Do you guys mind taking this to PM as a courtesy? Both sides have now made their points and I'd prefer it if the thread wasn't locked again.
Printable View
Do you guys mind taking this to PM as a courtesy? Both sides have now made their points and I'd prefer it if the thread wasn't locked again.
The PK/Kage situation will also be resolved privately. Move along, nothing to see here.
FYI, the situations between Kage/PK and Tristan/w&f make it clear to me that the current method of allocating management of armies is way too complex for this game. Since I am now implementing a strict policy on rule violation, I very firmly believe that this game will eventually result in everyone being permanently banned due to these kinds of errors. It is therefore my intention to radically reform the entire army/unit ownership system. The current system will remain in effect until the end of this term. I would like to continue the discussion on alternative methods, but this situation absolutely must be resolved in the 1140 AD session. If none of the proposals which are eventually put foward pass the 2/3 requirement, I will simply keep extending the debate and voting period until one is passed.
This situation is going to be fixed and it is going to be fixed before we get much further into the game.
I want to say, as an OOC matter, that I won't be trying to take any units that were moved into Cairo due to a misunderstanding, even if the matter isn't resolved in some other format. Vissa wouldn't do it to a fellow Crusader IC either.
:egypt:
Okay, so as I see it these are some of the issues we're facing, especially with regards to complexity, and some potential solutions from the 'House Army' idea.
1. Having 10+ PA/RAs and 30+ SoTs is extremely complex for the Megas to keep track of, and is resulting in a lot of OOC friction.
My suggestion, a slight modification of the House Army idea, is to place the OOC responsibilities of the Megas at the funding/recruitment level on a whole House basis and to give the responsibility for distribution of troops to the House Leader and move it In Character. To explain:
a. The Megas loses the ability to move and disband troops, period. In the event of insufficient funds he still controls which Houses have their HAs filled first.
b. The House Leader sets, in his SoT, exactly what units comprise his House Army based on what the lands in his House can train, and to whom they are assigned. In Character he has a requirement to provide his vassals with a minimum level of soldiers dependant on their rank, but if he fails to do so the resolution is to break your vow, not to appeal to the OOC rules. This has the effect of reducing the number of SoTs that the Megas has to constantly check while redistributing the OOC authority he had to IC means (It also, incidentally, makes the structure less stable IMHO, which is one of my goals :laugh4:) The House Leader will also need some additional ability to disband troops under limited circumstances, limited to prevent abuse equal to garrison dumping.
c. Garrison troops come out of the House Army. In the event of a vassal breaking his oath the garrison in his owned province, assuming the oath break is accepted and war isn't declared, belong to him, even if they are not available to be trained in his province and/or represent more men than he should have according to his new House size. (I'm open to auto-disbandment rules of some sort since this could lead to massive overgrowth of armies and shrinking budget, but that's essentially an IC problem to be solved by politics IMHO)
d. House Leaders control all captain led stacks in their territory. Captain led stacks in enemy or neutral territory belong to the Emperor.
e. The Megas retains responsibility for all agents, diplomacy, recruitment, and construction. A Lord of the Fleets is assigned by title to control ships (By the senate or Emperor).
Problems:
Middle ranks are still somewhat reduced in power because they now have to politic IC for their proper armies. Not ideal, but if we want to reduce SoT checking we may have to make this move. Believe me, I don't like a top heavy structure, but I dislike the fuss over PAs and a lot less.
The Emp's ability to push captain stacks in enemy territory may be complicated (What happens when the territory is captured with a stack in the province?), but I don't know a better resolution off the top of my head.
What else? Am I the only one who likes the HA idea; I'm not going to be offended if this is totally shot down, I just want the game to work.
:egypt:
Given how insane this is getting, and given that this will only get worse when we get bigger, something has got to give.
If we want to keep players empowered with personal "armies," then the Megas simply has to get out of the army business. It's fun to move the little captain stacks around but it is simply maddening to not only keep track of who owns what, but to make sure people don't take the wrong stuff. :dizzy2:
I don't care what system we move to, as long as it ends up with players moving and disbanding their own stuff. If players want to be empowered, then they can start taking over the responsibilty and paperwork...
I think the best way to do this is to focus everyone on the provinces and the avatars. It is very, very clear when a unit is inside a settlement or in an army with someone's avatar at the head of it. Whatever we do, I think we need to simply make it so that people always have 100% control over everything inside their settlement and their avatar's army, no matter what rank they are. This is the simplest possible unit control system, and I think at this point that all other parts of the game need to give way to allow that to be brought to the most efficient possible system.
