KotR King of the Romans OOC thread IX [Archive] - Page 2

TinCow

07-26-2007, 02:13

Well, Zirn already popped out a little one, so that's a big help to Austria. Arnold is still plenty young enough to have a full brood as well, so we can hope. For Bavaria, Lothar should start popping out kids once he meets up with Lyse (assuming that happens). There are already several Swabian children, including two that will come of age soon (IIRC). So, all we need are a couple more Austrian and Bavarian births/adoptions to keep things going as normal for the foreseeable future.

For deaths, there are two characters that are 60 years old, so there will be at least 2 more deaths during the next term.

gibsonsg91921

07-26-2007, 02:16

jonas is old, gunther is old, fredericus is old, gerhard is getting on in years

econ21

07-26-2007, 02:52

Ituralde: Please can you confirm that Siegfried is re-appointing Salier as King of Outremer? The Kaiser appoints someone to that position each Diet. Apologies if I have missed the announcement.

GeneralHankerchief

07-26-2007, 03:11

I think that this is an appropriate time as any to use the new smiley:

:drama3:

OverKnight

07-26-2007, 03:18

Yes indeed. This is a corker of a Diet session. Brother against Brother, House member against House member, a possible succession debate and Wife edicts!

Privateerkev

07-26-2007, 03:33

Yeah, there is so much going on. And everyone is afraid that the other stuff will drown out their stuff. My post was pure drama but I couldn't figure out any other way to get my character out of the pickle AG and I got him into. I think its safer with the Mongols right now than it is in that diet chamber. Too many people willing to kill their own mothers to get their edicts passed...

TinCow

07-26-2007, 04:03

Too many people willing to kill their own mothers to get their edicts passed...

Hmmm... I wonder if that would work...

Privateerkev

07-26-2007, 04:11

Hmmm... I wonder if that would work...

Killing your own or someone elses?

Privateerkev

07-26-2007, 04:31

I've updated the play list in the first post of the Chancellors reports thread. Please check your character's details are correct.

Jan is a knight. Here is the battle report:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1614100#post1614100

*edit*

Also, for voting purposes, is Warluster a Swabian Elector? Does he get the one vote? I am just curious because I have been trying to crunch numbers on voting. Without Warluster, we have 79 voting points. So, 40 is the number you need to pass edicts. The house breakdowns are S(17), F(25), A(14), B(19) and 4 for the Kaiser.

In case anyone is wondering about the health of the Crusade amendment, the Crusaders themselves have a voting power of 37 out of 79 points even though they are only 8 out of the current 18 players (or 10 avatars out of our total of 23). Of course 1 of those points is Hummel's but thats still pretty good. The crusaders are by far the most powerful voting block as long as they can break house loyalties. And if they grab the Kaiser, there is 41 and that pretty much seals the deal. Crusaders plus the Kaiser (or any other person with at least a 3vote which is almost everyone) can pass any edict they want. With this information, it is clear that King Salier does not have to do a lot of "horse trading" to get the votes he needs. He just needs to keep the Crusaders together and grab one or two more people at most. This also means that Matthias pretty much has this thing sealed up as the Crusader bloc is guaranteed. One of the ways this information is useful is in figuring out how many votes you need and then stop trading. I've noticed that people seem to be obsessed with getting as many votes as possible. And they have to risk "giving away the store" in order to do it. Its risky but if you think you have sealed up 40 votes, then stop trading. This would also put a limit on the people who are trying to use their bloc of votes as an influential "swing vote". Another thing this means, is that anyone who wants anything almost has to come to the Crusaders. Otherwise, you would have to convince every single non-crusader to join across house lines and the Kaiser to join forces on an edict.

Now I know this is overly simplistic and there are other reasons people vote the way they do but I find it interesting.

*edit 2*

Oh yeah, and the magic number for CA's would be 53. Which means you need 27 to stop a CA. And the one group big enough to stop a CA by themselves is....you guessed it...the Crusaders! I am having far too much fun crunching numbers and should probably go to sleep soon... :laugh4:

Warluster

07-26-2007, 07:30

No, I am not a elector yet, I am still thinking on who I should take, and what House.

Privateerkev

07-26-2007, 07:33

Well, they have you marked down for Jobst's kid so I was wondering if you can be an elector if your avatar is underage. I'm still new at this...

econ21

07-26-2007, 09:01

AussieGiant

07-26-2007, 09:25

Ok chaps I'm off to Korea now.

I'll be back on line Friday mid afternoon European time, but thats about it for me and the rest of this excellent Diet session discussion.

Speak soon
AG

Ituralde

07-26-2007, 12:15

@econ21:

I have not yet confirmed anyone as being King of Outremer, quite on purpose. Seems like the heat is really coming on me now, I'm gonna reply in the Diet thread right away. I won't let the Dukes become that powerful without a fight! :beam:

econ21

07-26-2007, 13:19

I have not yet confirmed anyone as being King of Outremer, quite on purpose.

OK, but you need to do it before the vote. The sequence is that the Kaiser appoints the King and he appoints the Crusader Counts - both need to be done before the vote, if they are to benefit from influence and to post build queues in time.

Ituralde

07-26-2007, 13:23

Gives me another day, then! :2thumbsup:

FactionHeir

07-26-2007, 13:46

I actually wonder with the dispute over the emperor and all, would Siegfried actually be allowed to vote with emperor influence and appoint the King of Outremer at this point? It would be more dramatic if he couldnt or it is not widely accepted and can lead to a debate over voting results :p

Stig

07-26-2007, 14:11

Only 3 people seem to be against Siegfried:
Duke Scherer, Hans and Hummel, this is no majority, and as thus Siegfried is seen as Kaiser.

Ituralde

07-26-2007, 15:45

@FactionHeir

I suppose that is a bit of a grey area, all things considered. :2thumbsup:

@Stig

The King of Outremere appoints Crusader Counts. But since he is appointed by the Kaiser, he could have an influence on it.

Privateerkev

07-26-2007, 17:46

PK, I'll correct Jan's knighthood status.

Warluster: I've entered you in the playlist because players can vote without avatars (they can even become Counts). I put you down for Athalwolf as you posted that you wanted him a while back. But if, when the time comes, you decide you don't want him, that's fine. It does not affect the fact that you have a vote in these elections.

On point 1.) thank you

On point 2.) Does this confirm that Warluster is in fact a Swabian elector? I'm putting a speadsheet together so I can track the voting and I wish to have accurate figures. This would increase the vote total to 80 and give Swabia a voting power of 18. This would also increase the threshold for passing edicts to 41. It would also increase the CA threshold to 54.

econ21

07-26-2007, 19:38

On point 2.) Does this confirm that Warluster is in fact a Swabian elector?

He's got a vote, so he is an elector. He should confirm his House - I am assuming it will be Swabia, but it does not really matter (unless he wants a quick appointment to Count :eyebrows:).

Privateerkev

07-26-2007, 19:43

He's got a vote, so he is an elector. He should confirm his House - I am assuming it will be Swabia, but it does not really matter (unless he wants a quick appointment to Count).

Something tells me he is going to get a few PM's in his box due to that news...

"Please join our house as an elector for one voting session. We'll make you count. Then you can just switch when your avatar comes of age."

:laugh4:

GeneralHankerchief

07-26-2007, 20:15

Stuperman just brought up a good point regarding CA 11.3 via PM. If a new King of Outremer is appointed during the session, who gets to propose the edicts? I ask econ if this rewording is okay:

Charter Amendment 11.3: The King of Outremer is allowed to propose three Edicts (or Charter Amendments) per Diet Session. Prior to being tabled in the Diet, these must be seconded by two Crusader Counts in the Council of Crusaders. Should the throne change hands during the Diet Session, the privilege falls to the new King and any previously proposed Edicts are voided and must be seconded in the Council of Crusaders again.

Privateerkev

07-26-2007, 20:19

Can't we pass something that says that the King and Crusader Counts have to be picked by the Kaiser before the session actually starts. The same kind of thing is going on with legislation about the Prince being announced right away. That way, the Kaiser can't sit on the King appointment and then turn around and screw over the current King and everything he worked to get passed that session. It is not fair to give someone less than one day of the session to get their stuff worked on.

The King should have a guarenteed 3 days of Diet session to work on his legislation just like the Dukes have. Otherwise, the King really becomes weakened and the Kaiser has a massive amount of influence over him. The Kaiser could conceivably wait until 5 minutes before the Diet session ended and then change Kings.

Ituralde

07-26-2007, 20:32

While the above makes sense OOC, I can not agree to it IC. :evilgrin:

Privateerkev

07-26-2007, 20:38

While the above makes sense OOC, I can not agree to it IC. :evilgrin:

Yeah, there is a point where, even if it is not technically against the rules, it could quite possibly lead to the game being unplayable. Or at least not very fun. Giving people only 5 minutes to write edicts, get them seconded, and then horse trade the votes is pretty nasty. Legal, but nasty...

*edit*

Also, would such a move invalidate all the Crusader Count influence? If it did, 5 minutes before voting started, the Kaiser could kill 6 votes right there.

If this Kaiser is planning even half of what I'm thinking, he is one slick mother!@#$%$

Stuperman

07-26-2007, 21:10

I wonder what we would do without the legal accumen of TC, I think CA11.4 runs the balance very nicely personally. I'd still like to see a formal time for announcing the KOTO (king of the outremer), PK has a good point about re-assigning the post last minute should the Kaiser not like the direction of the edicts.

Are 11.3 and 11.4 mutually exclusive?

What happens if 11.4 passes, and KOTO is re-assigned after he has proposed outremer edicts, are they null and void?

TinCow

07-26-2007, 21:13

Are 11.3 and 11.4 mutually exclusive?

What happens if 11.4 passes, and KOTO is re-assigned after he has proposed outremer edicts, are they null and void?

Take your pick:

3.5. Tied edicts fail. If contradictory edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

5.4 The Emperor adjudicates on rules disputes.

GeneralHankerchief

07-26-2007, 21:15

Heh, I just thought of another loophole that the Kaiser can use.

Ituralde

07-26-2007, 21:42

Should I intend to turn really evil, I'll make sure to turn to GH for some advice. He has shown that he has a knack for it. :2thumbsup:

TinCow

07-27-2007, 01:29

All parts of the Library are updated, except for the House organization list and the avatar titles. Barring those areas, please let me know if you see any mistakes.

Some interesting things to note:

Spain has become a major power. If you check the actual save, they are on the verge of more conquests as well.
Franconia has an unusually high number of tournament traits in their avatars.
Dread seems to be popular lately.
Peter von Kastilien has taken a major dive in loyalty (to 2) and has 0 piety. This could be useful for RPing him.
Hans has so many traits that I dread every time I have to paste together his portrait.
Conrad Salier has so many retinue that they're longer than his trait list. He has also somehow gained an extra command star, even though I can't see any difference in his traits.
Friederich Scherer is responsible for 4 out of the 6 famous battles of the HRE, all 4 are against the French near Paris, and 3 were in the last Chancellorship term.
Franconia is facing the end of its avatar hegemony - Friederich von Hamburg and Gunther von Kastilien will definitely die this term and Jonas von Mahren will likely die this term. Other than adoption, the only way they can obtain a new avatar anytime soon is via marriage to the 33 year old Hedewigis von Saxony.
Austria seems to be emerging from its avatar problems. They have a new son (0 years old) and also two daughters of marriageable age (both Mahrens).
Thorn seems to be a great holiday resort. Five avatars are in or near the settlement.

Ignoramus

07-27-2007, 03:13

I think that only Spain will end up being able to challenge us. France is gone, thanks to Portugal seizing Bordeaux. Bring on the rival Hapsburgs!

TinCow

07-27-2007, 03:17

Actually, Portugal is about to lose Rennes to France and Pamplona to Spain. They are close to extinction, contrary to what it looks like on the current world map.

Ignoramus

07-27-2007, 03:29

GeneralHankerchief

07-27-2007, 03:30

Couldn't we call a Crusade against Toulouse, just so some avatars can hurry back home, because it's ridiculous that there's only one avatar on our enitre western front. The next closest to Frederich at Paris is Siegfried at Hamburg.

Absolutely not. Not with Jerusalem in Saracen hands.

TevashSzat

07-27-2007, 03:38

Bow before my skills at killing the French

:pleased: :pleased:

Ignoramus

07-27-2007, 03:50

Well I sick and tired of sitting in Adana doing nothing but fight pointless battles, and I haven't even done that.

We can't keep dragging this game out to the point of insanity. Can you imagine another 200 years of just conquering one or two territories every 10 turns?

