained by declaration, rather than swearing, the Rebel must designate one of his provinces as his Capital. The Capital must be contiguous to at least one other province owned by the Rebel or any of his vassals. At the moment that the Capital is declared, provinces owned by the Rebel or his vassals which are not connected to the Capital by contiguous land borders are instantly lost and become the property of the Basileus. This territory will be known as the Rebel's 'Realm.'
(3) If the Rebel rank is obtained by declaration, the Senator automatically breaks any Oath to his Lord.
(4) The Megas Logothetes may not move any Captain led stack within the Realm, nor any fleet in the port of a settlement in the Realm.
(5) Is not bound by any Edicts or Amendments.
Penalties:
(1) When this rank is obtained, the Rebel is considered to have made an automatic declaration of war against all Senators who are still part of the Empire. Rebels cannot make Peace Treaties.
(2) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(3) Cannot prioritize any Units or Buildings.
(4) Taxes are set to Very High in all settlements within the Realm.
(5) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Rebel is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.

Secessionist:
Requirements:
(1) Must have been a Rebel for 5 turns OR
(2) Be a vassal of a Secessionist.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Secessionist are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Secessionist Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) The Megas Logothetes may not move any Captain led stack within the Realm, nor any fleet in the port of a settlement in the Realm.
(3) Is not bound by any Edicts or Amendments.
Penalties:
(1) When this rank is obtained, the Secessionist is considered to have made an automatic declaration of war against all Senators who are still part of the Empire. Secessionists cannot make Peace Treaties.
(2) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(3) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Secessionist is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.

Independent Ruler:
Requirements:
(1) Must have been a Secessionist for 5 turns OR
(2) Be a vassal of an Independent Ruler.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Independent Ruler are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Independent Ruler's Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) May create his own title instead of "Independent Ruler" and may determine the correlating titles of all his vassals.
(3) The Megas Logothetes may not move any Captain led stack within the Realm, nor any fleet in the port of a settlement in the Realm.
(4) If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 unit per province within the Realm and 1 building per 3 provinces within the Realm per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term. This Power is cumulative with the ability to Prioritize units under any other rank held by the Independent Ruler.
(5) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(6) Is not bound by any Edicts or Amendments.
(7) Unless they have the permission of the Independent Ruler, any neutral Senator entering a province of the Realm is considered to have automatically declared war on the Independent Ruler.
(8) During any Senate session, can give a temporary bonus of 1 influence to any loyal Senator of the Empire for every 2 provinces in the Realm. The loyal Senator must agree to accept this temporary bonus before it can be added. The offer and acceptance of the bonus may be kept secret until all votes are tallied.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(2) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Independent Ruler is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.
(3) Can move the Capital to another province within the Realm, but this results in the Independent Ruler becoming a Secessionist once again.

This is essentially a three-tiered system for rebellions. Someone declares themselves a rebel, and *poof*, they're a rebel (if they meet the land requirements). Their vassals go with them into the rebellion, but can bow out easily by breaking the oath and then declaring neutrality to get out of the wars. The rebel has to have multiple contiguous provinces, and delegates one province as the Capital. This settlement must be very well protected, because if it is lost at any point, the Rebel loses all progress towards independence and must either give up or reset the clock back to zero and start again. For the first five turns (Rebel) the 'Realm' is in turmoil and the Rebel gets no benefits. He has to survive off of what he has already accumulated, and taxes are set to Very High to mimic the immense social problems that the locals would have with breaking away from the Empire. The Independent Ruler can also meddle in the politics of the Empire by giving extra influence to someone who favors his policies, but he requires a willing lackey in the Senate in order to do so.

If the Rebel survives 5 turns, then his lands start to return to order. He regains the ability to prioritize units and set his own tax rates. After a further 5 turns (10 total) he is finally an independent kingdom and can make peace with the rest of the Empire. At this point, he gets a bonus to both PUs and PBs, in reflection of the prestige of successfully rebelling. This bonus can grow extremely large if large parts of the Empire are in rebellion. This in turn acts as an incentive for the Empire to deal with growing Independent states. Small rebellions will not impact the state much, but large ones could effectively bankrupt the state and hinder all economic growth.

Due to not being part of the Empire, none of these ranks are subject to the laws of the Empire, but they also cannot take part in governing it. They can still speak in the Magnaura if the Basileus allows it, but they can't do much else (except Rule Changes). They have to determine for themselves how their own kingdom is to be managed and are responsible for enforcing their own rules on their own subjects, just like in a House.

[Rowan]

I like TinCow's proposal best. Simple, effective and creates both immediate and long term benefits to having a civil war. Besides it makes land worth something even if you have more land than people.

The problem with civil wars has been (at least from my perspective) that there really isn't a long term benefit. Power in this game is a) size of the house and b) land. After the first two terms there has been ample land for everyone and it's almost always easier to take land from the AI. So it's all about getting people to join your house and that is as much an OOC as IC effort. So the only real power you could gain from a civil war is forcing someone to swear an oath to you. And doing that might have quite severe repercussions in Magnaura.

[Ituralde]

The problem with civil wars has been (at least from my perspective) that there really isn't a long term benefit. Power in this game is a) size of the house and b) land. After the first two terms there has been ample land for everyone and it's almost always easier to take land from the AI. So it's all about getting people to join your house and that is as much an OOC as IC effort. So the only real power you could gain from a civil war is forcing someone to swear an oath to you. And doing that might have quite severe repercussions in Magnaura.

Very accurate assessment if you ask me!

[_Tristan_]

I find the set of rules agreeable though I find the Very High taxes penalties a bit harsh. Mostly because it doesn't take into account the fact that you wouldn't anymore suffer the distance to capital penalty.

Second, this set of rules still doesn't take into account the possibility for the rebel/secessionist to keep for himself any ransom/sacking money.

Lastly, this set of rule doesn't take into account the possibility for the rebel to recruit units or build improvements.

[TinCow]

1) Of course you would suffer the distance to capital penalty, at least for a short while. Just because you declare independence one moment does not mean the inhabitents of your provinces will suddenly become instantly loyal to you. Civil revolts are very likely, and it would take a strong hand or a very charismatic leader to keep people in order during such a rebellion. If you've got unpopular personality traits and not a large enough army to keep order on VH taxes, you are essentially rebelling while very weak and you will have a hard time suviving through it. In any case, taxes in castles can't be changed, so there won't be rebellions there. The point is that for the first 5 turns, rebels will likely have to focus exclusively on keeping order in their Realm, not expanding. This seems realistic to me.

2) This is correct, but why do you need that money? Once you are fully independent, you get more PUs and PBs than other people of the same rank as you. Plus, keeping track of ransom/sacking money just throws us back into the economics headache.

3) Yes it does, once you're a Secessionist you get access to your PUs and PBs just like anyone else. When you finally become an Independent Ruler, you actually get a very large number of them, and that number increases with the amount of land you obtain.

[Ramses II CP]

Hang on a second, didn't LotR get set up as a hotseat style game from the start anyway? Why don't we just enable a second nation to be played? With a little diplomacy it should be possible to set up any other faction as Byzantium 2 or whatever.

There's the one time akwardness of recreating avatars that want to switch sides, but then there's no tracking economic data or anything else because the game does it all for you. No need for more rules when there's a mechanism already in place, right?

:egypt:

[TinCow]

Hang on a second, didn't LotR get set up as a hotseat style game from the start anyway? Why don't we just enable a second nation to be played? With a little diplomacy it should be possible to set up any other faction as Byzantium 2 or whatever.

There's the one time akwardness of recreating avatars that want to switch sides, but then there's no tracking economic data or anything else because the game does it all for you. No need for more rules when there's a mechanism already in place, right?

:egypt:

Yes, we can play other factions, but AFAIK, there's no way to switch current Byzantine settlements over to that faction. The only thing I could think of would be to take an existing faction and have them conquer the provinces we want to change into Byzantium 2, then have them lose all their old provinces. Then we have to bribe all the avatars over to the new faction, then we have to get at least one adopted into the new family, and then we need to kill the entire old family off. Even after this is done, all units and family members in the future will belong to the new faction, not Byzantium. This means they'll use completely different units and have the wrong family member names in the future. I don't think I need to explain why all of this is impractical.

[_Tristan_]

Just to answer Tincow's point from above :

1/ That I could understand but shouldn't we allow to take into account some varaible based on the avatar stats about how much public order would suffer and maybe some other variables pertaining to the neglect of said provinces by central power.
Example : During Makedonios' reign, the Order may have seceded and most likely the citizens of the Order-held provinces would have stood by their lords due to Megas Ioannis neglecting them.
And that doesn't take into account the upheaval that would shake the Empire as a whole. Taxes should go up one notch in most Empire provinces as well, IMHO. Ideas of rebellion spread far and fast.