However, this means that anyone with a province can accumulate an army. I am fine with this change and I think it might actually be kind of fun, but it will require a radical rebalancing of the entire feudal structure. What I am thinking about is as follows:
1) All units in a settlement are exclusively controlled by the owner of that settlement. They can never be moved or disbanded without the owner's permission.
2) All units in an avatar's stack are exclusively controlled by that avatar. They can never be moved or disbanded without the avatar's permission.
3) If multiple avatars combine into a single stack, they must make a post somewhere indicating which units belonged to who when they merged. If the avatars split up later, the survivors go with their respective avatars unless stated otherwise. No merging of depleted units will be allowed between comingled armies unless both owners agree to who will own the combined units.
4) PAs/RAs will be completely abolished.
5) Every rank will gain a power to confiscate X units per full Megas term from any vassal that is underneath them in their feudal chain. Confiscation can take units from any garrison owned by the vassal or from the vassal's own stack. The higher the rank, the more units that can be confiscated per term. The Basileus will have the power to confiscate from ANYONE in the entire game.
6) All ship movement will be done by the Lord Admiral (or similar title) who will either be appointed by the Basileus during every Senate session, or elected by the Senate.
7) The ship 'seizing' power will be abolished.
8) The Megas will have absolute control over all monetary expenditures. Prioritized Buildings and construction queues will remain unchanged, but he will never have any limits on where and when he must recruit military units. The Megas will have no control over any movement beyond what other players can do.
9) Captain Led Stacks - Unresolved, still looking for good options on this one.
I think at this point, we need rules that are simple to follow above all other considerations. We need to look for a set of rules that treat different types of stacks uniformly and have no special cases. You should never have (for example) a captain-led stack that is under one set of rules in one situation, and under another in another. All captain stacks should be equivalent. So, I would propose something like this, split according to type:
Type 1: General-led stack. Owned by in-game designated stack leader. Only the owner can move, split, or disband stack.
Type 2: Captain-led stack. Owned by the Megas Logothetes. Only the owner can move, split, or disband stack.
Type 3: City/Castle garrison. Owned by feudal lord. Only the owner can remove, split, or disband garrison.*
Type 4: Fort garrison. Owned by fedual lord of the city in whose region the fort is in. Only the owner can remove, split, or disband garrison.
Type 5: Fleet. Owned by the Megas Logothetes. Only the owner can move, split, or disband stack.
That's the base. Every type has one clear owner. Those are the owner's troops, if he wants to give them away, he can disassocate them from his stack. Now we can introduce a handful of special rules for gameplay purposes, like this:
Rule 1: Private/Royal armies. Minimum requirements as they are now, but the Megas is not required to keep track of them. A stack-owner whose stack is below legal requirements can make a public request for reinforcement, which the Megas can refuse if the sum of that House's stacks and garrisons exceeds the total number of legally required units for the House. Otherwise, the Megas must fund recruitment according to current priority rules.
Rule 2: Generals may not enter stacks of lower-command-star generals (i.e. steal the stack), without permission of the stack commander. Generals may not enter captain-led stacks without permission of the Megas Logothetes.
Rule 3: *The Megas Logothes can remove newly recruited units from cities/castles without permission.
Rule 1 makes the Megas' job easier, as he doesn't have to keep track of the strength of every army. That is the job of every army commander for himself. The requests/refusals should be public, so we can tell the rules are being followed. I would recommend yet another thread because only the Megas would have to read it, and only when there are new posts in it.
Rule 2 combined with Type 1 implements a "you own what you command" policy. Very simple.
Rule 3 is an exception to Type 3, used as a headache reliever for the Megas.
Note: TC posted his proposal while I was typing mine. They are pretty similar.
TC's proposal about a Lord Admiral is good, and might be expanded upon. We could split the power of the Megas into three elected offices, which I will call the Accountant, the Army Guy, and the Navy Guy, for the purpose of the example.
The Accountant will have the purse, and will be the one to open/close the save, and end the turn.
The Army Guy will be move all the captain stacks, spies, assassins, and priests (in his role as a logistician).
The Navy Guy will move all the fleets.
If either the Army Guy or the Navy Guy fail to take the save in the 24 hour period, the Accountant may exercise their powers before ending the turn.
This leaves the lower ranked players the chance to get into some lower offices, and reduces the workload of the Megas. It would require more people to run for offices, but if no one runs for AG and NG, when we can assign their powers to the Accountant for that term.
Sorry, as I read your conception of that thread in here, it was supposed to be a question and answer session between a player and you. So I thought it was ok to ask questions. I didn't know others would use it to throw comments in though...Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Hmm... giving the Captain stacks to a Lord of the Army type role is a very interesting idea. The question is whether we're going to have enough people interested in running for the roles every election.