We fight battles, we crush enemy armies, the way open to their cities and castles is clear, and we merely sit back and relax, despite the fact that paying all those soldiers is costing us money.

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 04:00

Why is only one Swabian in Swabia? I want to fight the French, not be stuck in Adana, yet it will take Wolfgang at least 7 turns to return back to France.

And Franconia hasn't lost it's boom of avatars. Jens von Kassel keeps on having children.

Couldn't we call a Crusade against Toulouse, just so some avatars can hurry back home, because it's ridiculous that there's only one avatar on our enitre western front. The next closest to Frederich at Paris is Siegfried at Hamburg.

I do find it funny that it is Swabia that has the greatest percentage contribution to Outremer. There are 22 non-Kaiser avatars. 10 are in Outremer. 4 out of 5 Swabian avatars are in Outremer. Bavaria has the next highest contribution with 2 out of 4. Austria is next with 1 out of 3. And Franconia has given it the least contribution with 3 out of 10.

And Ig, the reason your in Outremer is because your character's dad popped his two kids out there. You could have picked an avatar on the mainland. The last Kastillian brother. Or the elder Hamburg brother.

GeneralHankerchief

07-27-2007, 04:17

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 04:28

All parts of the Library are updated, except for the House organization list and the avatar titles. Barring those areas, please let me know if you see any mistakes.

Some interesting things to note:

Conrad Salier has so many retinue that they're longer than his trait list. He has also somehow gained an extra command star, even though I can't see any difference in his traits.

I think I might have solved the mystery. Conrad has a veteran warrior retinue who gives him +1 to command if he is in an infantry stack. In 1240 he was in Damascus so it wouldn't show up. In 1260 he is in an army stack out in the field so the extra command star activates. :book:

Cecil XIX

07-27-2007, 06:40

I agree, simply having us hunker down provides for an enjoyable PBEM for the tension it creates. I doubt there would be as much fighting in the Diet right now if everyone was busy with expanding to all corners of the world.

If we do that then the game is no longer fun. I'm not ready to quit yet. Are you?

FactionHeir

07-27-2007, 10:32

Will try to read as much as　possible tonight and post something useful...

TinCow

07-27-2007, 12:10

I think I might have solved the mystery. Conrad has a veteran warrior retinue who gives him +1 to command if he is in an infantry stack. In 1240 he was in Damascus so it wouldn't show up. In 1260 he is in an army stack out in the field so the extra command star activates. :book:

Good spot. :yes:

[edit]
Ok, the Library should now be completely updated. I have also shuffled a few Bios upwards so that all the 'empties' are at the bottom. For completeness though, I would like to know the Elector 'numbers' of the following Swabians and Franconians. I cannot find this information anywhere:

Ignoramus - Wolfgang Hümmel, ? Elector of Swabia, Knight
econ21 - Elberhard, Prince, Count of Rheims, Crusader Count of Acre, ? Elector of Swabia, Knight
Warluster - Athalwolf von Salza, ? Elector of Swabia
gibsonsg91921 - Péter von Kastilien, Count of Breslau, ? Elector of Franconia, Knight
Privateerkev - Jan von Hamburg, Crusader Count of Edessa, ? Elector of Franconia, Knight

FactionHeir

07-27-2007, 14:40

TC: Id suggest that we just recount all the elector numbers, so Xdeathfire would be 1st elector, me 2nd, Elberhard 3rd and Wolfgang 4th for instance. Saves a lot of trouble.

Considering boredom due to lack of expansion:
I can understand that and personally wouldnt mind expanding more. Maybe its time for another OOC CA that allows us to process(underscore)cq every AI settlement say twice a chancellorship (start of term and mid term)

Stig

07-27-2007, 15:05

Well I think that we are doing good now, not to much expanding is good, sides there's enough fighting to do.
Horse Lords, Thorn, Paris, Hungary and the Milanese Isles.

If you happen to be in a less active position, go to your Duke and request to be moved to a more challenging position.

FactionHeir

07-27-2007, 15:10

Stig

07-27-2007, 15:17

As long as they are Swabian regions I have no problem ~D

Sides I fought quite some offensive battles using the FHA the last few turns. And I take it the SHA will be going to do the same when it is reinforced again, it won't attack a city, but it can always do little excursions into French territory to destroy an army.
Same as fighting the Horse Lords, and for Bavaria. And Austria seems to go and attack as well.

As for the next big PBM, seeing all the PBMs are about much played European factions I would suggest some lower profile faction (personally I'm having loads of fun with Portugal)

Stuperman

07-27-2007, 15:19

I personally wouldn't mind a little bit more expansion either, letting some settlements rebel sounds like it could be interesting, although some preperation may be necessary.

Stig

07-27-2007, 15:23

Aye, we will need to look which settlements are more rebellious and which not.
Sides a Bavarian settlement won't rebel if Hans doesn't become Kaiser. Bern would rebel. Same for Siegfried, why would Budapest rebel? The people in Stettin haven't been happy for quite some time, maybe they would finally rebel.

Stuperman

07-27-2007, 15:39

Sides a Bavarian settlement won't rebel if Hans doesn't become Kaiser. Bern would rebel. Bern would rebel. Same for Siegfried, why would Budapest rebel? The people in Stettin haven't been happy for quite some time, maybe they would finally rebel.

I'm not sure I follow this logic. How does a different Kaiser mena more/less rebellion?

EDIT: Thanks again TC for the Library Updates, it sounds like it's a huge job!!!

TinCow

07-27-2007, 15:43

The thing is that we hardly get to fight offensive battles these days, as in sige attacks and fighting on enemy soil. Mainly defending our own lands from attacks that we could stop by getting to the source.

I dunno what people think, but maybe regardless of whether Siegfried or Hans wins emperorship, we can make a few regions rebel for fun? (or even donate em to some AI who could have been secretly plotting) and then retake em. Would give our interior generals something to do.

Btw, anyone already planning the next big PBM after this one? I have already made a lot of thoughts about it and got a basic charter (expanded KOTR) outlined already.

This is essentially a question as to whether we want to end the game or not. We've managed to get ourselves into a position where if we continue to expand slowly or not at all, we will keep getting assaulted from all sides on a regular basis, providing battles for those who wish to fight them, as well as the politics that results from war. If we expand again, we will simply shatter this balance and there won't be any point in continuing the game much longer. Look at the current power charts if you need proof. We are already so much more powerful than everyone else, that it's only our own internal restraints that are keeping us from walking all over everyone.

So the question the becomes, what is more enjoyable: continuing to play like we are currently, or starting over?

My vote is very strongly behind continuing this game. As we've seen from WOTS and KOTR, the vast majority of the fun factor in these games is from role-playing and IC politics. Getting the victory screen has absolutely no importance. We have now come to a point where the internal politics are very complex, the alliances convoluted, and the intrigue palpable. These things do not evolve instantly, because it takes time for people to get a feel for their characters and figure out where they want to go. If we restart, everything will have to be started over from scratch. On top of that, restarting means going back to having far too few avatars for players. We seem to be at the sweet spot right now, where we have a couple more avatars than players, allowing everyone a chance to participate fully. Starting a new game means some people may have to wait several months again to get new avatars.

So, I would like us to stick with this game for a good while longer, which means no more serious expansion. I am all for letting places rebel and generally reducing the size of the HRE. That was something I was pursuing with my proposed starvation of Outremer. If you can figure out another IC way to do it, I'm all for it. I would be happy to see settlements rebel, but it seems to me that it has to be done by legislation, otherwise the Chancellor will be impeached just like Ulrich.

Stig

07-27-2007, 15:48

I'm not sure I follow this logic. How does a different Kaiser mena more/less rebellion?
I didn't say that, all I said was that when Hans becomes Kaiser mostlikely cities with loads of Siegfried followers (ie. cities of counts that voted for Siegfried) will rebel. And vica versa.

Next to that there are enough settlements that won't just rebel, most castles have happy people.

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 15:54

I like TC's points for continuing the game. Things are well developed at this point without being too stagnant. As for letting territory rebel, the problem with that is every house/Outremer would not want to let their own territory go but would probably be happy to see the rest of the Reich burn. This is not a criticism but an observation on how people are playing regionalism IC. I know Jan could care less if half of the European settlements fell away but he would argue passionately that Outremer needs to stay the size it is. And the rest of the Franconians probably wouldn't care if the rest of the Reich whithers but they would be reluctant to give up Thorn. The same with Austria with Budapest or Bavaria with Corsica or Swabia with Paris. We have constructed in game rewards for regionalism therefor many people have become regionalists instead of nationalists. If we want that to change, we'll have to change the attitude IC and maybe change the game mechanics so there is less of a reward. Just like Lothar's CA trying to take some of the rewards out of Outremer. If you lessen the prize, you may change the behavior.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Stig

07-27-2007, 15:58

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 16:04

Thorn, Budapest and Corsica are not the settlements to give up. Certainly not Thorn and Budapest, looking how they have been defended and won.

And Paris is not Swabian, it's Imperial the last time I looked.

My only point was to highlight the problem of regionalism if you wish to give up territory. You actually prove my point beautifully with your defense. People on here are OOC talking about giving some territory up to make things last longer and be more challenging. While I support that OOC, we IC play regionalists who would not want our own territory to be lost. If we want an OOC result, we need to find some way to change our IC behavior.

Stig

07-27-2007, 16:08

Yup, but than what territory is there to rebel?
The rebellious cities are not really the ones you named. Marseille, Milan and such, those are rebellious, normally speaking they would have more chance to rebel.

Sides we might be smart and let them rebel, but have you seen the enemy. We can't let Hamburg rebel, the Danes will take it, same for Thorn and the Poles and Budapest and the Hungarians. Surely the idea is rebelling and taking them back ourselves

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 16:12

Well, thats what we would have to figure out. TC said he is for the actual reduction in Empire size and I agree. But, I have been pointing out a difficulty in this. Because there are people IC who would not want to do it, like Ansehelm and Jan. So, OOC we need to figure out a way to convince the Ansehelms and Jans of the world to do it IC.

TinCow

07-27-2007, 16:13

If you want to lose settlements and make the game more interesting without having to pick specific regions, I've got a method: We create a catastrophic event.

We simply disband every single last military unit except for 1 militia in each city and 1 infantry in each castle. Call it plague, rebellion, desertion, bankruptcy, whatever you want. The AI armies and unrest due to low garrisons will take care of the rest. We would probably need to limit recruitment as well, say only 1 unit per settlement per turn for the next 10 turns, or maybe only 10 units per turn faction-wide.

Stig

07-27-2007, 16:15

Yes but that can't be done can it, seeing the Horse Lords, the Russian Crusade and the reinforcements.

Just up the taxes and see what happens, that can be far more realistic.

TinCow

07-27-2007, 16:19

Why can't it be done? Because we'll lose settlements to the Mongols? That's the entire point!

Stuperman

07-27-2007, 16:33

one point, if we lose too many settlements, it may compound our avatar problems. I hate to say this as a Bavarian, but northern Italy could rebel very easily, Long term it might be easier to let it rebel, then re-take and exterminate.

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 16:49

The avatar problem is a good point. We want to shrink the game to the size that it becomes more challenging but still have the game big enough to provide us with enough avatars to offer to those who want to play.

I'm stumped...

gibsonsg91921

07-27-2007, 16:54

Stuperman

07-27-2007, 17:07

but personally, i like the direction the game is going. if we shrink the size and let cities rebel it just gets boring, like "why did we take it if we just let it rebel?" i would rather have a slow movement towards victory than taking a step back

I'm inclined to agree a little bit, I still think that a a large scale rebellion would be fun to rp/necessary for challenge/interesting to engineer. But not just yet, maybe we should pick a number of settlements (like 44, one less than victory condition), then when we have that many have all the duchies lose 3 or 4 settlements each (decided OOC of course). I'd be interesting to lose many of the interior settlements and try and re-conquor them while defending our rather large boarders.

StoneCold

07-27-2007, 17:31

you guys still have the black death event to look forward to right? it will be exciting with the HRE military entirely dependent on the economy while the AI get money from God, you will have some tough fight then.

AussieGiant

07-27-2007, 17:34

We are at a delicate point in the actual game.

As I have said in a few of my larger "gaming theory" posts, the game is simply the mechanism for us to enjoy ourselves.

If we destroy the actual game them we destroy our ability to role play.

It is with no surprise that with our stalled expansion, the in game mechanics of the Mongols and the money we are giving the AI, we now have had one of the best periods in the game to date.