2/ The problem is that you're not fully independent from the start and as I saw the secession, it was making use of an opportunity offered by some war loot to free yourself from the Empire yoke. As I saw it, it was an easier to wage a civil war as a rebel than the mechanism allows as it is, which has been a strong impediment to how my last involvement evolved.
By way of this war loot, you might in effect be ven richer than the Empire.
Example : the current Byzantine treasury is around 7000 florins when the fall of Venice could net over 10000 florins in one stroke, and that's not mentioning Rome.
If I were to secede, I would seek to deny the Empire I am rebelling against those same funds.
Otherwise, it would feel like Han Solo turning over the Millenium Falcon to Darth Vader before the battle of the Death Star.

3/Having PUs and PBs galore is a long shot from being an Independent Ruler... You're still liable to the will of the Megas, if I read this right.

Plus, it doesn't make sense to me as those rebel PUs/PBs would hamper Loyalist PUs/PBs and the other way round.

EDIT : The proposed set of rules doesn't mention the fate of agents.

[TinCow]

1) I think increasing taxes in nearby loyalist settlements makes sense. It's also a big incentive for Senators bordering the 'Realm' to try and destroy it quickly.

2&3) I used the PUs and PBs because they are already part of the game. As I've said before, I think that anything that involves calculating the actual amount of florins rebels have and can spend is a bad idea. I'm open to hearing other options that are simpler, if you don't like using PUs and PBs.

[_Tristan_]

About financial questions, calculating the cost of upkeep of the secession would not demand big efforts. Unless there are big battles involved in every turn, the numbers in said armies/garrisons shouldn't vary very much from onr turn to the next.

Iggy's idea of using approximation or some kind of king's purse for the secession would also facilitate the tracing of the secession funds.

Secession treasury would gain X florins (=king's purse every turn) added to the starting treasury. These sums could then be used as he saw fit by the secession faction, much like a second Megas. The "true" Megas would only have to make sure he doesn't above what remains in the treasury once the Secession treasury has been deducted from it.

All we would have to agree on in this scenario is what value would each city be worth and what other variables should be taken into account.

Then, the secession treasury could be easily assessed at the end/beginning of each turn.

EDIT : Sorry if I seem a bit obstinate about this, but I think this is the crux of the problem and what could make the difference between a viable and a still-born rebellion.

As we say in France, "L'argent est le nerf de la guerre" or "Money is the nerve of war"

[_Tristan_]

One more question : suppose there is a neighbouring avatar-less loyalist settlement next to a secessionist. How would the conquest of it be handled ?

Would it surrender automatically ? Would it be fought as a siege battle ?

[TinCow]

I am very far from convinced that any system involving number-crunching is a good idea. If a sufficient majority of players approve of it to allow it to be passed as a Rule Change, I will not veto it. However, I will not do the math myself and I will veto any Rule Change proposal that makes the Megas do it. I will also continue to express my disapproval of such a system, as I think it would cause immense problems for the game. If you're not willing to look for a compromise system that does not involve math, then I'm not going to put any more effort into writing draft rules for this.

For neighbouring avatar-less loyalist settlements, they still belong to someone. I would make you fight to conquer them, but it would almost certainly be a Custom Battle against the AI, like YLC fought to take over Durazzo. So, you'd still have to win, but it wouldn't likely be very difficult. This is how I would handle the conquest of any settlement that didn't have a player defending it, even in a normal Civil War.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Taking the save!

Gah! I knew I forgot to do something! :wall:

[TheFlax]

Gah! I knew I forgot to do something! :wall:

Likewise. :clown:

After reading about the "Rebel" ranks in TC's post I have to change my position, in my opinion that option blends simplicity and practicability while still being in the spirit of what Tristan proposed. Staying within the current system of rules, whenever possible, is for the best I think.

[Northnovas]

Sorry about that I was wondering why Aleppo was still under siege?
Actually I was in a bit of a panic I would have waited longer but the old desktop is a bit unstable. The blue screen nvp_24 disp on start up which means going to safe mode, uninstalling and reinstalling the video driver. :sweatdrop:
I just got home and now I am having some power issues with it. It just shuts off at random. Only a couple turns left and I am trying to stabilize the cpu till the new one is purchased. This is being researched as I type because I want the full effect no hold back when ETW comes out next month. :2thumbsup:

[ULC]

I actually like what TC has proposed, it works within the current system and gives the long term benefits needed.

As to the PU PB however, I like the idea of Secessionist and Independent Rulers bonus PU's and PB's coming first - this allows some power without crippling loyalists, and keeps the Megas from simply ignoring the rebels because "there isn't enough money".

[Zim]

That is a bit out of context. :clown: However, I really, really like the idea of covering secessions by creating new ranks. It's easy, doesn't add a lot of complicated rules, and as proposed by TinCow is difficult while still having payoffs for succeeding. :yes:


Isn't it fun to wake up to a huge discussion! :2thumbsup:

The following quote, though I must admit I have taken it out of context, pretty much sums up the feelings I have about the proposed Rule Change.

[Cecil XIX]

Having waited a bit to speak, I think Tincow's 3-tier proposal is the best. The changes discussed here have all been very big, so big that to add them on to the existing rules makes the whole thing unwieldy. Since Tincow is the original author of the rules, he's the one who's best able to add such a major change seamlessly.

Edit: However, I do think it's reasonable to allow to allow rebels to keep money they gain from sacking cities. Taking an AI province doesn't happen that often, and we could impose a timelimit to spend it. Say, the money has to be spent on construction or recruitment by the end of the next turn, or when the current Megas reign ends. At the very least money gained from sacking should be removed from the treasury via console, this prevents rebels from being forced to fund their enemies and could be done immediately without having to keep track of any numbers at all.

[Ignoramus]

The problem I have is that the loyalists are paying for the rebellious troops. That shouldn't happen. Apart from that, it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

[Cecil XIX]

The problem I have is that the loyalists are paying for the rebellious troops. That shouldn't happen. Apart from that, it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Depending on the situation, it could also be that excess income from an Independant Ruler's cities goes into the Basileus's coffers.

[Ignoramus]

I hadn't thought of that.

Well, I'm happy with TC's proposed set of rules. Should we put it to a vote?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

That upkeep and tax money thing can be roleplayed like some magistrates/officials are corrupt and giving some money to the rebels.

[Ituralde]

I'm gonna be on a short trip from Thursday to Sunday! If the Megas Logothetes could move Nikitas Moschos towards Sinop during the time I am away it would be much appreciated. I updated my SoT to reflect this.

Don't do any votes without me! :beam:

Ituralde

[TinCow]

This Senate Session has not arrived at a good time for me. I have house guests over from tomorrow evening through Sunday (which also require cleaning this evening) and will not be online much during that time. This will not pose a problem for creating the various polling threads and such, but the Library update may be a bit slow in coming. I ask forgiveness in advance if it is tardy.

[TheFlax]

Sorry for taking the save, for some reason I thought we had one more turn before the session. :sweatdrop:

[Northnovas]

Sorry for taking the save, for some reason I thought we had one more turn before the session. :sweatdrop:

I thought we had a turn left but I miscalculated. :embarassed: I have to remember terms end on 0 or 5. :book:

[Ituralde]

Wouldn't the Rule Change be handled completely OOC? Just wondering about the post in the Magnaura...

[Andres]

I have house guests over from tomorrow evening through Sunday (which also require cleaning this evening) and will not be online much during that time.

That sound so familiar :laugh4:

My parents and my father in law will be visiting Saturday.

Guess I'll be cleaning the house on Friday evening :whip:

[TinCow]

Wouldn't the Rule Change be handled completely OOC? Just wondering about the post in the Magnaura...

Technically it still needs to be proposed in there, but I agree that the discussions should remain in here because they are OOC. Also, that rule change I wrote was a draft. There are problems with it as it is currently written. I'll try and spiff it up a bit today to remove these problems, but I will veto the current version because it is incomplete and will cause rule conflicts.

[Ignoramus]

Technically it still needs to be proposed in there, but I agree that the discussions should remain in here because they are OOC. Also, that rule change I wrote was a draft. There are problems with it as it is currently written. I'll try and spiff it up a bit today to remove these problems, but I will veto the current version because it is incomplete and will cause rule conflicts.

Ok, can you then replace my Rule Change which your final version? I just want the change to be put forward for voting this session, otherwise we'd have to wait until next term or delay the game with an emergency session.

[TinCow]

Sure thing, Ig. I'll get a better version up later and just edit your post to insert it there. I'll make a post in here as well when I do so.

Please do continue to discuss whether you guys want a change like this as well. I am contributing these rules simply because I want to make sure that if there is a major movement to adds this, that it's done in a way that will work. I am still completely neutral on whether it should actually be added.