I am against maintaining any system which has a 'minimum' requirement for a PA/RA of any kind, even if the Megas doesn't have to keep track of it. Keeping track of units is the main thing that's making the game too complex, so we need to get rid of it completely. You can command whatever it is that you can get your hands on. The 'confiscation' power of increasing magnitude for the feudal ranks would allow for high ranks to draw off of the armies held by their vassals, which makes sense to me both from a gameplay perspective and from a historical perspectice. They can always give these units back whenever they want to, and there's nothing stopping the vassals from giving their units to their Lords voluntarily anyway, thus avoiding the use of the power. This will put more of an emphasis on House unity and cooperation, and will give both advantages and disadvantages to being in a House. If you're in a House, you get potential access to the units owned by your vassals, but your units can also be siphoned off by your lord.
Seems like an easy system to me, and probably self-balancing.
flyd.. and who would control diplomats?? Basileus??
But other ideas you proposed are pretty good :yes:
Easy to follow and easy to understand..
Oops, yeah sorry about that, I saw the "do not post" when you first put it up and then went back later and you had put other posts in there, I assumed it was open after that without thinking to scroll up...now I realise I shouldn't have posted in there anyway seeing as I didn't have a question...:embarassed:
In other news I like FD latest post, it is kinda similar to what I had in mind, with the addition of the "navy guy". I'm not sure they're entirely neccesary due to the lack of importance fleets have, perhaps giving him control of agents as well, or merging that role with the "army guy"?
Under TC's proposed system, couldn't the Megas just stop recruiting units for a House he didn't like? Without a minimum requirement, he could just throw people to the wolves.
Unless I'm missing something, which is very possible.
Yes, that could easily happen. The question is whether letting the Megas starve a House like this is a bad thing. If they've prepared well enough in advance, they should be able to survive until the next election. If they have multiple hostile Megas' in a row... well, perhaps they need to rethink their stance on politics.
I just can't think of a way to give Houses a minimum level of defense without making it a complex system. The best I can come up with is giving certain ranks the ability to require X units to be recruit somewhere within their House. Say, let the Hypatos be able to require 5 units within his House per Megas term, so the Megas at least has to give those. The Hypatos could blow all 5 on the first turn, do 1 per turn for the first 5 turns, save them till the last turn, not use them at all, etc. This power would only be available to the highest ranked Lord, to keep it simple.
This would give each House the ability to essentially 'Prioritize' a minimum level of recruitment, which might work.
I still like my idea for a minimum force pool. Perhaps if the requirement was dropped for armies, and the Houses were just given a number of units do with as they pleased it would be simpler.
I won't argue very strongly on a minumum army vs. confiscation system, either way is fine with me. The main thing I would want to avoid would be "remote" ownership of units, which is a problem that comes up in either system, when units are confiscated/recruited far away. That is something that would be nice to do away with, so there is no counting of who owns what. The confiscation power could be a more general reassignment power. That is, you should not be entiteld to remote ownership, but you can transfer X units per term between and out of stacks/garrisons of your vassals. So, you should have to send a trustworthy vassal to pick the units up for you, or rely on the captain-commander to get them to you, but nobody should be bound by the rules to make specific movements.
As far as the multi-office thing goes, we can make them optional. At least two people must always run for Megas/Accountant. If they do, people can run for the Land and Sea Commander offices, but elections will only be held if enough people run. If they don't, then the powers of extra offices fall back to the main officer holder.
Why can't we make it like this..
Castles/Cities and below will give 6 units to the House
Fortress/Large Cities will give 8 units to the House
Citadel/Huge City will give 10 units to the House
So.. if House have 1 City and 1 Fortress then the House will get min 14 units for their use. Whether they use them for garrison duties or conquering the world is their business. This way the settlement size actually is a good thing.
Also.. Every rank should give +1 or +2 extra units to the House...
This should be combined with the things that FD proposed..
Alright guys. I'm still stuck on page 32 and my girlfriend was so nice to surprise me by visiting me this weekend. This will of course limit my time until Sunday. So don't wonder if I don't respond too quickly or stay quiet about topics that touch me.
Cheers!
Ituralde
Have fun! I'm sure nothing exciting will happen during the weekend.
Have fun. Some things need to take priority. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
*edit*
You do know that there are no less than 3 Ioannis's in the game right now. (with more on the way.) All of which are in range of Iconium. ^_^Quote:
Moved Ioannis towards Iconion according to his OOC request to me.