The mind boggles at the amount of legislation we have, and the OOC knowledge you need to have in order to function effectively at voting time is staggering.

At one province per 10 years per house front, we are certainly having the time of our lives and I don't recommend any "feeling" of too few offensive battles getting the better of something we have good control of.

If people want offensive battles then get your trousers out East. Attack a few Mongol stacks. In essence the Reich is in defensive mode and it should remain that way. Another option would be to join Stigs crusade. Who know's what will happen there.

I personally want to see the Tirumad (can't spell them for the life of me) and potentially the New World. Plus I really want to fight with gun powder units.

There is so much to look forward to that I really recommend patience.

AussieGiant

07-27-2007, 17:35

gibsonsg91921

07-27-2007, 17:50

thats gonna be a fun time...

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 17:54

God, I even forgot about that!! That's going to be great fun too.

We might want to get some legislation in place that mandates that our avatars have to be out of settlements at that point. The game would get pointless if we all lost our avatars. Or at least some OOC agreement that even the Chancellor can't override seeing as that is a "survival of the game" issue. If people want their avatars to go into plague cities, thats their business, but we should be able to keep our whole family line alive if we stay out in the woods until the little rat disappears. At least thats what I've done in my SP games.

econ21

07-27-2007, 17:55

I agree with Stuperman, a mass rebellion might be fun, but not just yet. I think the game is interesting enough at the moment. TC's mechanics for a cataclysmic event sound fine.

The obvious thing to coincide a mass rebellion (which takes the form of disbanding garrisons) with is the plague, but that's in 1350 and we are only in 1260.

If people want it sooner, it could coincide with some in character dispute - like the Hummel impeachment or the Siegfried succession. But I would prefer to avoid player vs player battles - as I think they will mark the end of the game - so it might take some preparation and scripting to work out a good story. I can see one opportunity in a couple of months.

Finally, we could time it to coincide with the third wave of Mongols. This would not be an IC thing, but more an OOC one to increase the challenge. (The present second wave has been severely depleted).

This might be a good subject for an OOC poll.

OOC Poll: Choose one of the following:
1. Mass rebellion now (Siegfried succession).
2. Mass rebellion in two months time.
3. Mass rebellion when 3rd wave of Mongols arrives.
4. Mass rebellion coinciding with plague.
5. No mass rebellion.
Note: if voted for, a mass rebellion will be organised by Econ21 by disbanding all garrisons to one unit. Unit recruitment (including mercs) will be limited to ten per turn for 10 turns.

We could use the poll to see which is the most popular option of (1) to (5). If it is not (5), we could put the option forward as an OOC CA with a simple yes/no question requiring a 2/3 majority to pass.

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 17:58

Is there a third Mongol wave? In my sp games there are only two 4 stack waves that usually end up consolidating to one 8 stack line of horsey death. Every single time I have killed all 8 stacks, I have never seen another.

TinCow

07-27-2007, 18:19

1350 is not really that far away. The Black Plague will occur less than 5 Chancellorship terms from now, which is equivalent to the time between the Crusade to take Jerusalem and the present. Maybe 2-3 months of play time.

Shortly after the Plague, we also get hit by the Timurids. I would say that would be the perfect time to engineer a revolt or other 'cataclysm.' Lump them all together into a period so utterly traumatic for the Reich that it drastically reduces our size and causes problems for decades afterwards. If we do that, we will then have more than enough stuff to keep us busy through the New World.

So, all we have to do is keep going until 1350. If we really decide to give the Reich a huge whack on the head at that point, I don't see any problems with resuming a slow expansion right now. For example, adding 2 settlements each Chancellorship Term until the Plague won't ruin the game as long as we don't kill off too many factions and so long as we then 'lose' those provinces and more when the 'bad years' come along.

AussieGiant

07-27-2007, 18:22

FH has confirmed that the game mechanics have 3 of the little things horsey stacks lined up normally.

Cecil XIX

07-27-2007, 18:26

I think that for the next PBM we should consider using a mod. Right now I'm trying out Deus lo Vult and it looks perfect for the kind of PBM we want.

First of all it would provide or in-game factors for roleplaying, such as procincial ancillaries, famous swords, a career ladder for generals, choosing between general and governor when a character comes of age, and even a trait that signifies how closely related a character is to the original monarch.

It would also provide slower pacing, something that, from what I've heard, was also a problem in WOTS. This is accomplished by having 2 turns per year with 900 turns per game, adjusting the build time upward, and subtracting varying amount of money for each army in the field. Sieges, for example, cost an automatic 2000 florins per turn.

I urge everyone to give this mod a try and contribute your opinions, as it deserves serious consideration for whatever's planned after KOTR.

StoneCold

07-27-2007, 18:38

But I think it will seriously weaken the French and the Huns, probably the Poles too, with the 2 settlements per term case. Although I think you guys should really just send Igno's char back to Swabia. I think one of the reason Swabia was no able to expand the last few terms was basically the only defensive army there was control by Xdeathfire avatar, the only avatar left, and he can't go on the offensive with Paris under threat constantly.

ICly, I think some chars might be able the insinuate that the balck death was cause by the blood lust of the dread avatars? :P

AussieGiant

07-27-2007, 19:00

We've got legislation on attacking provinces. I think 2 is too much 1 would be better I think.

Stig

07-27-2007, 19:02

A mass rebellion, together with the Timurids seem nice.
Barbarian Invasion, Migration and such.
We could do some small rebellion by Hummel and maybe Hans if Siegfried becomes Emperor (which seems to happen). Hummel can rebel the settlement he is currently in, and as a punishment he gets send back to Swabia.

Stuperman

07-27-2007, 19:06

We might want to get some legislation in place that mandates that our avatars have to be out of settlements at that point. The game would get pointless if we all lost our avatars. Or at least some OOC agreement that even the Chancellor can't override seeing as that is a "survival of the game" issue. If people want their avatars to go into plague cities, thats their business, but we should be able to keep our whole family line alive if we stay out in the woods until the little rat disappears. At least thats what I've done in my SP games.

I definately like this Idea, I've had enough of sick avatars. I conpletely forgot about the black death as well, I think it'd be interesting to see if we can survive the ensuing financial crunch, while the AI still has gobs of cash.

I also would like to see the new world learn to speak german, I realize that that wouldn't be for a while, but something I'd like to see none the less. I can see now the politics and debate over whether or not to to open up a port on the Atlantic, sounds like fun.

More immediately though, I think that a couple of Chancellorships of wealth and prospairity(sp) representing the Golden period of German history are a good Idea. Both IC and OOC I'd love to see the HRE peak having carved out all of central europe(what we've got plus Antwerp, burges, Naples, Palmero, Krakow and Hylatch for nice 'round' boarders) then lose a dozen of more territories under a particularly disasterous Chancellor or something (that'd be fun to RP too).

Stig

07-27-2007, 19:13

The problem is that normally we would impeach such a chancellor, so he should destroy the Reich, but with our allowance. So that he does what we want, but has some sneaky plan behind our backs.
We might lose a city as Paris, as it still is very French. Same with Bran (if the Edict gets through) and parts of the Outremer (as that is not really German at all).

And I think that in that case we cheat some more units for the rebels, so they are stronger.

TinCow

07-27-2007, 19:18

My 2 province suggestion was just an idea to appease those who wanted more offensive battles. I agree that we can do just fine without adding more provinces. There is also plenty of room to conquer a province and then abandon it or sell it off. We've already done this with Sofia and Iconium and we're about to do it with Moscow. I wouldn't have any problems doing it with Cagliari either, since conquest of that island will likely be authorized this term. Edicts wouldn't even be needed for that, since all new conquests become Imperial property, so the Kaiser (if he were on board with the plan) could instantly require that they then be abandoned/sold off. They're his property, so he can do whatever he wants with them.

As for blaming the Chancellor who is reigning during the 'catastrophe,' well, we can implement the event via OOC edict and include a clause stating that it is to be considered an "Act of God" and not the direct fault of the Chancellor. Though of course the Chancellor (and all future Chancellors) can be held responsible for not responding to the crisis in an adequate manner. Think Hurricane Katrina. No (sane) people blame Bush for the actual hurricane itself, but he was heavily criticized for perceived failures in his response to the disaster.

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 19:32

A problem with having the territories revolt during the Black Death is that I have found that the plague ends up helping me with civil order in SP games. The Black Death kills tons of people but leaves "happiness" buildings intact. This basically makes every city a severely depleted, but happy one.

TinCow

07-27-2007, 19:36

Then do the revolt in 1340. HRE loses several territories in 1340, 5 turns later the black plague hits, 5 to 10 turns after the plague, the Timurids arrive. Fun for all.

Privateerkev

07-27-2007, 19:37

Then do the revolt in 1340. HRE loses several territories in 1340, 5 turns later the black plague hits, 5 to 10 turns after the plague, the Timurids arrive. Fun for all.

I would agree to that. I think it would be great fun! :yes:

GeneralHankerchief

07-27-2007, 20:27

Discussion about cataclysmic event sounds good.

I think that eventually we should gear up for a major showdown with Spain. They look to be nearly as powerful as Iberia in the old WotS and will be our only real accomplishment, especially if we shoot ourselves in the foot. Two ideas have presented themselves:

- Launch an invasion prior to the Discovery of America. Duke it out in the heart of enemy territory, and set up a good series of ports to use to sail the Atlantic.

- Fight them in the New World. Three-way slugfest between us, them, and the Aztecs.

Stuperman

07-27-2007, 21:00

I think that eventually we should gear up for a major showdown with Spain. They look to be nearly as powerful as Iberia in the old WotS and will be our only real accomplishment, especially if we shoot ourselves in the foot. Two ideas have presented themselves:

- Launch an invasion prior to the Discovery of America. Duke it out in the heart of enemy territory, and set up a good series of ports to use to sail the Atlantic.

- Fight them in the New World. Three-way slugfest between us, them, and the Aztecs.

I like the Idea of a war in the new world that spills over to Europe (reverse history?), It will give spain that much more time to Expand as well. Making thier eventual conquest that much more Glorious!!! gosh I'm a nerd sometimes

flyd

07-27-2007, 21:52

How about we become anti-gunpowder. The chivalrous characters can be against it on principle, and a few others can decide that their character had an unpleasant expereience (I'm thinking missing hands here), and then pass legislation forbidding gunpowder development. And then after a while we can take on Spain...

Stig

07-27-2007, 22:23

Sounds fun FLYdude, ofcourse the Dread guys (if we get some new ones, I bet so) should ofcourse like it, dividing the Reich.

Also for Spain, if we want a major showdown, how about giving them more money than other factions, that makes sure they will gain loads of territory.

StoneCold

07-27-2007, 22:29

hmm... maybe give the gun powder units only to the dread generals? I noticed that quite a few of the counts has already started the commissioning of the building of gunsmith for the next term... might be abit hard to justify them banning the use of those troops?

Or will it involve the demolition of said buildings and disbanding those units once the legistration is passed. I remember reading somewhere some players were looking forward to playing with gunpowder units

Stig

07-27-2007, 22:39

hmm... maybe give the gun powder units only to the dread generals? I noticed that quite a few of the counts has already started the commissioning of the building of gunsmith for the next term... might be abit hard to justify them banning the use of those troops?
Those will be the big, clumsy always failing siege guns.
How about making a story about them being dangerous and killing our own men, after which some generals don't want them anymore?

TinCow

07-27-2007, 22:51

Anti-gunpowder can be easily (and effectively) developed IC. Find a few like-minded Electors and start making plans.

GeneralHankerchief

07-27-2007, 23:02

One problem with that though, don't a lot of people (Chiv and Dread) have that "Fan of technology" trait? That's pretty hard to RP around.

Stig

07-27-2007, 23:08

I haven't really spotted anyone with that. So there are enough without it.
Maybe we can RP some group of people coming to power (as Lothar's secret society ~D) and they will back up eachother so everything goes their way. That can easely explain a rebellion. They always get the chancellor, they are numerous enough to stop most edicts they don't like. Only way to stop them will will be rebellion.

OverKnight

07-27-2007, 23:17

All these suggestions, good ideas many, wouldn't be implemented in this next term would they? If we're going to OOC manipulate the game in a major way, I think the poor bastards running for the Chancellorship should know what they're getting into.

So if we want to plan so major uprisings or such for 1280, we should have that voted on and in place before the next election.

Stig

07-27-2007, 23:19

Nah, we should prepare for this OOC, not just introduce them. As we said, it should come around 1350.