[TinCow]

New version of Secession Rule Change:


The following ranks will be added to Rule 2.7:

Rebel:
Requirements:
(1) Must own at least 2 contiguous provinces and then declare oneself a Rebel in a public thread OR
(2) Be a vassal of a Rebel.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Rebel are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Rebel Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) If the Rebel rank is obtained by declaration, rather than swearing, the Rebel must designate one of his provinces as his Capital. The Capital must be contiguous to at least one other province owned by the Rebel or any of his vassals. At the moment that the Capital is declared, provinces owned by the Rebel or his vassals which are not connected to the Capital by contiguous land borders are instantly lost and become the property of the Basileus. TinCow will determine whether an island province is contiguous to continental provinces. This territory will be known as the Rebel's 'Realm.'
(3) If the Rebel rank is obtained by declaration, the Senator automatically breaks any Oath to his Lord.
(4) If the Rebel rank is obtained by swearing an Oath, all of the Senator's provinces which are not contiguous to the Realm of the new Lord become the property of the Basileus.
(5) Is not bound by any Senate Edicts or Amendments.
(6) Is immune to Basileus' Powers 6, 7, and 16.
Penalties:
(1) When this rank is obtained, the Rebel is considered to have made an automatic declaration of war against all Senators who are still part of the Empire. Rebels cannot make Peace Treaties.
(2) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(3) Cannot prioritize any Units or Buildings.
(4) Taxes are set to Very High in all settlements within the Realm.
(5) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Rebel is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.
(6) Cannot hold the ranks of Dean or Scholar.


Secessionist:
Requirements:
(1) Must have been a Rebel for 5 turns OR
(2) Be a vassal of a Secessionist.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Secessionist are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Secessionist Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) If the Rebel rank is obtained by swearing an Oath, all of the Senator's provinces which are not contiguous to the Realm of the new Lord become the property of the Basileus.
(3) Is not bound by any Senate Edicts or Amendments.
(4) Is immune to Basileus' Powers 6, 7, and 16.
(5) Taxes are set to High in all adjacent non-Realm settlements.
Penalties:
(1) When this rank is obtained, the Secessionist is considered to have made an automatic declaration of war against all Senators who are still part of the Empire. Secessionists cannot make Peace Treaties.
(2) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(3) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Secessionist is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.
(4) Cannot hold the ranks of Dean or Scholar.


Independent Ruler:
Requirements:
(1) Must have been a Secessionist for 5 turns OR
(2) Be a vassal of an Independent Ruler.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Independent Ruler are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Independent Ruler's Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) May create his own title instead of "Independent Ruler" and may determine the correlating titles of all his vassals, unless the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 unit per province within the Realm and 1 building per 3 provinces within the Realm per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term. This Power is cumulative with the ability to Prioritize units under any other rank held by the Independent Ruler. This power is void if the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
(5) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason, unless the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
(6) Is not bound by any Senate Edicts or Amendments.
(7) Is immune to Basileus' Powers 6, 7, and 16.
(8) Unless they have the permission of the Independent Ruler, any neutral Senator entering a province of the Realm owned by the Independent Ruler is considered to have automatically declared war on the Independent Ruler.
(9) During any Senate session, can give a temporary bonus of 1 influence to any loyal Senator of the Empire for every 2 provinces in the Realm. The loyal Senator must agree to accept this temporary bonus before it can be added. The offer and acceptance of the bonus may be kept secret until all votes are tallied, but TinCow must be informed of the deal via PM. This power is void if the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
(10) Taxes are set to Very High in all adjacent non-Realm settlements.
(11) Can move the Capital to any other province within the Realm, but this results in the Independent Ruler becoming a Secessionist once again. This power is void if the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(2) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Independent Ruler is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.
(3) Cannot be a Dean or a Scholar.



Megas Logothetes Powers will be altered to read as follows:


(3) Except as stated in Rule 4.1, the Megas Logothetes can move all armies that start a turn led by a Captain, unless that stack started the turn inside a Realm.
(4) Except as stated in Rule 4.3, the Megas Logothetes can move all fleets, unless they started the turn inside a port in a Realm.

Notable changes:
1) Rebels, etc. are immune to some of the Basileus' powers, even when at peace with him.
2) Taxes are set to High in all loyal Empire provinces adjacent to a Realm that belongs to a Secessionist. Taxes are set to Very High if the Realm belongs to an Independent Ruler. This is essentially an inverse of the penalties inflicted on the Rebel. The more successful the secessionist movement, the greater the havoc caused within the Empire. This is further incentive to quickly crush any rebellions that occur.
3) Not a change, but please note that I have intentionally left Basileus' Penalty #1 alone. This prevents the Basileus from ever becoming a Rebel, etc. I apologize if this irks anyone, but it really makes no sense whatsoever for the Basileus to secede from his own Empire. This also means that if for some reason a Rebel, etc. eventually becomes Basileus, the rebellion ends and the lands are re-incorporated into the Empire. This also makes sense from an IC perspective.
4) Rebels, etc. cannot use the University. It's in Constantinople, and they're not welcome there for obvious reasons.

[TheFlax]

I thought that a declaration of war by edict, by the basileus or by a Mega Dux was part of the rules of the game, as much as ranks, influence or civil wars, which can't be broken.


Demetrios comes into the Magnuara, and when the guards move to take his sword, it takes only a stare and they back down. Brushing past them, Demetrios walks into the center of the Magnuara. He pulls out a letter from inside his cloak and begins reading.

"Dear Senators of the Roman Empire,

I send word from the Adriatic, with hopes that All senators are in good health - condolences to Aleksios ek Pigis family, I am certain he died bravely defending the ideals of the Imperium to the last breath.

I understand the nature with which I am treated currently among you - as a lesser man, an outlaw. So in this state of mind, I can accomplish what you cannot, since I am no longer bound our law.

I intend to lay siege, and sack, Rome. I will exile the pretender, the "Pope", and I will then send Rome's treasury, minus enough to support me in pacifying Rome and replenishing my troops, to you good Senators. I am sure our Basileus and our Patriarch will be pleased.

I wish you well in your own endeavors

Respectfully, Comes Helarionas Anargiros"

Demetrios then turns and calmly takes his seat.

[Ignoramus]

I think a rebel can declare war - maybe not.

[TheFlax]

The thing is, its not only him declaring war, its dragging all of us into it. If its permitted though, I won't make a fuss. Just making sure.

[Zim]

I'd like to start off by saying I think it would be cool for Helarionas to march on Rome. :clown:

From an IC standpoint it makes sense that Helarionas, a wanted rebel (of sorts, although not too many are really chasing him), would be free of restrictions on what to do with his army.

From a rules standpoint I don't think he has any special status from the event, but I could be wrong. The ability to declare wars without going through proper channels isn't addressed in the rules, and only mentioned in TC's current draft of the secession rules, as an ability gained by a rebel that makes it all the way to independent ruler. :sweatdrop:

[ULC]

You know, I am online, you don't have to talk about it as if I'm not here :clown:

This is an act by a man who is an outlaw - why should he care at this point about Imperial law when Imperial law is bringing him to justice? And Edicts are IC laws - they can be broken, unlike OOC rules, so the edict binding all you by moral obligation and self-interest does not bind me :clown:

[TheFlax]

Declaring war is an OOC rule and not an edict, that was my whole point by saying it was a "Game Rule".

Also, to follow your logic, you would be the sole victim of any reprisal. Yet, if you take Rome, other factions who would decide to declare war will not limit themselves to you.

[Ignoramus]

Maybe TC will decide that's time that we had every Catholic faction attack us...

[TheFlax]

If he does, can I retract my candidacy as Megas? :clown:

[ULC]

IIRC their was an edict passed long ago limiting the ability to declare war without consent of the senators. Second, of course I would not be the sole victim of my reprisal - yet would I really wait for a body of senators who want to hang me to let me go and attack a city? Would an outlaw really ask the sheriff if he can go rob a bank? Common sense dictates that as a person for who all intents and purposes is being hunted as an outlaw, I would behave like one.

Also, I am very sleepy, so this may or may not make any sense. Still, can you answer why IC I would not go and attack Rome or why I can't?

[Zim]

I'm guessing it has less to do with anything IC (where Helarionas being free to attack whomever makes perfect sense) than this particular rule.

"3.7 – War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 2.7, any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.'

[Ignoramus]

I think TinCow told us that edicts had to be enforced by IC means.

[ULC]

And thus, I am expecting severe enforcement of this Edict - c'mon you cowards! Fight meeeeeeeee!

:clown:

[Zim]

It's not an edict, but part of the charter (or whatever we call it in this newfangled LotR.) If TinCow chose to enforce it, it'd be him and his mighty godlike powers Helarionas would be up against, and not other Senators. :clown:

If it's really a big issue, perhaps there could be an OOC vote on whether to just make this part of the event.

[_Tristan_]

IC, you can do whatever you want but within the confines of the rules... And declaring war is, by the OOC rules, limited to the Basileus or en Edict passed by the Senators.

Still, I think the last word should be given by TC as he authorized your "rebellion", I bet he knew what you had in mind from the start.