Right now I'd still like to preserve the 'Feudal System' style that was originally intended, but if we're going to make big changes that doesn't have to stay. I think that if we're revamping the way armies work, we should attempt to model it after whatever the Byzantines actually did.
The feudal system and all the ranks are definitely staying.
Sorry to leave all of you guys hanging BTW, but it's past 2 AM here and I need my sleep. Just pretend it's a long carriage ride to the Magnaura.
You started this and now im being warned because of thing you never complained about at all when i gathered my army under your permission. You wanted to play by technicalities and i showed you what kind of hell this game can turn by playing it like you want it.Im now ready to continue playing this game like its meant to play, but im really starting to dislike you behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
My thought:
"I personally liked the other style better where we were basically working together and manufactured the tension to a greater extent."
------------------
The LAST thing we need now is anymore rules. I see proposal's going back and forth and it's simply rules to chew on and crunch through.
If I was to step back and take a look at this, I'd say we have evolved and little too fast and too far from KotR's.
PK outlined to me that the main difference between this game and the last was the level of empowerment and the robust, potentially lethal, civil war mechanism. That's fine, but the cost of this to the game is simply not panning out at this time.
And honestly there were plenty of opportunities to do things in the last game, and we did do quite a bit of "Civil Warring" if I'm not mistaken.
So again I'd like to recommend a revisit to the vastly more workable KotR concept and take perhaps a few basic and smaller step forward from that position.
You're such a tease GH!!!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
I would like to once again bring up that im not Ioannis Kantakouzinos. But we dont have to revert back to KOTR rules, but stop these bloody technicalities and play by the spirit.Good game cant be regulated by rules, but good will and respect for the rules by the players.
I agree with...
...but it's simply not working out that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
We essentially have a Dispute Resolution Chamber or DRC mechanism in this game...good god I feel like I'm at work. We were so far from needing this in the last game it not even funny.
I tend to agree, but I'm looking for changes that make the game simpler, not more complex. The changes I'm still rolling around in my head involve a significant reduction in rule text, not an increase in it. If a proposed change cannot be written in a manner that is significantly more concise than the current version, then it's too complex for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Crunching now TC.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I'll write soon.
You people write too much, and, once more, this thing will go unread. Anywho, I am racking up on the children
Just so this gets addressed now, the events that just took place in the Magnaura are entirely legal:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
ohhh.
Don't know how many of you browse the Empire forum (I know LOTR players tend to be more jaded when it comes to CA), but there's a couple of new articles posted that are very interesting.
http://www.gamersglobal.com/news/1208
http://www.totalvideogames.com/artic...r_QA_13681.htm
The first one is especially interesting, there they talk about how the Battle AI and Diplomacy are undergoing a massive refit.
Promises are cheap, of course, but if they're really taking the passive AI bug seriously we could be seeing a substantially improved product. That goes double if the Tactical AI can think strategically.Quote:
Battle AI linked to Campaign AI: Kieran Bridgen told us that the withdrawing of the British Forces may be what the AI had planned from the beginning: The new strategic AI is linked to the battle AI, and it could be that the battle we've witnessed was not about holding the town (for the AI general), but about inflicting losses on our troops. Think about "losing a battle, but winning the war". If this really works out in the game, it might be the single most important improvement for all dedicated fans of the Total War series: How often have we given battle in a "bridge region", only to withdraw once the ammo of our ranged units was depleted? If the AI finally understands and uses such tactics, too, the overall gaming experience will profit.
Battle AI: The Battle AI will be improved in another way: So far, the Total War AI was "stage based": There were certain steps the AI general would follow, for example, to take a city: First stage, approach the gate and destroy it. Second stage, enter the town, and so on. If one of those stage goals was interrupted by the human player, the enemy AI would stall, which lead to heavy losses (e.g. in Medieval 2, when cavalry would remain in range of defenders' ranged weapons). Now, we learned, the AI will be goal oriented (for example: "inflict losses on the enemy", or "get into the city somehow"), which should make it act more flexibly.
That's just the part most relevent to our purposes, there's a lot of good stuff in those articles and I'd advise everyone to take a look. Looks like we'll finally get something like a 'Get off my land!" feature, and the campaign map is pixel-based instead of tile-based. So instead of having to march into an army's tile in order to bring it to battle, each town, fort and army has a (presumably circular) ZoC.
Don't know if 'meet' means when they overlap, or if when one army itself is inside an enemy ZoC, but either way it looks like it'll be easier to intercept armies. Good stuff.Quote:
When two zones meet, a battle occurs. This also help with hindering movement. Because you will be able to place forts anywhere you want, it should now be possible to actually have a "Limes" or a "Great Wall" along your border, with the enemy having to fight at least once in order to enter your country.