GeneralHankerchief

07-27-2007, 23:21

Hmm, going through the Library there aren't as many as I thought.

Two of the Steffins, Gerhard and Lothar, as well as Friedrich Scherer, have "Admires Technology." So no real conflict there.

Fredricus von Hamburg has "Questions Technology." Again, no real conflict but it doesn't matter anyway since he's going to buy the farm very soon.

Jens Hummel (the unassigned one) also has "Questions Technology." Could be a minor problem considering his dreaded relatives.

Stuperman

07-27-2007, 23:24

I know that gerhard has "admires technology", and OK I really don't think that any of this is going to be implemented till at least 1280, probably later.

p.s. I'm glad you'll get one more update of your AAR in.

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 00:38

(OOC: Hell I feel like a man with a little moustache)

Stig, that cracked me up! :laugh4:

*edit*

As for being anti-gunpowder, can't we already build Reiters? Or was that only in Sofia?

Ignoramus

07-28-2007, 01:33

We musn't get rid of Reiters; they are one of the most interesting and best units in the game. They are basically the only unit which uses pistols, and thus add variety to the domination of arquebuses and muskets.

GeneralHankerchief

07-28-2007, 02:33

If CA 11.6 passes I'm thinking the King of Outremer will have a role similar to that of a US Supreme Court Justice.

AussieGiant

07-28-2007, 02:57

The mechanics we can do IC should be a first prioirty.

The idea of the plague plus all the money we give the AI will make that event far more impactful.

The gunpowder thing also is entirely able to be done IC...and a very good idea.

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 08:59

:laugh4:

Oh my god! Is everyone voting for everything!?! I think I have committed my character to every piece of legislation but one! Is everyone else in the same boat? Are we going to see almost every edict and CA pass unanimously? Is every election like this? I am highly amused... :yes:

Stig

07-28-2007, 09:02

Nah Ansehelm won't vote in favour of everything, but most will get a yes.

And I can't believe some are actually against CA 11.4, it makes the most sense of all proposed Edicts and CA's

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 09:16

It makes the most sense to exactly 4 people. It makes little sense to those who are neither Dukes nor Crusader Counts. And it makes zero sense to those that are Crusader Counts.

Stig

07-28-2007, 09:18

No it does make sense to anyone, Dukes are above Counts, fact.
That should make sense, even if you don't agree with it

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 09:23

Dukes still retain the right to give and take away counties. This gives them powers of compulsion that Crusader Counts do not have and allows them to organize voting blocs. Plus, if you take away Crusader Count influence, you take away the King's power of compulsion. Sure, they could get Crusader Count if they had no county in Europe but what if a Crusader came and had a county in Europe? The King would have no power to compel that Crusader at all. There is more to power in this game than mere influence points. I have seen, and experienced, that Dukes are very powerful and it does not have everything to do with influence points.

Actually, the bill that makes the most sense is CA 11.2

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 09:49

Why is only one Swabian in Swabia? I want to fight the French, not be stuck in Adana, yet it will take Wolfgang at least 7 turns to return back to France.

And Franconia hasn't lost it's boom of avatars. Jens von Kassel keeps on having children.

Couldn't we call a Crusade against Toulouse, just so some avatars can hurry back home, because it's ridiculous that there's only one avatar on our enitre western front. The next closest to Frederich at Paris is Siegfried at Hamburg.

You know, I've been doing some thinking about this, and there is a way to send Hummel home faster. When we make the Crusade stack, we put Hummel in it. Then we take him and only him out. We stick him on a boat and he will have a turn or two of "super duper Crusade speed" on a boat which will take him a good distance across the Med. He won't suffer desertion because he is a General Bodyguard unit. Meanwhile the Crusade goes to Jerusalem and everyone's happy. :book:

*edit*

He'll even get the Chivalry bonus for joining the Crusade. Ironic since he'd essentially be lying about joining a religious mission and then running in the opposite direction.

econ21

07-28-2007, 11:05

Oh my god! Is everyone voting for everything!?! I think I have committed my character to every piece of legislation but one! Is everyone else in the same boat? Are we going to see almost every edict and CA pass unanimously? Is every election like this? I am highly amused... :yes:

I often vote against things I might agree with in order to give the Chancellor discretion. The standard for me is not whether it is a good idea, but whether it is such a good idea that it is necessary to force the Chancellor to do it. It's a bit like the States' rights arguments in the US (should the federal government decide an issue for a state?).

AussieGiant

07-28-2007, 11:33

Bottom line is Crusade counts have the same voting power as a Duke.

While there are other areas of benefit for a Duke this one should not be equal in my view...and keep in mind gentlemen it's not the people who are dukes...it's an office that many others will hold as men die and other replace them.

There are 4 current dukes and then 4 future dukes up next and the another 4 behind them, those of you looking for a Ducal heir appointment need to keep that in mind. For those of you with good relations to Duke or future dukes, you need to keep that in mind....see :2thumbsup:

For those not directly affected then its a simple readjustment of something that was not intended to be that way and the basic set up should be re-balanced.

Hell, Arnold might have to go on crusade...as long as the Kaiser is happy them he'd be off...now who would want that :balloon2:

TevashSzat

07-28-2007, 12:21

You know what I just realized? I forgot to propose an edict allowing Swabia to take Caen...sigh

Also, I will be on vacation until next Saturday so I will appoint Factionheir as my steward. Anyone can fight my battles, but please dont get me killed

Dutch_guy

07-28-2007, 13:41

I've returned a mere 30 minutes ago, and will need a bit of time to read my PM's and read through the threads as I'm not in a fit enough state to do so at the moment - having just returned.

An official statement of my return IC will be made, and I shall try to reply to all of my KotR PM's IC or OOC as soon as possible.

Just to let you all know.

:balloon2:

TinCow

07-28-2007, 15:39

I know I proposed CA 11.4 IC, but I also feel strongly OOC about it. The feudal hierarchy structure of this game is one of the things that has really made it enjoyable. Advancement from elector to count to duke to emperor (for some lucky few) is an amazing progression. However, Dukes are vastly underpowered now due to the Outremer legislation. If you think back (and read the legislation itself) you'll see that Outremer was never intended to be another House. It's just a way of managing an area that is a good distance away from the rest of the Reich. The +1 for Crusader Counts was supposed to be seen as a reward for those who sacrificed and left the Reich. However, it hasn't worked out that way. What has happened is that Outremer is the BEST place to be and everyone left behind is diminished. This has in effect turned Outremer into the Fifth House, something that the legislation specifically stated it shouldn't be.

So, CA 11.4 will rebalance this and it will also make sure that people only go East for IC reasons. This is how it should be IMO. Outremer should be the place that is always in need of more generals, not the Duchies. If you believe that Outremer needs more power than it has under CA 11.4, propose new legislation about the powers and influence of the King at the next session. He should be the focus of Outremer power and influence, since he is essentially removed from his house. Strengthen the King and you strengthen Outremer. Don't do it via the Crusader Counts.

Stig

07-28-2007, 15:49

Aye, if CA 11.4 doesn't get through I suggest we discuss it OOC. Afterall I believe these rules were made OOC not IC.

AussieGiant

07-28-2007, 16:01

Ironically now that the benefits have so eloquently been exposed and are aware to everyone, it seems as if it is too difficult NOT to go out there at some stage of someone IC life.

That fact I admitted to the urge as Arnold seems to be clear to me now...a few posts ago I could not have told you why exactly. Now I can.

The fact the original wording specifically say that it is not a house and should never be was shocking enough to me once I re-read it.

Please note guy's I'm very conscious of the fact that we are talking about position not the individuals that currently hold them.

Please keep that in mind when thinking about this.

The whole idea of even wanting to be a Duke...which some months ago was a very desirable position seems to have been diluted.

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 16:01

OOC I strongly believe that Outremer should be gutted of influence but IC I believe the opposite. What amuses me so much is that people have basically created a monster. This mirrors other real life political situations in history. What we are experiencing is something like the real feudal states experienced when they saw the Templars getting too powerful. TC could have proposed legislation that left everything the same but gave the Duke +4 influence and raised the cap. That would have gone for the balance he wanted and it might have even passed. But, raising the Duke while lowering the Count showed that it was an IC attempt to gut Outremer. While OOC I can see the merit of that, that will be very hard to convince enough people of IC. Giving the extra Crusader Count influence that can be tacked onto Count influence makes Outremer one of the places to go for career advancement. And we do need many good people out there for the enemies are numerous and respawning.

Stig

07-28-2007, 16:09

And we do need many good people out there for the enemies are numerous and respawning.
Same in Europe, that's a bad excuse

AussieGiant

07-28-2007, 16:11

I think one of the issues that has happen PK is that initially there were only a few Crusader Counts. Now it's as if all of a sudden we've seen the 900lb gorilla in the corner and there's load of them. :laugh4:

We'll see what happens with the voting though.

There's been more than a few surprises over the months.

Stig

07-28-2007, 16:16

there were only a few Crusader Counts.
Yup I think that's it.
People start seeing the Outremer as their house, for which they use their influence. While that influence was meant as a bonus for 5 persons or so. Not for loads.

It's a simple fact that Dukes are more important than Counts, as they give Countships, now the a Count can overrule a Duke

Cecil XIX

07-28-2007, 16:22

I think it was inevitable that Outremer become a fifth house. They way it was structured it already was a fifth house in all but name. It's geographically distinct, the nobles there have their own seperate concerns, and it has a leader with the rank of King, no less.

Stig

07-28-2007, 16:25

Still it has no own family, it cannot become a house of it's own as people will have to leave houses for it

AussieGiant

07-28-2007, 16:30

Well given players would swear allegiance to their Duke, you could pass legislation that means a Duke has to give permission for one of his nobles to go out east.

Problem is right now the east could vote it down.

Given fealty is one of the foundations of the whole system we seem to have shot ourselves in the foot.:balloon2:

Still, it's was a tricky thing in real life and I think we've simulated that nicely :laugh4:

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 16:31

Whats funny is that both of you are trying to convince me OOC of something I strongly believe in OOC. Just good luck convincing me IC. :laugh4:

Outremer is a perfect example of good intentions having unexpected consequences. It is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. Besides giving extra influence, it is simply a fun place to be. With other parts of the map, you pretty much have to make up your own quest and identity. The Crusade mechanic in the game provides a ready made identity, quest, and built in reward system. Its something to do when you get sick of moving a stack of troops around European forests fighting stacks of enemy troops.

There is a limit as to how many Crusader Counts there can be though. There can only be 5 and 1 King. Its not like there are a dozen. The King can not hand out more CC's than there are territories and there can only be 6 territories by current law. Every house gets one territory and one CC. The King gets one. And the last is a rotating one where it goes from house to house. Swabia had the extra territory but now it is Franconia's turn.

This is something we will all have to struggle with but I urge that it be done IC. For it provides for some great RP'ing. I think an IC attempt to gut the Crusaders, like what happened to the Templars but without the death part, would be awesome.

Trying to vote on it OOC is like trying to have Chancellor elections OOC.

TinCow

07-28-2007, 16:39

Whats funny is that both of you are trying to convince me OOC of something I strongly believe in OOC. Just good luck convincing me IC. :laugh4:

I fully agree. It's in your IC interest to vote against it. The Dukes should be the ones putting IC pressure on the Crusader Counts from their House to vote for the Amendment. For instance: vote for it or lose your County.

gibsonsg91921

07-28-2007, 16:46

I'm a freehold Count, so I can do whatever I want!

AussieGiant

07-28-2007, 16:48

Ahh, the politics of it all....I've not said that in so many words.

TinCow

07-28-2007, 16:50

I'm a freehold Count, so I can do whatever I want!

Unfortunately for GH, Conrad Salier is not. :laugh4: Though he's got a while yet before he has to deal with Duke Lothar.

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 16:51

I fully agree. It's in your IC interest to vote against it. The Dukes should be the ones putting IC pressure on the Crusader Counts from their House to vote for the Amendment. For instance: vote for it or lose your County.

Jan doesn't have a county. :laugh4:

One of the many reasons Ansehelm is having a difficult time with Jan. The PM's where Ansehelm was trying to convince Jan to vote for CA 11.4 were priceless.