[ULC]

I understand the Tristan, but why WOULDN'T my avatar go off and do this? He is supposed to sit outside of Rome and say. "Drat, foiled by that alternate reality! I am forced to sit here and stare those Papal troops down because the laws of psychology in this universe are screwy! You there, enough about my mother and elderberries!"

[TheFlax]

For one, Edicts only last for one term, after that they are void. Second, as I kept writing, the provisions for declaring war is a Rule and thus not something IC at all. Zim quoted it a few posts earlier.

As for IC reasons, you may have plenty and Helarionas could logically declare war. Yet, the rules make it impossible for YLC, the player to declare war without an Edict, being the Basileus or Being a Mega Dux.

Edit: Was writing this before the last few posts, so sorry if it overlaps with what has been said.

[Ignoramus]

I know your frustration, YLC - I had to face it on occasions in KotR. But we have to play by the rules, otherwise the game doesn't work. TinCow is quite sensible when it comes to situations like these.

[TheFlax]

I understand the Tristan, but why WOULDN'T my avatar go off and do this? He is supposed to sit outside of Rome and say. "Drat, foiled by that alternate reality! I am forced to sit here and stare those Papal troops down because the laws of psychology in this universe are screwy! You there, enough about my mother and elderberries!"

For the same reason I can't, as a player recruit, a bunch of troops in my province if I am not Megas.

[ULC]

For the same reason I can't, as a player recruit, a bunch of troops in my province if I am not Megas.

Yes, BUT there is actual, sensible reasoning behind that. The current laws of the Imperium say that the Megas controls training and production, and as a law abiding Senator, your bound to that. One could argue that you could go and rebel, thus opening up the ability to recruit as much as you like, but logically, if the Megas controlled the purse strings from the start, he would still control them even when you rebel. That can all be handled IC without any real conflicts.

However, saying I cannot declare war on Rome as I like while being in my current predicament literally flies in the face of logic IMHO. Why on earth can I not? If a plausible IC reason can be thought of, that's fine, and I too understand for the need of OOC rules, but our IC actions shouldn't be constrained by an OOC rule that creates an IC situation that doesn't make any sense.

[TheFlax]

If TC says you can go and attack Rome after you present him your reasoning, then that will be fine. I'm simply noting that's its an OOC rule, so you have to abide by it unless given a dispensation.

Look, after sacking Ragusa the Empire gained over 8000 florins. I could have argued all day that IC I keep the money and buy and maintain mercs for a few turns with it, no? Still that would have been against the rules.

The whole point is, unless TC says its okay, then you have to follow to rules or you'll face OOC consequences.

[ULC]

He better...:hairpin2:

:clown:

[_Tristan_]

The whole point is, unless TC says its okay, then you have to follow to rules or you'll face OOC consequences.

Exactly... I can't count the number of times I said how cool it would be to do this IC but knowing it would break an OOC rule I didn't...

[Andres]

Yes, BUT there is actual, sensible reasoning behind that. The current laws of the Imperium say that the Megas controls training and production, and as a law abiding Senator, your bound to that. One could argue that you could go and rebel, thus opening up the ability to recruit as much as you like, but logically, if the Megas controlled the purse strings from the start, he would still control them even when you rebel. That can all be handled IC without any real conflicts.

However, saying I cannot declare war on Rome as I like while being in my current predicament literally flies in the face of logic IMHO. Why on earth can I not? If a plausible IC reason can be thought of, that's fine, and I too understand for the need of OOC rules, but our IC actions shouldn't be constrained by an OOC rule that creates an IC situation that doesn't make any sense.

It's a game and each game has rules.

I think all these rule changes are starting to turn things upside down.

It shouldn't be : X plays game, rules gets in the way, change rule.
It should be : X plays game, rules gets in the way, adapt and follow the rule, continue playing.

If we are going to constantly change the rules because we don't like them, then why the heck did we bother with having rules in the first place?

Why can't we just accept the limits of the rules (and the M2TW engine we use as a tool to play this game)?

I liked the game in its' original design, otherwise I wouldn't have signed up.

Just my :2cents:

[_Tristan_]

I agree with you, Andres.

But one must keep in mind that us players can come up with a lot of situations that cannot be handled by the rules (simply because those situations depend a lot on IC circumstances) and not all could be foreseen when writing the rules.

I see this kind of game more as a WIP, with necessary tweaking along the way.

And let us remember that any major Rule Change is put to the vote. If players do not like the changes proposed, they can vote against it and even campaign against it if need be.

[ULC]

I'm not arguing against the rules Andres, but to me I really cannot explain why, IC, my character would not go after Rome. If an explanation can be thought up, that would be great.

[_Tristan_]

The problem is that the IC part should be included with the constraints of the OOC rules and not the contrary...

Otherwise, what prevents me from claiming that Methodios is the Basileus, because it suits me IC...

Hope you see my point...

[ULC]

I see your point - but why not declare "I am the Basileus!" - make for an interesting situation in which Methodios no longer believes Ioannis competent for the job and (for the good of all Roman people) Takes over office.

:evilgrin:

I am not asking for a Rules Change, I am just asking for understanding - I will go with what TC decides, but it just feels gamey to me nonetheless.

[Northnovas]

Speaking of rules and the activity in the senate it would be good to put some of the statements into Edicts. If you want to conquor the Turkish capital get it into law so you will have the support of the Megas and something should be done with that leaderless fleet sitting outside of Venice. I don't even know who put it there or how long it has been there.

No Edicts no direction for the Megas during his term.

[_Tristan_]

The mention of the University in the Megas thread just had me notice that Methodios lacks the trait from the last University under Dean Apionnas...

[_Tristan_]

I see your point - but why not declare "I am the Basileus!" - make for an interesting situation in which Methodios no longer believes Ioannis competent for the job and (for the good of all Roman people) Takes over office.


I could do it (I may even have considered it) but it would have to remain IC, there are no OOC mechanisms that allow anything like this (nor should there be) and I wouldn't do it for Iggy's sake...

I know I would hate to have the rug taken from under my feet...

[AussieGiant]

Good day all.

I'm off to Australia for holiday this Sunday. Three weeks is the duration so I'll be out of action...which as you can see is not making much difference.

I'd say at this rate that when I get back I'll have to bow out of the game.

I'll be back online by the 24th of February.

Take it easy everyone.
AG

[_Tristan_]

Good holiday, AG...

And I hope 3 weeks will be ample time to reconsider...

[AussieGiant]

Thanks Tristan.

I've updated my SOT to allow Basileus discretion with Sofia, recruiting and the army.

[KnightnDay]

I would definitely agree with the point that even a player who has gone rebel should not be allowed to declare on another power without blessing from the highest order. Otherwise, any player could take their avatar, say "ok I'm a rebel now" and lay siege to the nearest neutral town or attack a neutral power's stack to start a war, then a moment later say "ok, now I changed my mind, I'm back in the fold now"

[TinCow]

Apologies for the slow response, I have house guests over and am busy being a host. This reduces my internet time to almost nothing until Monday morning. I will not be able to promptly answer questions or resolve issues until Monday, at which time I will return to my usual schedule. Accordingly, due to my inability to monitor this properly, I am going to extend the debate period of the Senate by 2 days (through Monday) so that I am able to deal with all issues before any deadline passes.

Regarding the YLC declaration of war thing:
Sorry, but I will not allow a unilateral attack on a neutral or allied faction unless an Edict exists authorizing it or the war is declared by a rank that has the power to do so. I understand that there may be IC reasons, but this is a limitation in the game engine. IC, Byzantium could declare that person an outlaw and convince the other faction that it was a rogue attack, not an official act of war. OOC, we can't do that and it starts a war with another faction. As we all know, M2TW is extremely picky about ending wars once they start. It simply doesn't happen. This means that an un-authorized attack essentially starts a war that we will never be able to end. This to me is even more unrealistic IC than barring someone from making a unilateral attack. So, I will not allow it.

On a more practical level, YLC, I don't think this is a major hindrance on you. If you want a city in Italy for yourself, Byzantium is already at war with the Venetians and they've got cities a couple turns north of Rome. Just keep marching that way and you'll get your city soon enough. Apologies if this limits some storyline you had in mind, but there has to be a balance between freedom of action for the players and the constraints imposed on us by the game engine. In this case, I think it's more unrealistic and problematic to allow the attack than to prevent it.


The mention of the University in the Megas thread just had me notice that Methodios lacks the trait from the last University under Dean Apionnas...

I haven't received any trait improvements via the University for a long time. Anyone who was a Scholar in previous terms who did not receive their trait can PM me with what it should have been and I'll make sure it gets added.

[ULC]

The main issue for attacking Rome was simply that it was a one province faction - although yes, declaring war on it as Byzantium especially would mean it being next to impossible to get a ceasefire, it would also mean it would be over quick and there would be little repercussions besides the Pope calling a crusade on us from wherever he happens to get new territory gifted to him.