:beam:

GeneralHankerchief

07-28-2007, 17:37

God, all of this RPing as a goody-two-shoes makes me sick. :laugh4:

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 17:50

Yeah, if I get much more piety and chivalry I will get into that myself. I still have traits which allow me to be basically good but they are low enough to allow myself some moral flexibility. :laugh4:

TinCow

07-28-2007, 17:50

God, all of this RPing as a goody-two-shoes makes me sick. :laugh4:

Well, you could always become a religious fanatic like Max. That's just an evil with a glossy finish. I swear that somehow I will find a way to be an ally of yours eventually, in the next game if not in KOTR. Our trend of creating characters that are totally incompatible is mind-bogglingly consistent. I still hold out hope that one day I will get my hands on an insane avatar.

Charter Amendment Aardvark: All generals must begin their battles facing backwards and must run at least three counterclockwise loops around the enemy before engaging in combat.

AussieGiant

07-28-2007, 17:50

Yes you're make me barf GH.

You're so nice it's excruciating. :laugh4:

I'm sure you want to swap and be dread hey!!

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 18:31

I wish there was a way to vote on some stuff right now and then vote on other stuff later. I am waffling on one piece of legislation and it has nothing to do with any IC promise. Hope I'm not making anyone bite their nails OOC but it would be funny if they were IC.

Stig

07-28-2007, 18:52

I'm a freehold Count, so I can do whatever I want!
Not when Gunther dies you are ~D

Jan doesn't have a county
And he'll have a hard time getting one if he goes on like this

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 19:00

Well, if CA 11.4 passes, Jan will have even less reason to listen to Ansehelm. Since Jan would already have the one county he is allowed by being a Crusader Count, there would be zero ambition to have one in Europe. Other Crusaders would have to make a choice though since they hold both kinds.

Also, does this mean the King loses his King influence no matter what? He gets to be a count but he can't be a Crusader Count (because he is the King) and the legislation leaves no wording saying what influence a King gets.

TinCow

07-28-2007, 19:15

Well, the King has been getting the +1 Crusader Count bonus since the position began, so I assume he will keep it. It isn't spelled out specifically, though, so there is room for argument/exploitation.

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 19:19

Well, I actually can not find anywhere in the original Outremer charter that specifically gives the King +1. It is in the Chancellor report thread but not the rules in the OOC thread. Maybe econ would like to throw in a small rule clarification that says "for purpose of influence, King of Outremer = Crusader Count". That would clear that up.

GeneralHankerchief

07-28-2007, 19:50

I guess it's too late to throw an OOC clarification in.

Any objections?

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 20:15

Well, I would like a clarification as to how much influence King Salier actually gets. Currently, he gets +1 for being a King even though I can not find it explicitly stated in the rules and he gets +1 for being a count.

If we go by the "spirit of the law" then he is by law a Crusader Count for purposes of influence since it is the only thing in the actual rules that bestows that on him.

If CA 11.4 passes, it puts the King in an interesting spot. If he is, in spirit, a Crusader Count, then the section of CA 11.4 that states, "They will gain +1 influence, but only if they are not already a Count in their Duchy," means that the King would automatically lose his Bavarian province. Unless he resigns immediately. If he is not, in spirit, a Crusader Count, then he shouldn't even have the +1 influence for being King and he gets to keep the +1 for being a count. Either way it seems like he is losing 1 influence but we do not seem to know from where.

Also, I find it interesting that the people pushing for this are using the argument that a Duke should have more influence than a Count but this legislation makes it almost impossible for a King to have more influence than his Crusaders. Even more ironic, is the fact that CA 11.4 makes Outremer more like a duchy while simultaneously hobbling the "Duke's" influence. First let me state why the King almost can't have more influence than his Crusaders and then I will address how CA 11.4 makes Outremer more of a Duchy. The only way the King can have more influence than his Crusaders, is if he is a chancellor, ex-chancellor, prince and all of his crusaders are none of those.

We OOC and IC keep stating that Outremer is not a Duchy but we are about to make it more like one. We already have in place a system where the King can bestow land upon his crusaders much like a Duke does. And the King is regarded as a Duke for purposes of army command. CA 11.4 will further give ducal power by:

(a). Allowing the King to have "house" edicts.
(b). Giving the option for Crusaders to essentially leave their own house by forcing them to abandon their lands in Europe if they want to have land in Outremer.

I would personally prefer to find a way for the King to keep a +1 influence for being King and a +1 influence for being a count. Either that or give the King +2 influence and make him renounce his county.

These are just my thoughts. Any suggestions? :book:

TinCow

07-28-2007, 20:22

I think you're totally off-base with your interpretation. CA 11.4 in no way requires a Crusader Count to relinquish any of their Duchy lands. It simply says you only get a +1 for being a Crusader Count if you're not already a Count in your Duchy. At the moment, that actually only applies to you (Jan von Hamburg). No one is required to relinquish anything, it simply prevents people from doubling up on Count and Crusader Count influence. Also, you say the King gets 'house' edicts from 11.4, which is totally false. He gets personal edicts, which are very different. The whole reason to put them in there is because it has been pointed out that the King doesn't actually have access to any House edicts of any kind, because he is forced to leave his Duchy. This means that without CA 11.4, the King only has access to 1 Edict proposal each Diet, which is a huge disadvantage. CA 11.4 is correcting that by giving him 2 more personal edicts.

Again, your statements that Crusaders have to abandon their lands in Europe is totally false.

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 20:26

Then I apologize that I read CA 11.4 wrong. Effectively my argument remains largely untouched. While Crusaders get to keep their land in Europe, they get no influence from it. So, again they can pretty much abandon their house for as long as they are a Crusader Count. And the edicts might be the King's but they still effectively act as "house" edicts while not being called "house" edicts. We have still effectively made Outremer more like a duchy while not calling it one. This is all fine with me but it is ironic because some of the same people who pushed for this have stated that Outremer should be less like a duchy.

So, the King is a King and not a Crusader Count? That means Conrad gets to keep both influence points because that part of CA 11.4 will not effect him? Sounds good to me if everyone else is cool with it. Though ideally we should figure out a OOC or IC rule change eventually to cover this.

TinCow

07-28-2007, 20:34

I don't see any possible way you could interpret the rules to say that. If the King is a Crusader Count and the 'leaving his House' clause doesn't strip him of his Bavarian County, he does not get a Crusader Count +1 because he has a Bavarian County. If he is a Crusader Count and is stripped of his Bavarian County by the 'leaving his House' clause, he gets +1 for being a Crusader Count. If he is not a Crusader Count, but doesn't lose his Bavarian County, he gets +1 for being a Bavarian Count. if he is not a Crusader Count AND loses his Bavarian County, he get nothing whatsoever.

How can he possibly get +2?

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 20:38

My point is, in my opinion, he should have +2. People want Dukes to have more influence than their counts but the King should have equal or less influence than his Crusaders?

I guess my big question is, exactly what clause in what rule gives King Salier +1 influence for being King of Outremer and is that clause still active if CA 11.4 is voted on?

TinCow

07-28-2007, 20:42

The only thing that can give the King a +1 for anything is the part of the Outremer law that gives all Crusader Counts +1. The question is whether the King is a Crusader Count, something which is not spelled out in the Diet and therefore subject to interpretation. Therefore I believe it is up to the Kaiser to determine if the King gets +1 or +0. It seems obvious that at the moment he will be given +1. If you think the King needs more than +1, that should be proposed in an Amendment at the next Diet because, as I said above, there is no way to interpret the law as giving him that if 11.4 passes. Hell, even if 11.4 doesn't pass, it actually looks like the King gets +1 and all all Crusader Counts get +2, because the King loses his Bavarian +1 because he has to leave his House.

For the record, Salier should also probably lose the right to post build queues for Nuremburg. If he's not in Bavaria, he can't be Count of Nuremburg, so he can't govern it.

Privateerkev

07-28-2007, 20:47

Yeah, that is definitely my interpretation of the letter of the law. I guess we have been playing with a "spirit of the law" that has been allowing him to have both. I guess amending the Outremer charter made me take a good hard look at the charter. And while I want the King to have a +1 King bonus, I could not find anything in the charter that gives it to him. And since we're amending the charter, I want to be clear on what it did say and what it will say when the CA passes.

Your points about the Kaiser giving the King +1 and the King losing his county due to being out of the house are very good ones. Its just that we have kept playing with the King having +2 while ignoring part of the charter.

So, if CA 11.4 passes, is Conrad losing 1 influence because:

(a) He can only get influence from either being a count or a crusader count, but not both.
or,
(b) He has never had a county the entire time he has been King but we have ignored that part of the charter.

If the CA does not pass, how much influence does Conrad have and does he have a Bavarian county?
If the CA does pass, how much influence does Conrad have and does he have a Bavarian county?

So, is this a case of the CA taking influence away from him or is it a case of us finally following something that has been in the charter the whole time?

PS: I am really digging this legal discussion! :book:

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 01:59

I must say CA 11.8 is going to remove half the role playing ability of any future avatar.

That's pretty difficult to swallow.

Plus...just how are people going to prevent me from executing prisoners in the actual game before I hand the save back...and believe me someone better have that concept line up because I gently stated the enforcement quesiton in the Diet.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 02:08

I figured we would just simply follow the rule. If the rule says hit the release button instead of the ransom or execute button, thats what you do. Its the same with loading FH's mod onto our computer, load only 2 units per boat, gift the AI or any other rule. Its a game mechanic. You can RP being mad about it as a character but I assume we would just follow the mechanic as players. I guess we can ask Econ what he wants to do should it pass. And that is assuming it will pass. It still has some hurdles to jump through.

Any other ideas?

Cecil XIX

07-29-2007, 02:12

I don't think it will affect roleyplaying at all. At least, I'm sure that if it does pass we'll hear no shortage of complaints throughout the term. Besides which, you can even try to get it repealed during the next session, something that will also provide more avenues for roleplaying.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 02:16

Cecil, the dread traits are directly related to killing prisioners, which directly affect retinue, names of characters and other traits.

If you release all prisioners everytime, you'll get a house full of squeaky clean GQ men pracing around telling the world their wonderful...:dizzy2:

IC enforecement needs to be addressed PK. While I agree that the rules are the rules, in this case IC Arnold's going to want to break the rules...what going to happen then?

It's getting even more exciting.:2thumbsup:

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 02:22

Yeah, if we as players are going to ignore CA 11.8 if it passes, then we might as well ignore the other rules too. If you don't like 4.5, just set the queues to your Duke's settlement. If you don't like 5.3, just set the queues to any settlement you want. If you don't like 5.7, move the princess over to a rebel stack with a general. If you don't like 7.2, just hit the crusade button. If you don't like 8, just make a stack full of forlorn hope. Don't like 3.3? Just shove your army into a neutral faction and attack.

See where I'm going with this? OOC we should all be cool with it. IC, RP how much you hate it.

Again, were assuming it will pass. Still a long way too go.

*edit*

IC enforecement needs to be addressed PK.

The same thing that stops you from loading 20 units on one ship should stop you from hitting the execute button if CA 11.8 passes.

StoneCold

07-29-2007, 02:46

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 02:52

Well, it is officially killed. So, the point is moot except to figure out what to do if we ever try it again. And I am sure Jan will.

So far in this voting session:

Matthias is Chancellor

Edicts 11.1, 11.3, 11.4, 11.7, 11.9, and 11.11 have passed

CA 11.2 passed

CA 11.8 is dead

The rest are still in the air in theory if everyone votes. We still are waiting on five more people to vote.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 02:54

and also it will effectively make the dread avatar less powerful, they has less trait related influence. their dread might reduce, and can never gain new dread traits and probably never be chivalrous anyway. I think... FH might be able to shed some light on that.

I'd thought of that also StoneCold. I'm going to be in a world of hurt characterwise if this goes through...what am I supposed to do?

And PK, all your points are valid...BUT, I don't have a problem with them so that's not what I am discussing.

I'm discussing IC how a potential behaviour modifying order is going to be enforced on my character in the game.

It's a very specific issue.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 02:57

Well like I just said, the bill is dead so we will not have to worry about it until next time. In theory I guess you would just have your avatar not do it just like you have him not do a lot of things. And then have your character complain in the Diet and arrange to have legislation passed to revoke the CA. Kind of like what we told Ignoramus on here a few days ago when he wanted to RP a revolution.

To prove that the bill is dead by math:

80 votes
28 votes against the bill
28 is more than 1/3 of 80
Therefore, bill is dead. :book:

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 03:02

Well like I just said, the bill is dead so we will not have to worry about it until next time. In theory I guess you would just have your avatar not do it just like you have him not do a lot of things. And then have your character complain in the Diet and arrange to have legislation passed to revoke the CA. Kind of like what we told Ignoramus on here a few days ago when he wanted to RP a revolution.