The second is that it has nothing to do with land in Italy - it has everything to do with incurring the ire and wrath of every last Senator in the Empire while still being chivalrous. If this were in the Balkans, then that would be fine - if this were in the Levant, Egypt, Greece, Anatolia, the Caucasus, it wouldn't matter (although preferably in the Balkans/Thrace :wink:). The whole point of me going to Rome was to challenge the authority of the Basileus and Empire while still being a good guy - nothing more, nothing less.

But, if I cannot go to Rome, then I will continue to search for ways to anger everyone else while still being the good guy, IC of course :beam:

I also see you signed up for Godfather III but not mine :whip: Oh well, it was going to be closed today anyway *hint, hint Andres*

[Ituralde]

I'm back from my trip. Had a blast. Learning to snowboard hurts... a lot!
I won't be up to date with the Magnaura and everything until tomorrow though.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[TinCow]

It has been pointed out to me that due to the 1 province inheritence rule, many Rebels could be automatically reconciled and re-incorporated into the Empire just by dying, even if they wanted to continue the Rebellion with their next avatar. This doesn't make a lot of sense. While some rebellions would certainly cease with the death of their leader, many would continue with a new man taking up the leadership position. As such, I am going to add these bits to the proposed secession rule change:


Rebel:
Powers:
(7) Can pass an unlimited number of provinces on to the player's next avatar through a valid will. The player's next avatar will instantly gain the rank of Rebel.

Secessionist:
Powers:
(6) Can pass an unlimited number of provinces on to the player's next avatar through a valid will. The player's next avatar will instantly gain the rank of Secessionist.

Independent Ruler:
Powers:
(12) Can pass an unlimited number of provinces on to the player's next avatar through a valid will. The player's next avatar will instantly gain the rank of Secessionist.

This allows the rebellions to continue through the death of an avatar, if the player wants to keep leading it. Thus, rebellions must be crushed by force of arms or by convincing the Senator to end the rebellion by giving up his Capital peacefully (which is the only way to remove the rank once it is gained). People who die while still Rebels will have to continue at that rank (with its nasty penalties), but Secessionist and Independent Rules will only have to drop back to the Secessionist rank. Note that this doesn't override the inhertence rule on passing on one retinue to your next avatar. That bit still stands.

[_Tristan_]

For ease of reference, may I suggest that a table be added to the Senate Library listing all of our provinces and their owners (to be revised at each Magnaura session) ?

With the recent deaths and upheavals, I'll admit I have had a bit of problems keeping up with the ownership of our provinces...

[TheFlax]

I have to ask, since no one answered me in the Magnaura, is Ioannis Erotikos' (Ramses II CP)candidacy legal? If I remember correctly, he is a Strator and according to the rules, can't be Megas because of that.


Strator:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Senate Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot run for Megas Logothetes.

[Ituralde]

I don't think it is. I always thought he owned Tortosa for some reason but neither the Library nor the SoT claim ownership of any province. This would indeed hinder him from running for the office of Megas Logothetes.

[TinCow]

Hmm, it would appear this is correct. Tortosa belongs to Kousinos Sophianos (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2110575&postcount=1938) (Cecil XIX). Apologies for not noticing this. I will not re-do the election poll until Ramses has a chance to respond and perhaps point out which province he does own (since the Library could be inaccurate on that).

[TinCow]

I'm in the midst of updating the Library, but thought the current world map was worth a comment in here. The Danes seem to have made huge progress in their war against England, and have actually captured two provinces in England itself, including London. I don't think I've ever seen another faction successfully invade England before. The Moors are also gaining significant ground, having recently captured 2 Portuguese cities and Sardinia. Finally, the Sicilians (!) appear to be about ready to take Timbuktu. That must've been one long march through the desert!

https://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b203/TinCow/LOTR/1185/maphistory.jpg

[Cecil XIX]

Hah, yeah, the AI expansion has been something to see.

[Ignoramus]

The Scots are going very well too. They got all of Norway, Scotland, Ireland, and Groningen.

[Ramses II CP]

I don't think I own a province, though I had an offer or two. Frankly if I don't know for sure I'd say that's a pretty clear no. :laugh4:

:egypt:

[Ituralde]

I don't think I own a province, though I had an offer or two. Frankly if I don't know for sure I'd say that's a pretty clear no. :laugh4:

:egypt:

It's hard to keep track these days, isn't it? :beam:

[TheFlax]

It's hard to keep track these days, isn't it? :beam:

I tried to track them all down for my report in the Magnaura, but there were a few for which I could not find an owner, no matter where I looked. :dizzy2:

[TinCow]

I'll get it all figured out in the next day or two.

[TinCow]

Ok, I have added a chart of all provinces and their current owners (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1925725&postcount=3). Doing this has pointed out some errors in the Library, which I have now sorted out. The following provinces did not have anyone listed as their owner:

Damascus - It's last owner was Armatos ek Naksou (Cecil XIX). I cannot find any evidence that he ever lost it before his death. Thus, in accordance with his will, it goes to Vartholomaios Ksiros (Rowan).
Nevoulion - Conquered by Isaakios Komnenos (flyd). As he had no Lord, the province is his.
Ragusa - Captured by Magnentios Kalameteros (Zim), who died in the attack. When Magnentios captured it, it became the property of the top ranked Lord in his House - Ioannis Kalameteros (deguerra)
Thebes - Used to belong to Vissarionas ek Lesvou (Ramses II CP). He died without a will, so it goes to his Lord - Vartholomaios Ksiros (Rowan)

There were also two owners listed for Thessalonika, as I had forgotten to remove the province from its previous owner when it was transferred. This has now been corrected. I think this brings all province ownership information in the Library up to date. I will use this info to properly update the title retinues tonight so that the 1185 mugshots will actually be correct in this regard. Please note that some avatars will not be able to hold all their title retinues. There's nothing I can do about that.

[TheFlax]

Ragusa - Captured by Magnentios Kalameteros (Zim), who died in the attack. When Magnentios captured it, it became the property of the top ranked Lord in his House - Ioannis Kalameteros (deguerra)

I thought that since my character was also there during the battle, and actually won it, Ragusa was mine? (Even though Zim played the battle)

If not, my candidacy for Megas is void and Arintheos Voutoumitis wins by default.

[TinCow]

LOL, so much for the interesting election of 1185. Perhaps this will have a nice side-effect of putting pressure on some of the province hoarders to give away some of their land.

The rule on this is clear:


2.2 – Gaining and Losing Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, Senators gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple Senators are part of the conquering army, the Senator controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding Senator is considered the conqueror. If no Senator is involved in the battle whatsoever, the Basileus is considered the conqueror. At the start of the game, TinCow will determine which Senators receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per Senator. Senators can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another Senator, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a Senator who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5).

[TheFlax]

:oops:, sorry about that. :embarassed:

Edit: Just realized that this would also mean I took troops that were not mine to fight YLC in that PvP battle, since I took Ragusa's garrison.

[TinCow]

No worries, it wasn't your fault and no one else noticed the problem either.

[Zim]

I thought the settlement defaulted to the other senator in the battle as well. Could've sworn that had happened before... :sweatdrop:

[TinCow]

All 1185 mugshots have been added to the Library. They should have the proper title retinue as well, as noted in the Megas thread. The only part of the Library that remains to be updated is the influence table, which will be done tomorrow. As always, please point out any errors that you notice.

[TinCow]

The influence table is now updated. After the vote is over I am going to do another house cleaning on avatars. People who have missed two consecutive votes and have not otherwise been active will be moved to inactive status and lose their provinces. All of the currently inactive players will be contacted and given a few days to return to activity. If they do not, their avatars will be killed off.

[TheFlax]

What are you going to do with all those settlements Ignoramus?! :clown:


The Komnenoi page returns and rises to address the Magnaura.

"Noble Senators, His Excellency, Ioannis Komnenos, Basileus of the Romans, is reported to have just conquered Durazzo. The garrison apparently fled before his army and the town is now under the personal control of the Basileus."

The page bows respectfully and exits the chamber.

[Ignoramus]

What are you going to do with all those settlements Ignoramus?! :clown:

Start a real estate business I think. A pity I'll lose them all when Ioannis dies.

[TheFlax]

Give some away then, before its too late! :laugh4:


Start a real estate business I think. A pity I'll lose them all when Ioannis dies.

[Ignoramus]

Is that a request for a bequest?

[TheFlax]

I leave it to the wisdom of our Basileus to make his mind about who should be rewarded in his will. :beam:

[_Tristan_]

The bomb has been dropped...

[TinCow]

The following inactive players have remained inactive. They will be PMed about their absence and notified that they are about to be killed off. If I receive no response within a week or a response consenting to being killed off, they will be removed from the game:

Lisas Attaleiatis (00jebus)
Nikiphoros Manouelitis (Warmaster Horus)
Ioannis Kantakouzinos (Kagemusha)

The following players are being moved to inactive status:

Sophronios Komnenos (Alerion) - Has not been on the Org for the last 2 months.
Efthymios ek Herakliou (Dafuge) - Has not been on the Org for the last 1.5 months.
Theophilos Tzimiskis (Snoman13) - Was active a week ago, but has not posted anywhere on the Org in 4 months
Ioannis Komnenos (Rodrico Stak) - Has not been on the Org for the last 2 months.
Leon Symmachos (YouHaveReceived) - Was active a week ago, but has not posted on the Org for a month and has never participated in any manner in LotR, despite being active in other Throne Room games.

Of these, only the first two own provinces which now need to be redistributed. Sophronios Komnenos (Alerion) is a vassal of Zigavinos Vasilakios (rossahh), who will receive his province of Smyrna.

Efthymios ek Herakliou (Dafuge) is a much more complex issue. He was a vassal of Nikolaos Aristenos (YLC) at the time he stopped visiting the Org. This made him a member of Ilios Korakas. However, since that House did not have a linear feudal chain, when Nikolaos died, there was no way to 'repair' the oaths with an automatic reswearing. This left Efthymios ek Herakliou (Dafuge) in limbo, without any oath affiliation to any other member of Ilios Korakas, but still nominally a member himself. This causes problems with his transfer to inactive status, because under the rules his provinces would go to the Basileus. Normally I would accept this as it is, but the other two member of Ilios Korakas are now in rebellion against the Empire. The only reason Efthymios ek Herakliou (Dafuge) is not also in rebellion is because he's been inactive since Nikolaos died and was thus unable to reswear within his own House. As this is all the result of Dafuge's OOC inactivity, I am going to resolve this in the way that seems most natural and fair: Efthymios ek Herakliou's provinces of Solomeia and Alexandria will be given to Methodios Tagaris (Tristan de Castelreng), and the auto-declaration of war will not apply to him.

[ULC]

You seem a bit confused TC - it is Vakchos Tzimes(sp) (Smowz) who married Methodios eldest duaghter, not Efthymios ek Herakliou. Also, it may not hold water, but there was an accord that once peace had been established, Efthymios ek Herakliou would reswear to Methodios - however, Dafuge went missing shortly after and the action could not be completed :no::shame:

[TinCow]

Yeah, I realized the son-in-law error a moment ago and corrected that. My decision still though, especially if the reswearing was supposed to occur but didn't, as you state.

[TinCow]

Just a reminder, the Rule Change that was just passed specifically says that vassals of Rebels (or Secessionists, etc.) are also Rebels. Thus, Markos ek Sinopis (TheFlax) became a rebel when Methodios Tagaris (Tristan de Castelreng) made his declaration.

The current status of the rebellion is listed here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2113044&postcount=1), along with all the other wars.

[KnightnDay]

Just a reminder, the Rule Change that was just passed specifically says that vassals of Rebels (or Secessionists, etc.) are also Rebels. Thus, Markos ek Sinopis (TheFlax) became a rebel when Methodios Tagaris (Tristan de Castelreng) made his declaration.



Yes, and since it was made clear a non-declaring rebel who was brought into the conflict can get out by breaking his oath, I asked IC what his intention was. It would seem odd that someone who just acted in defense of the empire has now quickly done a 180 degree turn. But maybe that's the excitement that Tristan was looking for. :inquisitive:

[TheFlax]

A reply shall be made soon, I'm just waiting a reply from Tristan. I assume that as in any Civil War, I can break my oath and not become a rebel, right?

[KnightnDay]

As long as this still applies...


Ok, here's a rough draft of a way to implement a secession system through ranks only. This cuts out all the economic issues and keeps things consistent with the current rule set. If a secession system is going to be included, this is the format that I would prefer to have it in. I will not get involved in the discussion as to whether a secession system is good for the game or not. I can live with it either way, so I leave it up to the players to decide via a vote on a Rule Change.



This is essentially a three-tiered system for rebellions. Someone declares themselves a rebel, and *poof*, they're a rebel (if they meet the land requirements). Their vassals go with them into the rebellion, but can bow out easily by breaking the oath and then declaring neutrality to get out of the wars.

[TinCow]

A reply shall be made soon, I'm just waiting a reply from Tristan. I assume that as in any Civil War, I can break my oath and not become a rebel, right?

Yes, this is correct. You can get of the war by breaking your oath to Methodios and publicly declaring neutrality within 1 turn. Breaking your oath removes the 'Rebel' rank from you, since you would no longer meet the requirements for it. The neutrality declaration then removes you from the war itself.

[TheFlax]

Considering the loyalist forces arrayed against me in the Balkans and also considering I have no army, I figured it was better to simply surrender rather than run in circle and waste everyone's time. :clown:


*The Protoasecretes eyes Markos suspiciously.*

In the Magnaura, I command the guards, not the Basileus. This is a place for debate and diplomacy, not violence, and I will not allow the armed men of any faction to violate this sacred place. Not even the Basileus can call these guards to action if I do not permit it.

Still, it is not every day that a Senator declares himself a traitor in the midst of the Magnaura and then waits passively to be arrested. Treason itself isn't much of a crime; why all the greatest of our Roman ancestors committed a treason at some point in their lives. However, in my day traitors had enough of a spine to actually rant about injustice and how they had been slighted, before either getting themselves killed or taking their own lives. Usually some spectacular battle or melodramatic speech came first, but it was always entertaining. This new-found passivity in treason is very un-Roman. So, for this violation of the traditional Roman laws on the proper way in which a traitor is to comport himself, I hereby order that you be arrested!

Guards...

*The Protoasecretes gestures to the armed men standing at the various doorways.*

...take this man into custody and... do whatever it is he wants done with himself.

*The guards hesitate and look a bit confused, until one shrugs and moves forward to grab Markos ek Sinopis.*

[TinCow]

I know, I was just trying to prevent a rush of soldiers in some IC reply, since I've tried to make it clear that violence is not allowed in the Magnaura. If people want to stab or otherwise attack each other, it can be done in the Hippodrome. I also generally try to write the Protoasecretes in an amusing manner, since there's not much other comedy in this game.

[TheFlax]

Well it did make me laugh, but it really wasn't what I was expecting.:laugh4:

I understand your reasoning though, I didn't anticipe anyone reacting violently I guess.:clown:

[TinCow]

Well, if Ignoramus comes along and would like to politely request that you be marched off somewhere, the Protoasecretes will permit that. He just doesn't like other peoples' guards barging into the Senate.

[flyd]

I've been trying to catch up on recent events, and the lack of OverKnight's history has been a problem. I was still sort of following the threads, but someone completely new would have even bigger trouble putting the pieces together. Is anyone up for continuing OK's thread from this point, or even filling in the previous events? GH perhaps?

[TheFlax]

I've been thinking the same thing for some time, but it kept slipping my mind. I'd be up to do it, provided I could have another volonteer to assist me. Filling the previous events while keeping up with the current ones will demand a lot of work I think.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Yes it is a lot of work. If You don't update that History thread all the time it would be pain in the *** to update it properly after some time has passed. I know, I've done it in WotB.:shame:

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'll take a look at things tomorrow, but no promises.

[Cecil XIX]

So, what's going to happen with Kousinos' MoH? Since Kagemusha isn't playing, does it get accepted automatically?

[Zim]

Had to talk to TinCow about a few moves. As soon as he replies I'll move the turn forward. :2thumbsup:

[TinCow]

So, what's going to happen with Kousinos' MoH? Since Kagemusha isn't playing, does it get accepted automatically?

No one is currently waiting for an avatar, so it can be rejected. If anyone ever wants an avatar that pops up to marry her, it can be taken without anyone else's consent.

[_Tristan_]

To Tincow :

I think Cecil was taling about the Man of the Hour offer he's got for his own avatar (Kousinos Sophianos) with Kagemusha's as adopter. As Kag has been AWOL for some time, who gets to decide on the adoption ?

[TinCow]

Whoever got the MoH offer can decide. Kage is permanently gone from the game and his avatar will be killed off soon. His input is no longer required for these things.

[Cecil XIX]

I see. In that case, Zim, can you accept the offer?

[Andres]

No one is currently waiting for an avatar, so it can be rejected.

:mean:

[TinCow]

Eh? What did I do?

[Andres]

*** waits for avatar ***

I guess I probably should have told you that I wanted a new avatar.

[ULC]

Why not take one of the Avatars that might get killed off, or where the players have gone inactive? TC's judgment call on that though.

[TinCow]

The avatars that are all about to be killed off are all 47, 52, and 56. They're probably too old to be desirable for a new avatar.

[ULC]

What about Vakchos, Sophrianos, and Ethymious? They have inactive players, are fairly young, and each are rather important.