Yeah I can see that being an idea. There's still votes to go though. I'm not sure how many people but it's based in influence not straight numbers so the individual votes get distorted when the count is done...

...but, I guess you have some type of live vote tracking device at hand no? :beam:

econ21

07-29-2007, 03:11

Yeah, if we as players are going to ignore CA 11.8 if it passes, then we might as well ignore the other rules too.

I think there are distinctions between rules. Some are OOC game mechanics (e.g. the Chancellor controls the save), others are IC policy decisions (e.g. no exterminating). I think players are free to break IC rules, but there would potentially be political consequences. For example, Chancellor Hummel broke some edicts and was impeached as a result.

If CA 11.8 passed, I can imagine Arnold or Anselhelm breaking it, and there then being a furore in the Diet with various sanctions being proposed.

In retrospect, I think CA 11.8 (a) was too chivalrous to pass. (b) seems less demanding (particularly given the pre-existing constraint on occupying more settlements).

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 03:19

That's what I was looking at Econ.

I'd say he was prepared to break the rules and see what happened :inquisitive:

I had the lawyers working out my defence as we speak :laugh4:

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 03:23

Yeah I can see that being an idea. There's still votes to go though. I'm not sure how many people but it's based in influence not straight numbers so the individual votes get distorted when the count is done...

...but, I guess you have some type of live vote tracking device at hand no? :beam:

No live vote tracking. Well, kinda but a pretty archaic one. I wrote down everyone's "vote power" and added it up. It adds to 80. If you need 2/3 to pass a CA, then 54 will make you golden. But, if less people vote then the number changes.

Lets look at CA 11.8

If you add up everyone who voted yes, you get 36
Everyone against, before NN, was 23.
At this point we still had a chance.
Then FH logs off without voting and won't be back until voting is over.
This puts the total down to 75.
Even if we got every other un-voted vote to vote yes, that would still only leave us at 47 (adding Kag's 4, OK's 5, Ig's 1, and Warluster's 1)
47/75 is less than 2/3's (0.626666666666666666666666666ect..)

So, mathmatically, it could not have passed once FH logged off. So, I stayed quiet as Arnold was railing and panicking and twisting Zirn's arms off. While Zirn voting no makes it "officially" dead (since 28/80 is more than 1/3 needed if you factor in every possible voter) it was already "effectively" dead since it never was going to get all the yes votes it needed.

*edit*

I am actually wrong on this. I forgot to factor in NN as voting for the bill in the pre-NN-no-vote/post-FH-log-off phase. If he voted for the bill after FH logged off, along with the rest of the un-voted, it would add to 52. 52/75 would put it to .6933333333333ect.. which would have passed. So, it actually was Zirn that killed the bill. Arnold would be proud. :D

TevashSzat

07-29-2007, 03:30

Hmm..I think CA 11.1 is gonna pass :)

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 03:37

If the vote stays as is, CA 11.1 will pass. It has 50 for it with only 14 against it. 50/64 is way more than 2/3

But, if every unclaimed vote voted no, then it would fail. There are 16 unclaimed votes. 50/80 is less than 2/3

I don't call bills until they mathematically could not pass or fail which is why I didn't call it yet.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 03:45

So a question here on voting...god I feel like I'm back at uni.

If we know the total vote is 80 but people fail to vote is what PK doing correct?

That is, he reduces the numbers to those who actively vote and move the numbers down accordingly?

If you don't vote should this be included in the overall thing or not.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 03:48

Well, I only call bills when they mathematically can not possibly pass or fail. Since I am assuming we are not taking in new players in the last hours of voting, we have a closed possible number of votes. If people do not vote, then it does change the number. But, I do not call a bill unless it hits the magic 41 for edicts or 54 for CA's. That is the point that it can not mathematically fail. Just like I do not call a bill failed until it hits 41 no votes for edicts and 27 no votes for CA's.

If you want to know if a bill will pass now while voting is still going on, then I need to factor in who has voted and not voted. Like I said to Xdeathfire, CA 11.1 will pass if the vote ends this second. But, if every un-voted vote votes no, then CA 11.1 will fail.

*edit*

I realized I didn't really answer your question. Your asking if Econ takes the votes cast as a total or the votes possible. I believe he takes the votes cast but I use the votes possible while voting is going on. When voting is over, econ will see if an edict has a majority of yes votes, not if it hit 41. An edict can pass if it has less than 41 yes votes as long as less people vote. For a CA, econ will see if a CA gets 2/3 of the votes that voted, not 2/3 of the possible votes. Practically, more edicts and CA's will pass than what I listed but I do not want to call them because there is a small possibility that they will shift enough into the other category. Like CA 11.1 to use again as an example. It will in all likelihood pass but there is a slight possibility of failure if you factor in everyone who has yet to vote.

flyd

07-29-2007, 06:52

Knock it off with the math already. Germans weren't good at math until Leibniz came along. :laugh4:

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 07:06

Well, seeing as it is the OOC thread, we don't have to pretend were German.

:laugh4:

OverKnight

07-29-2007, 07:39

Hey all,

econ has asked me to keep specific stats on battles, to know what he's looking for so we can include them in the battle reports, please look at his own table from Henry's Chancellorship contained in this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1559194&postcount=156).

Stuperman

07-29-2007, 07:58

Hey guys, I haven't really been keeping up this weekend, but has ajjccio been given to a house yet?

Edit: Apparently it has been ignored in the Report....?

OverKnight

07-29-2007, 08:35

The new Kaiser has not distributed any Imperial lands.

Currently Paris, Rome and Ajaccio are Imperial. I don't think that econ has updated the list to include Ajaccio in the Chancellor's report section yet.

Edit: @Stuperman, I still control Milan, only the King of Outremer gives up his house.

Ituralde

07-29-2007, 10:32

Hey there,

I'd better say it here for everyone, but I won't be able to access the game or the internet Monday through Wednesday. That means specifically that I can't fight my own battles, nor those of AussieGiant.

And I have specifically not gifted any land yet. Regarding Ajaccio, wouldn't that province fall under the CA limiting expansion and would have to be voted upon to be included in the Empire? It should have been done during the last Diet session, shouldn't it?

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 10:49

Hey Ituralde,

Hope everything is going well.

Do you still want to fight my battles while I am away? I forgot to ask you again after so long.

It's a long stint this time. I'm away now and wont be back until the 2nd of October.

Let me know either way. I think I have some back up guy's incase.

And yes the current legislation is a 2 phased approach. You have to get permission to attack it then you have to get permission at the following session to keep it or it is rebelled or gifted or whatever.

Cheers
AG

FactionHeir

07-29-2007, 11:25

I thought Warluster assigned Paris to Swabia when he became emperor?

Regarding avatar shortage if settlements are lost: its very easy to make avatars hirable, includiding price and availability. So if we have a shortage and want everyone to have an avatar, thats the way to go, note it only makes generals, no family members, but they can be adopted, married or just stick around as bachelors.

Regarding Dukes. My plan for the next PBM (I was favoring France tbh, although Russia would also be interesting) was to make Dukes able to bind Counts and Counts able to bind barons. The way it would work would be that generals can be hired to everyone starts off with one. Those in the royal family can become dukes and counts. Generals can be bound to counts as Barons. Everyone is free to vote the way they want and influence bonus is not due to position but to the people you bound. So i.e. Duke has 1 influence, and his counts are his bonus if they vote with him. Barons tend to support their counts as they may risk losing any vote (they start with no influence and cannot vote unless bound)
Of course thats nothing to worry about at this stage and irrelevant to KOTR really. As for mods, im planning to make 2 versions of KOTRfix, one for PBM, one for general.

Legislation. Dread generals arent that disadvantaged with releasing as thats only 1 line of many. However they would gin chiv from it, which is bad.

OK, need to run again, will hopefully be back in about 4 hours or so.

OverKnight

07-29-2007, 11:34

Ituralde, can you play today? You've got a large battle this year.

If not, who do you designate as your second?

AG, if you wish, I can fight your battles when Ituralde is away. That way we save an additional save swap.

I will be posting a battle queue shortly.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 11:59

Alright OK, you can fight my battles to stream line things.

You know the rules of engagement though? :2thumbsup:

Another thing.

After reading Ituralde's IC Diet comment, I believe we have a number of tasks to conduct once the results are confirmed.

Including a number of Edict and CA's that seem to overlap and a number of votes and discussions to organise.

Am I reading all that correctly?

OverKnight

07-29-2007, 12:43

I'm going to be copying FLYdude's style as it worked well.

We currently have two battles for 1260, I will be fighting AG's battle:

Count Peter von Kastilien:

You have assumed command of the Franconian Household Army. There is a Polish army directly north of you. Destroy it so the Teutonic Crusade can have a clear path when they deploy.

Kaiser Siegfried:

You face a new Danish force directly northwest of Hamburg. Your army has been reinforced temporarily from Hamburg. Drive the Danes from our lands.

You know the rules, first come first serve. Only claim the save right before you fight, and upload it right after and post a link for the next person. I will need casualty screens.

Here's the save: http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pbm/kotr1260-2.zip

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 13:15

Now don't CA 11.3 and the part of CA 11.4 that deals with edicts and CA's in an overlap manner for Outremer

Don't CA's 11.1 and 11.7 also over lap and require clarification. This deals with the poll econ has posted up about succession. There seems to be an overlap of how this is to be done.

And finally doesn't CA 11.6 and part of CA 11.4 (CA 9.1 point 4) also need to be worked out as they both speak about Outremer succession

We need to tie break this don't we.

I've never seen this since I was looking at law in 2nd year uni!!

My word.

TC, we need to give you the usual 400 bucks to sort this out I suppose!!??

TevashSzat

07-29-2007, 13:42

I believe CA 11.1 should take precedence since its a CA while 11.7 is only an edict

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 13:53

I believe CA 11.1 should take precedence since its a CA while 11.7 is only an edict

I'm talking about CA's 11.1 and CA 11.7. Plus now you mention edicts then Edict 11.9 also deals with succession.

Now we have a three way. Which would be fine normally but not when it comes to legislation...Boom Boom.

TinCow

07-29-2007, 14:48

FactionHeir

07-29-2007, 14:51

Well, dont assume. Things are bound to go wrong that way :tongue:
Kind of funny both passed. But then I personally wasnt aware that 11.4 was supposed to cut Outremers power, but to fix the extra CC point and give Dukes a few more influence and raise the cap in general.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 14:51

As I just complained in the Diet, it looks to me like 11.3 and 11.4 are both in effect. I should have included a "If this Amendment passes, Amendment 11.3 is void" clause. I didn't expect you people would be so dense as to vote them both in... :wall:

Dense....it's gone beyond dense...we clearly have no idea what we are doing anymore...I had a suscpicion but I wasn't able to study all this enough.

Please have a look at my other "itches" that something is wrong TC.

I think it gets worse.

TC clearly we need to see which one's overlap and use the tie breaking rule to pick one. Can you first determine which ones do overlap.

Then Econ can work out the numbers and put them in order of strength...even then we should take the one that has the most concensus at this time.

FactionHeir

07-29-2007, 14:54

I was trying to keep a clear head voting, but that isnt easy when the voting clock tells you, you got 5 mins left and you have yet to read 2 pages of diet and 6 pages of OOC at the same time :grin:

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 14:58

I was trying to keep a clear head voting, but that isnt easy when the voting clock tells you, you got 5 mins left and you have yet to read 2 pages of diet and 6 pages of OOC at the same time :grin:

It's no one's fault. The voting was pretty clear in most cases.

we need to have a better handle on it in future. The only way I can see this is to keep the person edicts to one each and then take out a number of Outremer and Ducal edicts to one as well.

Now we really have to get ourselves out of this mess as fast as possible so OK can play the game.

TinCow

07-29-2007, 15:09

Re: 11.4 v. 11.6, I don't see a problem. The stuff about succession in 11.4 is just the normal text from CA 9.1, nothing changed. It looks like 11.6 should've said that it was editing a part of CA 9.1, but even so it's not that bad. CA 9.1 says the King is appointed by the Emperor, while 11.6 says the King is appointed by the Emperor and makes other rules on top of it. So, 11.6 does not contradict anything currently in effect, it just adds to it. I say just stick 11.6 into the Charter as it stands and I will do another 'Charter Text Clean-up Amendment' at the next session.

Yes, I believe 11.1 and 11.7 directly overlap and contradict each other. So, under Rule 3.5, "the one with the most votes takes priority."

OverKnight

07-29-2007, 15:11

Unless an emergency session is held, I am playing the game. Once the battles have been fought, 1260 is about over.