[TinCow]

Smowz (Vakchos) isn't inactive yet. He will be next term. The other two are inactive, but not about to be killed off. I'm not going to re-assign avatars when there's still a chance someone will return to play them.

[ULC]

I understand TC, I was just erring on the side of caution - they are important characters to an extent, to have them just suddenly die of might be a bit weird.

[TheFlax]

Anything from the Megas on when we can expect the next turn?

From what Zim told me, should be in an hour or so. Other turns should move more quickly. :yes:

[Zim]

Hmmm...our OOC threads aren't filling up as fast as the last games. Better do my part with meaningless banter. :clown:

How's everyone doing?

[ULC]

OOC - Happy there is some life back in the game, however I wish we could make it as alive as before. OOC, I demand more IC interaction :smash:

IC - Helarionas is angry at Arintheos Voutoumitis for disbanding those men near Italy :brood: Time for some Vengeance :smash:

[Zim]

Well, things seem to be heading towards more interaction at least. I suppose I should get back on top of things as far as IC posts. Lots of stuff is happening but the story and IC threads haven't become as active as might be expected.

Of course I was going to disband those troops. They were a waste of money and well within your reach. I disbanded some another small fleet Helarionas could reach as well.

No clue why Helarionas would be angry that soldiers of the Empire in no way affiliated with him were disbanded, though. :beam:

[TheFlax]

Markos actually recommended disbanding those troops in his report. Since Arintheos is loosely following the same guidelines, it was only natural they be disbanded to preserve our precarious finances. :yes:

[ULC]

Bah Humbug you money pinching, coin sniffing, dollar licking, misers and money-grubbers! Who cares about finances!

:clown:

[Zim]

I care about finances a bit, but more that Helarionas' most recent action was very forseeable and Arintheos continues to be a loyalist. :laugh4:

[ULC]

Hmmm...once I get back home, I'll have to be checking that save :smash:

[Zim]

So, now that nobody of importance is objecting to Helarionas' marriage, can they just get married this turn (if they aren't already, I haven't been keeping track of how many turns passed since the event started)?

[Ituralde]

I thinks it's the IC quiet before the IC storm. Most people are wary of the others and probably don't want to give too much away through Stories. :beam:

Just my guess, though. I'm looking forward to how this develops and count on y'all staying active through the entire thing! :2thumbsup:

[Zim]

You may be right. Helarionas, Methodios, Erotikos and his lackey (no offense, Cecil. ~;) )... This isn't going to have the relatively Status Quo ending of the War of Words.


I thinks it's the IC quiet before the IC storm. Most people are wary of the others and probably don't want to give too much away through Stories. :beam:

Just my guess, though. I'm looking forward to how this develops and count on y'all staying active through the entire thing! :2thumbsup:

[Ituralde]

Aren't PVP battles resolved at the end of the turn? Or is it the end of the turn already? I'm just asking cause I might get a move in that is completely unrelated to the conflict between Helarionas and Andreas.

[Zim]

End of the turn I believe.

I'm not freezing the turn, just extending the deadline (I was going to push it through in half an hour), so feel free to move your character. :yes:

[_Tristan_]

I need a bit of time to do my moves as well... a few hours at the most...

[Zim]

There's plenty of time. It should take at least a day to get the pvp battle set up. :yes:


I need a bit of time to do my moves as well... a few hours at the most...

[ULC]

Just went on a murdering spree Ingame and found that marrying Aleksandra puts me third in line for the throne :beam:

I only have to have Andronikos die some weird, nasty death, and I get to be Caesar....:evilgrin:

[Ignoramus]

Good luck...

[_Tristan_]

And if Ioannis were to die before Methodios, we would have a Basileus which had rebelled against his own Empire... :dizzy2:

[TinCow]

A note: Due to Helarionas Anargiros (YLC) swearing fealty to Methodios Tagaris (Tristan de Castelreng), YLC has also become a rebel and has joined the Tagarian Rebellion civil war. As this war includes all of the combatants who were already at war with YLC in the 'War of Abduction', I consider that war to have merged into the Tagarian Rebellion. Thus, the War of Abduction is now over, and YLC's little personal war is now also part of the Tagarian Rebellion. If you haven't noticed, I keep all this info up to date here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=111723).

Please also note that regardless of any IC situations, the rules of Event Five (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2113493&postcount=1966) still apply. Helarionas Anargiros (YLC) cannot marry the princess until 5 turns have passed (1189 AD), and even then there must not be any hostile Senator within 1 turn's movement of him.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

You're entirely correct. I simply added YLC to the Tagarian Rebellion civil war, then later looked and saw that he was at war with Marcus Agrippa and went from there. I erred by forgetting that he had just now become a rebel. Under the new rules for rebels, when a person becomes a rebel they make the declaration of war:



This means that YLC just declared war on Marcus Agrippa this turn. Thus, under 5.1, Marcus Agrippa can attack YLC this turn, but YLC cannot attack Marcus Agrippa until next turn. Thank you for pointing out this error. The above battle is now CANCELLED unless Marcus Agrippa appears and states that he wants to fight it. The game may proceed as normal, and the turn may be ended whenever the Megas wishes. YLC may not attack anyone except the Basileus this turn, as the other two people he was at war with are now (ironically) his allies.

(Yes, this game is now so complex that even I have difficulty remembering all the rules all the time.)

Since Helarionas swore an oath to Methodios and thus became part of the Rebellion do I have to once again declare myself neutral?? :inquisitive::dizzy2:

[TinCow]

While I see where the rules as written would make that necessary, I will not require it. Now that we're delving into PvP much more regularly, we're bound to find rule conflicts that haven't been dealt with before. I am perfectly happy using my generic GM powers to smooth over these conflicts when they arise.

So, as far as I am concerned, the answer is no. You're already neutral in that war. Helarionas just flipped sides by joining Methodios, so it's the same conflict, just with a change in the allegiance of one of the combatants. I therefore consider your neutrality binding on Helarionas as well. This is not a disadvantage to anyone, as YLC is perfectly free to declare war on you unilaterally if he really wants to.

[woad&fangs]

Just went on a murdering spree Ingame and found that marrying Aleksandra puts me third in line for the throne :beam:

I only have to have Andronikos die some weird, nasty death, and I get to be Caesar....:evilgrin:

*prays the autoresolve gods are nice to him*

:laugh4:

[Ituralde]

Concerning the upcoming PVP Battle. I don't understand exactly why it will be resolved via an AI only battle, since one side won't show up. Isn't that a disadvantage for the side that is actually active and playing? With inactivites being as frequent as they are this probably won't be the last engagement of this sort and I would have preffered fighting these kinds of battles as Player vs. AI. AI vs. AI seems much too random to me.

[Zim]

In this particular case it turned out a battle couldn't be initiated that turn anyway.

I was wondering that as well. If I had to hazard a guess it's MA's semi-active status (no posts lately but online recently and still giving directions concerning his character) A completely inactive character could just be killed off in a player v AI battle. Someone who's more active but out for a couple days might be very unhappy to find their guy killed while they were gone. Of course, that could be said to be the price of not being around for a little while...

[flyd]

I would agree with that, but there is no longer a PvP battle. One of the characters has escaped.

[Ituralde]

Alright. Just wondering how much of a precedent was set here. As always I trust TinCow to make the right decisions at the right times.

I didn't know about the semi-active state and I didn't know he escaped either. :beam:

[TinCow]

Alright. Just wondering how much of a precedent was set here. As always I trust TinCow to make the right decisions at the right times.

I was concerned about establishing a precedent where people who were afk for a couple days could get assaulted. We all know that allowing a player to fight against the AI will generally result in a massive victory for the player, even when they are at a disadvantage. I allowed it for the earlier YLC vs. pevergreen battle because pevergreen specifically approved it, and he was going to be on the losing end.

While Marcus Agrippa isn't around at the moment, he hasn't met the requirements to be moved to the inactive list yet. So, I was concerned about essentially letting YLC smash him flat. If he had been a fully inactive player, I would have allowed it as a custom battle. As always, this is not a perfect solution, but I'm trying to keep things as fair as possible.

[Ituralde]

I fully understand. It's just good to know what one gets into, as attacker also when starting these engagements. Like I said, I thought the inactivity to be far greater than it actually was.

[_Tristan_]

I'm sad to see that the turn has been pushed forward without me having a chance to redo the moves that had been invalidated by TC...

[TinCow]

Apologies, as noted in the Megas thread this was my error. I thought I had instructed Zim not to move the turn forward yet, but apparently I never sent him a PM saying that. I do agree that having the save moved forward was not right under the circumstances, so I have rolled it back again. Apologies to all, this is my fault alone. I'll try to get this resolved so it can move forward quickly.

[Ituralde]

Time Travel madness wohoooo! :2thumbsup:

I probably won't be on the computer tomorrow, Valentine's Day and all, so if someone could move Nikitas Moschos towards Markianople once the next turn starts that would be awesome! :beam:

[Zim]

I pmed you about that and you never replied. With at least one player on a timetable that delaying him will prevent his fighting a battle he's been preparing for several turns now, and absolutely no reason either of the moves I was aware of us waiting for couldn't happen the next rather than this last turn it was an easy decision.


I'm sad to see that the turn has been pushed forward without me having a chance to redo the moves that had been invalidated by TC...

I apologize to anyone that had been planning to make (or, in one case, already made) a move from the save I posted. :bow:

[TinCow]

I have to make this short because I'm running out to dinner and theater. Tristan has withdrawn from the game. With the deaths of the Basileus and the Caesar, we now have completely new rulers. Most significantly, the new Basileus, Ioannis Tagaris, has no player. If anyone would like to take him over, please let me know. This includes people who are already playing other avatars, as we really do need to have someone playing the Basileus.

I don't have time to make an IC announcement of these events, as I'm in a rush, but feel free to start the IC craziness that is sure to erupt. I will sort out what is to be done about the Tagarian Rebellion when I get home, but since Methodios' son is now Basileus, I believe it would be fair to offer an instant amnesty to those who joined him. Essentially, the rebels now rule the Empire, so they are no longer rebels.

Please feel free to discuss in here if you have any quesitons about how this is going to proceed.

[ULC]

Can we make everyone else Rebels :beam:!? Considering now that one man owns half the Empire (literally) and most of it's resources and men, he could do what he wanted, and pick those select few men who followed him.

GH! AG! Care to jump in please!

[GeneralHankerchief]

I would love to, but I left my M2TW at home and won't get it back until mid-March.

-edit- And as an FYI, TheFlax has been working very hard on making the History up-to-date. I'm going to try to finish it tonight.

[flyd]

If we can't find a player for the new Basileus quickly, it might be worth killing him off. Tristan wanted to do it anyway.

[GeneralHankerchief]

That might actually be optimal. Game-wise, it would be a lot easier to explain a Komnenos becoming Basileus then, you know, the son of a rebel.

[ULC]

Well, give me a second to marry Aleksandra so I can be Caesar :D!

[GeneralHankerchief]

I can vouch that someone was going to request the character (not me ~;p).


If we can't find a player for the new Basileus quickly, it might be worth killing him off. Tristan wanted to do it anyway.

Test.

-edit- Above posted by Zim (except for the "Test" bit). It worked!

[GeneralHankerchief]

The Histories thread has been updated through the previous Megas Session; the current one will be done so tomorrow. Please let me know if we've missed anything. This is primarily TheFlax's work and you guys should all give him a big "thank you". :yes: :medievalcheers:

[Zim]

:balloon2::birthday2: Yay TheFlax! :birthday2::balloon2:

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Will check the History soon but at the moment... Thank You TheFlax!:balloon2::2thumbsup::balloon2:

[ULC]

Thank you TF :2thumbsup:

[Rowan]

Thank you, TheFlax!

[KnightnDay]

Thank you The Flax.
:balloon2::balloon2::balloon2:

[TheFlax]

:bow:

It really wasn't that long to get everything up to date, it took me about 2h or so. Now that it is up to date, we'll hopefully be able to kept it that way.

[TinCow]

TheFlax will be taking control of Basileus Ioannis Tagaris.

[woad&fangs]

Zim, any chance this turn could be extended a couple days?:sweatdrop:

[Zim]

I'll likely be giving this turn a few days. I imagine lots of people are busy today...

On an unrelated note, hurray for wills! :beam:


Zim, any chance this turn could be extended a couple days?:sweatdrop:

[Ibn-Khaldun]

On an unrelated note, hurray for wills!

I think it's time to make a will for Theo too. :shame:

[rossahh]

CA E3.2: Upon their elevation to the position of leader of a house, the senator must swear an oath of fealty to the Basileus.


By all rights of Byzantine law, all House leaders must now swear an oath of fealty to Basileus Ioannis Tagaris.


Technically the way that this is worded the house leaders need only swear an oath of fealty to the Basileus at the moment they are elevated to the position of house leader. It does not actually say an existing house leader needs to swear an oath to a new Basileus.

[TinCow]

True, but saying it like that doesn't have the same potential to cause problems. :2thumbsup:

[Zim]

Just reread the Battle of Trent from KotR. I'd almost forgotten how fun it was, even with a fairly bit part. with so many people headed for Const, I wonder if we'll be seeing a big battle there soon...

[Ituralde]

Gah! I'm gone for one day and everything goes crazy! I've got some reading to do it seems. Forgive me if I won't be up to date until tomorrow.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Lol.. It's funny how Theo fights all these battles. When I decided to take some time off I gave a short story that Theo had an accident on ship and thus he is crippled. But now he have fought heroic battles, got famous battle markers and even got into Royal Family! And he should be crippled and not being able to move without someone helping!!!! :laugh4:

[_Tristan_]

Tincow : Georgios will be starting in Gaza

[rossahh]

Can I ask whoever downloads the save in the near future to do an experiment for me? Could they kill off the Basileus, Caesar and Ioannis III and see who is the new Basileus/Caesar?

[ULC]

Already Done - It goes, in order - Ioannis Tagaris, Andronikos Komenos, Iaonnis Kalameteros, Helarionas Anargiros. Not sure after Helarionas, since it seems to depend on save after that - It can either Be Vakchos Tzetis, or strangely enough Kousinos Sophianos, rarely picking Isaakios Komnenos. It refuses to pick anyone else other then those 7 for Basileus/Caesar.

[Zim]

TinCow mentioned once Ioannis III being picked as heir, but I think that was with a test before Helarionas married into the family.

It's nice to see the fruits of Ramses and Cecil's labor. MTW2's rather low movement rates made it take an eternity for them to get close enough to make the big announcement. :clown:

[Cecil XIX]

I blame the lack of proper infastructure in Anatolia. I mean, where were the paved roads? :clown:

[TinCow]

MTW2's rather low movement rates made it take an eternity for them to get close enough to make the big announcement. :clown:

This is one of the main issues that has become apparent with the current PvP system. I would certainly recommend a complete re-write of these rules for future games.

[Zim]

Well, there are a few mods that greatly increase the movement rates, like BC. Although then you get a new problem where it's hard to intercept someone who decides to go around your army for one of your settlements (well, if the have siege engines at least).

The addition of negative traits for being in the field too long hurts a bit as well. You have to wait forever to reach your destination and when you arrive you'll have big negative morale bonuses. I think some of the reluctance to travel far to fight in the last few civil wars may be partly because of that...


This is one of the main issues that has become apparent with the current PvP system. I would certainly recommend a complete re-write of these rules for future games.

[ULC]

A possible solution to this is double movement per turn - it's a bit cumbersome, but it allows the doubled pace needed, coupled with the actual ability to intercept an opponent before he arrives, although it becomes a bit of a race to who can get to the save first, and it requires each avatar having their movement reset, along with whichever Captain stacks they are trying to reinforce themselves with, so with to many wandering stacks it can get a bit nuts :dizzy2:

[Zim]

I suppose we'll get something worked out for the next game. Or, for all we know, ETW might be different enough that it's less of a problem...

At this point I can't complain. No way I could have beefed up Const's defenses if the attack had been more sudden. :clown:

[Zim]

I see Ramses and friends are off in the opposite direction from Const. I have this sneaking suspicion that while there will be pvp battles resulting from this latest Civil War it will take a very, very long time. :laugh4:

[miniwally]

I got a couple of questions i'd be thankful if someone answered them (sorry i'm a noob :P)

1. what's a fealty oath
2. what's a vassal
3. where do you save the different patches and downloads to etc.
4. what's stopping a person from not showing you the battle if he died in it
5. where is disk 2 to medieval total war in my house

[miniwally]

6. what different types of oath are there?

[Zim]

1. It's an oath that ties you as a vassal to someone.

2. Being a vassal ties you to your lord in a few ways. For instance, you become at war with anyone who declares war on him (you can get out by breaking your oath, though...). Mainly, your rank depends on how many vassals you have, and higher ranks gain certain perks. Lords have to figure out for themselves what they can offer players to swear fealty to them, land and armies for example, or just a major role in decision making in the House (group of players sworn in a chain) You can both have vassals and be one, and most Houses are formed in a chain from lowest to highest rank.

3. Saves are downloaded here. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/local_links.php?catid=199
There are links to everything you need to install in this post. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1988289&postcount=3

4. Absolutely nothing in battles with only one player, although someone caught doing so would likely get in quite some trouble...

5. No clue. ~;p

Rules, installation links, etc. can be found in this thread. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103874

[TheFlax]

You should probably read this thread first: FAQ and Rules (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=103874)

Edit:Zim beat me to it in his edit :clown:

[miniwally]

i did

[miniwally]

and yes that shows me what to download but i want to know where to download them to