While important, the game can continue while we figure out who is Kaiser. Think of it as a long parlimentary process that takes years.

Everyone take a deep breath. Just because Queen Elizabeth gets a cold doesn't meen Prime Minister Brown stops working.

Cecil XIX

07-29-2007, 15:51

I don't see a problem with CA 11.3 and 11.4. Seems we just gave the King of Outremer the ability to propose three edicts, two of which must be related to Outremere and all of which must be seconded by Crusader Counts. Where's the problem there?

GeneralHankerchief

07-29-2007, 16:24

Because some people (read: TinCow) were complaining that it gives the Crusader Counts access to too many Edicts.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 16:28

So here goes in laymans terms gentlemen:

Overlap 1.

CA 11.3 says the King gets 3 edicts or CA’s and they have to be seconded before tabling. That passed so he has those.

CA 11.4 says the King gets up to 3 personal edicts and 2 have to pertain to Outremer.

That passed so he has those too.

These are running at the same time. Therefore at the moment the King gets 3 Ducal type edicts and now 3 personal edicts of which 2 must have something to do with Outremer.

He now has 6.

So we really need to work out which has precendent and remove one of them.

Overlap 2.

CA 11.1 is clearly understood in the poll. As it passed.

CA 11.7 says if there is a dispute over rules then the Kaiser works it out. If the dispute is about the Kaiser then the Dukes will decide, with the Kaiser splitting the vote. This passed.

Now I say there is a "dispute" about the Kaiser's succession. If you agree with that then in that case the four dukes must vote on the issue with the Kaiser splitting the vote. This is runnign parallel to the voting going on right now in CA 11.1

PLUS Edict 11.9 says basically. If the DUCAL Diet voting doesn’t find a clear winner in the succession issue (which I assume is dealing with CA 11.7 as that is the only vote with just the Dukes) then a vote will be given to every one to determine a clear winner.

This is basically a back up to CA 11.7 which is totally redundant as the Kaiser would split the vote.

So we really need to decide whether a "dispute" in CA 11.7 means the Kaiser succession problem or not. If it does mean thats then we have to work out if the Dukes vote first in CA 11.7 or the whole lot os us vote in CA 11.1

God damn it I feel like I'm back at work :beam:

Overlap 3. There is no overlap I just realised.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 16:29

*Looks at the legal snarl after waking up*

this...is...hilarious! :laugh4:

I think a lot or people were not thinking very hard on a lot of the stuff they voted on because there was so much horse trading going on. Many people voted for things because it guaranteed that other people would vote for their things.

Jan, and by extension myself tried to :book: all of these rules and just ended up :dizzy2:

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 16:31

I agree PK it was quite funny.

I'd like everyone to read my post while I go and have a shower.

I think I'm on the money here as they would say at my place of work.

Take a moment and let me know.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 16:50

One point I have is,

Does CA 11.3 and CA 11.4 truly overlap? One gives 3 personal edicts. One gives 3 house edicts. I am finding this absolutely hilarious. Seven people voted for both. I suggest that those who are unhappy with this find those seven people IC and yell at them loudly.

:laugh4:

GeneralHankerchief

07-29-2007, 16:53

Does CA 11.3 and CA 11.4 truly overlap? One gives 3 personal edicts. One gives 3 house edicts.

https://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n231/GeneralHankerchief/TorturePalpatine2321.jpg

"Power!!! UN-LIM-IT-ED POWER!!!"

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 16:56

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 16:56

Hey, thats what seven people voted for. Seven people voted to (a) change the Outremer charter to give the King 3 edicts and (b) to add a CA that gives the King 3 more edicts. I am not saying that it is a good thing. But, all because we do not like something, doesn't mean we should just automatically claim that they overlap. It is the law of the land and people will just have to figure out a way to change it IC next Diet.

*edit*

We are supposed to figure out voter intentions!?! We can't even do that in real life! :laugh4:

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 16:57

https://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n231/GeneralHankerchief/TorturePalpatine2321.jpg

"Power!!! UN-LIM-IT-ED POWER!!!"

I guess that's where I was aiming at GH LMAO!! You beat me too it.

and to be specific if we have to I will quote my point verbatum in the Diet IC.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 16:59

Hey, I hear ya. I IC and OOC thought having both CA's activate would be a horrible idea. But, it seems like that has happened. Look at the polls, find the seven people that voted yes for both, and shake their shoulders screaming at them, "What the !@#$ were you thinking!?!?!"

:laugh4:

StoneCold

07-29-2007, 17:00

GH, tat's is not really power, you still need people to vote for it... :P

Damn, I didn't realise till now we have 2 lawyers in our midst. I always tot there is only TC... :P.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 17:07

So what are we going to do about both of them?

I think the tie breaker rule would be best.

The CA's and edicts should be classified as tie breaker in both topics and the strongest should overule all the others.

If we leave it as be then ironically with even more edict and CA slots out at the next session it will become even more complex and have a great chance of this happening again.

If it is to be left as is then the Succession voting thing is going to be long and drawn out as the Ducal/Kaiser vote needs to be posted and voted on. Then we can carry on working out which one is to prevail...keeping in mind the edict 11.9 would come into effect as CA 11.1 would make CA 11.7 "unclear" and lead to edict 11.9 activation...and guess what. edict 11.9 and CA 11.1 are very similar and involve everyone voting...

....see how screwy we have become :beam: :yes:

GeneralHankerchief

07-29-2007, 17:08

GH, tat's is not really power, you still need people to vote for it... :P

Okay, fine. Have it your way.

https://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n231/GeneralHankerchief/TorturePalpatine2321.jpg

Edicts!!! UN-LIM-IT-ED EDICTS!!!"

Better?

Cecil XIX

07-29-2007, 17:09

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 17:15

I see no reason why CA 11.3 and 11.4 together should give the King six votes. 11.3 does not give the King 'personal' edicts, that word does not appear anywhere. It only says that that the King should get three edicts, something that is also said in 11.4. That fact that they both say the same thing just means they are in agreement, not that they are cumulative.

In fact, the only thing in 11.3 that isn't in 11.4 is the condition that the edicts need to be seconded by two Crusader counts. The passage of both 11.3 and 11.4 together simply means that the King has three House Edicts, all of which must be seconded by two Crusader Counts and two of which must pertain to Outremer affairs.

I'm not being deliberately argumentative Cecil but why are they then in two separate edicts if that was the intention?

While I agree your common sense approach could be taken, I think you'd have to have everyone agree to that interpretation before it is taken as the version.

The fact you need to do this right after a vote on the topic proves the overlapping nature of the two edicts taken as seperate pieces of legislation.

I'm certainly happy to take that approach. Anyone else?

What about the succession voting issue though?

TinCow

07-29-2007, 17:20

11.3 gives Outremer the equivalent of the Ducal House Edicts. 11.4 gives the King himself extra personal edicts, something that no one else in the game has. These do not overlap. Keep in mind, the 11.3 Edicts also apply to all Crusader Counts. So all Crusader Counts now have access to 1 personal edict, 3 Ducal House edicts, and 3 Outremer edicts. This is exactly what I was complaining about.

Ituralde

07-29-2007, 17:22

I'm gonna post this here, to avoid multiple PMs.

First thing, I won't be able to fight the battle, as I currently can't access the game. :thumbsdown:

econ21 could you step in, considering you are the Prince and all? If not, maybe some Franconian could do the honours. I hadn't expected OK to send me off to battle just yet, that's why I didn't plan for this in advance, sorry.

As to the outcomes of the various things that just passed, it'll be quite interesting, and should Siegfried remain Emperor, I'll try to sort it out. Rules Dispute, anyone. :beam:

GeneralHankerchief

07-29-2007, 17:23

TC, just make sure Lothar knows that Conrad voted against 11.3.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 17:25

Cecil XIX

07-29-2007, 17:32

To answer AussieGiant's question, I assume that 11.3 was written to give the King of Outremer the equivalent of a Duke's house edicts without increasing the Duke's voting power to compensate.

Regardless, there is nothing in the wording of 11.3 that makes the three edicts of 11.3 seperate from those of 11.4.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 17:32

The question is, is that what everyone intended in the context of our discussion in and out of character.

Technically there is no dispute. Both are running parallel and therefore give the King 6 combination edicts and or CA's.

I will find it hard to believe that this was what everyone intended in the context of our discussions...and I'm sure there is more than enough quotes to show that.

As for the succession voting issues then I believe I have outlined the situation well and we therefore also have a few things to discuss OOC as to what was intended in the context of our confused voting.

We have two votes to technical table and to keep consitency that 5 person vote needs to be posted up also. This is limited to the 4 dukes or stand in's plus the Kaiser.

How does everyone wish to proceed?

Since when have we had to figure out "voter intention"? Before any edict or CA activates, we have to first ask every voter what they really meant when they voted? People vote for all sorts of reasons. My guess is many people voted for both for political reasons. I know you will all be shocked that politics factor in the voting booth but please bare with me. A lot of people voted for CA 11.4 to please their Dukes. And people voted for CA 11.3 to appease the King because the Crusaders are a voting bloc. Ansehelm just said in the Diet that he meant to vote for both and saw no problem with the King getting 6 edicts. I think people wanted a way to both show loyalty to their Dukes and the King. This happens all the time in voting. And we provided people the opportunity by proposing both CA's in the same session. This is a good example of the unintended consequences of elections. I say we leave this as is. If the combination of CA's made the game "unplayable", then I would be all for scrapping one CA. But it doesn't. It just gives one faction more of one kind of power. So, RP it and build a coalition to pass something that changes it next time.

Just my :2cents:

*edit*

Upon a more careful reading of Ansehelm's post in the Diet, I no longer think he said that.

Ituralde

07-29-2007, 17:36

I am afraid (or rather not) that to sorting through this mess will be the job of the next Emperor.

Another thing that's missing right now, is how to go about CA 11.1 and Edict 11.9. My advise would be to say that CAs count more than Edicts and therefore the succession is resolved through CA 11.1. I would say this as Emperor too, but then people might think, this directly involves the Emperor in a rules dispute, meaning that I'd first have to ask all four Dukes for more input. Whoever voted for CA 11.1 and CA 11.7 just turned the game into a voting nightmare.

An interesting thing about CA 11.1 by the way, is the fact, that this time it really is not about the relation of votes cast, but the total amount of votes. It says that 1/4 of the voting power is required. According to PK that should be 20 or 21.

Maybe it should bear repeating what I said IC that especially in the case of CAs people should really think these things through to the end, before casting their votes. Especially the whole Siegfried succession would have been better solved via Edicts, but that's just my opinion, of course. :beam:

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 17:40

Yes, the total voting power for this election cycle is 80. Though, if we are saying that CA 11.4 is active, it actually goes down. Five influence points are gone so it goes to 75. Well, one gets negated because Matthias is Chancellor so it is really 76. So, its either 20 or 19 that is needed depending on what day we are pretending the voting is held on. If the succession voting is on the same day as the edict voting, then the target number is 20. If it is the day after, then it is 19.

Ituralde

07-29-2007, 17:44

It's definetly after, otherwise there wold be no Edict or CA in place to call for the voting.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 17:47

That is a really good point. So, we just need 19. And 15 have already called for an investigation.

AussieGiant

07-29-2007, 18:03

Since when have we had to figure out "voter intention"? Before any edict or CA activates, we have to first ask every voter what they really meant when they voted? People vote for all sorts of reasons. My guess is many people voted for both for political reasons. I know you will all be shocked that politics factor in the voting booth but please bare with me. A lot of people voted for CA 11.4 to please their Dukes. And people voted for CA 11.3 to appease the King because the Crusaders are a voting bloc. Ansehelm just said in the Diet that he meant to vote for both and saw no problem with the King getting 6 edicts. I think people wanted a way to both show loyalty to their Dukes and the King. This happens all the time in voting. And we provided people the opportunity by proposing both CA's in the same session. This is a good example of the unintended consequences of elections. I say we leave this as is. If the combination of CA's made the game "unplayable", then I would be all for scrapping one CA. But it doesn't. It just gives one faction more of one kind of power. So, RP it and build a coalition to pass something that changes it next time.

Just my :2cents:

Ok so we go as voted on and work it out IC. Cecil's interpretation is then incorrect?

At this time I'd like to point out the number edicts and CA's at the next session will be possibly double.

What happens with the dual voting then?

Using the same logic there needs to be another poll set up for the Dukes to decide in conjunction with the Kaiser about the "dispute" on succession.

Are we to do that also? If we don't we are essentially ignoring a whole CA.

GeneralHankerchief

07-29-2007, 18:05

Originally this PBM was supposed to favor the Executive more too... :wall:

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 18:13

Actually, I am wrong again about my numbers. I forgot that all Dukes get one more vote now. So, 76 plus 4 more puts it back to 80. So, 20 becomes the magic number again. And we have 17 that have voted for an investigation. :book:

GH: Thats what happens when you introduce a democratic apparatus. People tend to make it more democratic. :laugh4:

Stig

07-29-2007, 18:50

17? How can 3 people come to 17 if only 2 are Dukes?

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 20:57

voting power = 1 elector vote + influence

Duke Arnold for example gets 1 elector vote + 2 stat influence + 3 Duke influence.

Duke Arnold, Duke Scherer, Duke Gerhard, and Han all voted yes so thats 6+6+6+5 which brings the total yes vote to 23. 23 is at least 1/4 of 80 so there will be a Duke/King council now.

Ituralde

07-29-2007, 21:02

This is definitely a bad time for me to be gone until Wednesday, but there's little I can do about it. I look forward to reading about your choice Wednesday. And remember that there's still the matter of Edict 11.9 to think about. You should maybe make an official announcement, that the Dukes either want or don't want to call a public vote concerning Siegfrieds status.

See you on Wednesday!

Ituralde

Stig

07-29-2007, 21:30

so there will be a Duke/King council now.
Not untill the poll is over ~D
I think I'll better PM DG a summary of what has happened, poor him, coming back now ~D

TinCow

07-29-2007, 21:33

God I hate to sound like a total twat but we really need some type of steering committee if we are going to have this resolved.

I vote for TC and Econ (sorry guy's). The two of them can take a number of different approaches to getting it sorted out and ask the group for any major decisions should they need them.

I don't think we really need to worry about the CA 11.3 v. CA 11.4 problem. It only deals with creating edicts, and I will propose a Charter Language Cleanup Amendment at the next session like I did earlier in the game. As long as it passes, the only result is that the Crusader Counts will get access to extra edicts for one session. I can live with that.

The Emperor things... well... that's so heavily IC involved that I'd like to stay away from adjudicating on it OOC. I'm inclined to let the Dukes and the Emperor fight it out to figure out how this is all supposed to work, since they proposed it in the first place. Of course, the Emperor gets the final say if something is unclear... If you don't want to him have the final say about a certain aspect of this situation, your best bet is to show why (whatever it is) is perfectly clear and therefore doesn't require a dispute resolution by the Kaiser.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 21:38

Not untill the poll is over ~D
I think I'll better PM DG a summary of what has happened, poor him, coming back now ~D

Well, it is true that there will not be a duke council until the polls are closed. But, no matter who else votes or how they vote, the decision will be the same. 1/4 of the voting power has already voted yes. So, the rest is extraneous and will do absolutely nothing to effect that particular outcome.

My point was that the decision is made and can not be changed unless we agree to let a bunch of new players join the game today which is unlikely to say the least. I assume we freeze the total vote power for the duration of the poll being open anyways, so it wouldn't matter if a dozen new electors popped up. As far as I know, the 80 is solid until the poll is over. Since the 80 is solid, it just takes 20 yes votes to activate the Duke council. We already have 20 yes votes. :book:

Stig

07-29-2007, 21:41

Please, cut the maths, I quit that over a year ago and am still happy I don't need to do it anymore. Now even 80 divided by 20 is too much for me ~D

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 21:48

Well, math is the only way econ can figure out voting tallies. So, if I want to figure out voting tallies before voting is over, I need math. I don't do this in my head. I use a couple of spreadsheets I made and the handy dandy computer calculator. :book:

Though I have gotten to the point where I've memorized almost everyone's voting power. :beam:

We did not set a very high bar for calling for Duke Councils. Heck it is easier to call a council on succession issues than it is to block a CA. :laugh4:

Stig

07-29-2007, 21:50

Aye, the CA says LARGE dispute, I wouldn't call 4 people out of 16 (or what is it) a large majority

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 21:52

We have 19 total players at the moment. And your right, 4 is not a lot. But, the CA clearly states that we just need 1/4 of the "voting power" to activate the Duke Council. Its now the law of the land.

Stig

07-29-2007, 21:54

That is unless we cannot agree on which to use Edict 11.9 or CA 11.1
Ansehelm simply said CA 11.1, but he knows "poo" all about things like this, having grown up in the far north and such, problem is people believed him. I don't know the rules on this kind of a dispute.

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 22:02

I think we are making it up as we go along. :laugh4:

Also:

Next to that concerning the Kaiser, this Diet has made many mistakes. First of all the will of Kaiser Jobst, any man loyal to the Reich would follow that. They who vote against Kaiser Siegfried are not loyal to the Reich. People who are not loyal to their country should be hung, banned atleast.

Do you realize that Ansehelm just called for Duke Arnold, Duke Scherer, Duke Gunther, and Count Hans to be hung!?!? Boy thats going to go over well...

:laugh4:

Stig

07-29-2007, 22:07

Well they don't want the last letter of Kaiser Jobst to be followed, that's their problem.
I see no argument that could even be against Siegfried

Privateerkev

07-29-2007, 22:23

IC I agree that it is obvious who is Kaiser. But, OOC, arguing over succession has made for some great RP'ing. And I think Ansehelm just kicked the debate up a notch! :laugh4:

Calling for Duke Arnold to swing from a noose is probably going to spice up Diet discussions! :2thumbsup:

econ21

07-30-2007, 00:54

I've posted a provisional ruling on the rules disputes in the Diet.

On the succession, I started the CA 11.1 poll without thinking of Edict 11.9, but I think it works out ok. We resolve the poll/Council issue following CA 11.1, then the Dukes say if they are all happy as per Edict 11.9. If they are not, we have a Diet vote.

On the King of Outremer, I suspect the strict literal ruling is the one our resident lawyer TC gave - the King has 6 votes. However, it seems just the kind of ambiguous issue that the Charter allows the Kaiser to decide, so I think we just let him do that.

One point about the succession issue - the current dispute is fitting IC, but the big OOC constraint has always been that we can't transfer the faction leader or faction heir trait in a simple way (I think FH established we could use the consol to give the faction heir trait, but the original faction heir would have to die for our pick to inherit). If we had been able to transfer these traits from the get-go, we would not have a Chancellor, we would have an elected Kaiser, which is what the historical HRE had.

But given that we can't readily control who has the faction heir trait, the Charter envisaged the Kaiser role being rather apolitical and somewhat akin to the Senate speaker in WotS or a gamesmaster. GH moved the role on somewhat from that, but regardless, I think the fact that the selection of faction leader is rather out of our control could be regarded as a virtue. It means the Kaiser has some independence from the Diet. If we had a Kaiser who was just not doing the OOC job, then I would not be averse to some shenanigans to depose him. But otherwise, I would rather we just roll with whatever punches the game throws at us.

We could just ignore the computer's faction leader and faction heir traits like we did in WotS. But personally I think that is rather ugly and avoiding that ugliness why we dreamed up the role of Kaiser as umpire/gamesmaster in the first place. This issue is relevant to the current dispute if it is decided Siegfried is not Kaiser; and also to CA 11.2 if the player controlling the Kaiser chooses a different Prinz to who the game designates as the faction heir.

econ21

07-30-2007, 01:16

First thing, I won't be able to fight the battle, as I currently can't access the game. :thumbsdown:

econ21 could you step in, considering you are the Prince and all?

OK, I've just looked at the forces involved and it looks like quite a fun, even battle. It would be a shame to rush it (don't want another Kaiser killed by his Prinz :eyebrows:) so I'll get some sleep and fight it tomorrow morning.

gibsonsg91921

07-30-2007, 01:19

is it ok if i fight my battle tomorrow night CST? (right now its 7:15 PM CST) i may be able to fight it earlier, but if im nearing the deadline and i havent picked up the save someone else can take it, like stig or ituralde or pk or something

TinCow

07-30-2007, 01:37

My opinion on the Kaiser succession is just to let it play out IC. If the end result is that the title Kaiser is bestowed on someone other than the in-game Kaiser, we can just mentally (and, in the Library, via Photoshop) transfer all 'Kaiser' related traits from the OOC Kaiser to the IC Kaiser. The same with the Prince. That's relatively easy and doesn't involve hacking the game at all. Again, that would only be required if the Kaiser actually does change. I would hate to stifle the way it has developed IC just to avoid some extra cutting and pasting.

AussieGiant

07-30-2007, 02:19

GeneralHankerchief

07-30-2007, 03:16

Any objections to a creation of a "Deliberation of the Dukes" thread?

gibsonsg91921

07-30-2007, 03:45

not from here, no

Privateerkev

07-30-2007, 03:48

Any objections to a creation of a "Deliberation of the Dukes" thread?

Just to be contrary, I will object. I have no idea why. It just seems like the thing to do. I will arbitrarily decide that "Deliberation of the Dukes" threads can only be created on the 3rd sunday that falls on a full moon in the year of the monkey. :clown:

flyd

07-30-2007, 04:30

I'd like to propose that the Dukes be given their own house on the grounds that they will soon have a thread.

OverKnight

07-30-2007, 04:34

OverKnight wakes up and has some coffee. He reads the threads and decides to "Irish up" his caffeine.

We've still got about 30 hours to go on both battles. If econ21 (as Siegfried) and gibsonsg91921 can fight those battles and get them back to me by 1200 GMT Tuesday, that's cool.

I would like Avatars, when possible, to fight their own battles. However as long as we have a clearly designated second, that's good too. So gibson, if you can't fight it in time, which one person is your alternate? I don't mean to be persnickety, but if the battle ends up a disaster or involves an avatar death, I want a clear line of permission and responsibility.

Now as for CA 11.7. I wrote the damn thing, and my intent was to avoid a situation where the Emperor used his "umpire" power to his own advantage, for example when Heinrich ruled that Prinz Henry couldn't call an Emergency Session when the Kaiser was present in the Diet during the "Second Investiture Crisis". It was not meant to be used in the current succession debate because more specific legislation pertaining to that issue had been passed. I apologize for any confusion.

Of course I realize that once Legislation is passed, it is free to be interpreted independent of the proposer's intent. I just thought I'd muddle the water even further. :laugh4:

Oh well Matthias will be happy to rule with one less check on his power. :evilgrin: I'd suggest you resolve this issue quickly.

Privateerkev

07-30-2007, 05:48

I'd like to propose that the Dukes be given their own house on the grounds that they will soon have a thread.

Yes, and they should lock themselves in this house and never come back out.

:laugh4:

Ignoramus

07-30-2007, 06:58

Wolfgang would like to return to Swabia, OverKnight, as it's getting too crowded in the east.

Sorry for not voting on the polls, I have been extremely busy the last few days, and it is nearly impossible to adequately follow Diet or OOC proceedings in a short space of time.

OverKnight

07-30-2007, 07:38

Okay Ignoramus, I'll see what I can do about transport once I get the save back.

econ21

07-30-2007, 10:15

Any objections to a creation of a "Deliberation of the Dukes" thread?

No, go ahead. I make it that those voting for the Council have 21 votes out of the 83 total in the game, so there is a 1/4 vote for the Council.

EDIT: this will be constituted under CA 11.1, so will include Salier. I don't see CA 11.7 coming into play with the succession - I don't there is a dispute over the rules with the succession; it is more political.

AussieGiant

07-30-2007, 10:34

Ok so we can get away from CA 11.7 then.

Just a question then...is Dutch Guy in or out for this?

Is Stig taking his place I mean?

econ21

07-30-2007, 10:59

Dutch_guy voted, so I assume he is around and can join in. He could send Stig in his stead if he is busy, but otherwise I would reserve a seat for him.

AussieGiant

07-30-2007, 11:08

Thanks econ.

FactionHeir

07-30-2007, 11:45

Playing out the dispute and the results ICly is what the game is about.
About traits etc, if Hans becomes emperor, I will release the next version asap which will have an automated system for emperor/prince mechanics which does not require any intervention by the chancellor until the emperor/prince dies.

The only change that would need to be made with immediate effect then is relocating the Factionleader and Factionheir traits and giving the old ones the Exheir trait (need something to base the automated system on, and that fits)

I may not be online in the next 24 hours depending on access in other areas, so just letting you know if my replies are rather slow and incomplete then.
Will also post the stories soon, which I have outlined already in my box. Just need to flesh it out with flair, this might actually end up being posted after all the voting.