Don't worry, I've been following ETW.
Yay bandwagon!
Aw c'mon GH, you didn't actually think I'd fall for the same blunder twice, did you? Credit me with some intelligence and cunning. The whole "I need your protection" thing was extremely fishy, but just saying no would have aroused suspicion, so I accepted, with the intent of Symeon being an observer to the Patriarch's loyalty, which you promptly betrayed. Try again folks ~;p.
Leave "justice" alone.
Thats the underlying message i got. :laugh4:
If we don't resolve this thing now, there's just going to be an eternal runaround (I think I mentioned to OK in a PM once about it being similar to two kids playing war with imaginary guns). Besides, I thought you said we had your permission to use the Organization however we wanted.
Sorry, wasn't clear on that I guess. I meant that you have permission to "blame it on the Organization". And it essentially resolved, since Symeon has no power at all anymore. I'm just leaving it open ended enough for a possible "return". Plus, Aleksander got to laugh at you all ~;p.
Hmmm, YLC.
Didn't you tell me once who Symeon really was...:sweatdrop:
dunn dun dun...
and yes Cecil!! I am eagerly awaiting Empire: TW
I studied that period of history for years. I'm really looking forward to their take on the 18th Century.
Okey.. I can't take it anymore!!!!
Please.. PLEASE recruit me a new avatar!!!! :laugh4:
Very nice story GH and OK.
That's great storytelling.
Yup. Wish I could do that...
Anyhoo, Cecil, I'm watching ETW too. Not as closely as pever, but I'm watching it.
I'll get it done as soon as the game restarts (after the Emergency session). Where would you like to start?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
In Markianople.. former Caesarea:yes:Quote:
I'll get it done as soon as the game restarts (after the Emergency session). Where would you like to start?
My post in the Magnaura is how I feel OOC as well.
I am almost at the point of leaving this game completely.
Well, I would be sorry to see you to go Ignoramus. I know I almost left, but it was because of to much pressure IC, OOC, and RL (most especially) which made me consider withdrawal, but in all honesty I didn't want to leave. Thanks to the other supportive members in this game, I was able to work my way past all of that and I decided to keep playing because I found a new way to make it fun and enjoyable. So now I'll return the favor to you and ask that you stay, because as far as I can see, one player leaving diminishes the game more then the bickering about rules, IC or OOC. So I hope you stay Ignoramus! At least make sure the Caesar goes out in a blaze of glory!
I think we need to keep OOC and IC seperate. I am sorry if my IC betrayal is causing you OOC grief, but that is the way I am playing my character. If there is anything I can do OOC to keep you in the game, let me know, because it wouldn't be the same without you.
The biggest thing that annoys me is the repeated bringing up of the fact that I accidently broke the rules in the OOC Thread.
I accidently broke the rules as Megas, got reprimanded, and I apologised. But PK and Order members continue to bringing the matter up and use it to justify their questionable actions. What's in the past is in the past, and I am sick of being tarred with it OOC. IC is fine, but it's rather poor to continue to attack me OOC.
Secondly, I am frustrated by the way people are so democratic. We are talking about 12th century Europe, not 21st century Europe. While that's all IC and fine, it does detract when there is no fear of authority and everyone's essentially equal.
Third, it is a huge game killer that the Caesar gets continually mocked, ridiculed, and challenged, and the Basileos doesn't do anything about it, even though the Caesar is his son. While OK is free to roleplay Aleksios how he likes, Aleksios' actions seem to be managed like they dependent on public opinion polls.
Finally, I was a bit upset about the recent actions concerning the two Ioannes. But deguerra and I are sorting that out OOC.
It is unfortunate that you feel that Aleksios's behavior is an anachronism. It seems we have different styles of game play. However, I feel that I have presented, through various IC postings and PMs, that he has a nuanced approach towards Ioannis. He is not acting out of pique or spite, there are good reasons for what he does.
I guess it's because I'm not as good as politics, and tend to have characters who wish to become absolute dictators and bash anyone who resists, while you're much more into becoming powerful through subtle politics.
Come on Igno,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
surely you can see that if this is your self professed style, "some" people are going to be a little defensive about it and do anything in their power to avoid being "dictated" and "bashed"?
You character is great. He's polarizing, inflammatory and slightly bonkers...you've just over played your hand a little too early. :egypt:
If I had not seen this OOC admission that you feel the same way as you IC alias then I would have thought you were roleplaying like a champion.
-EDIT-
As for politics, then who cares...hire someone to do it for you!! You're the bloody Caesar for god sake, pick someone to be your liaison point and talk through that person as an advisor. If you're not good at something then you're in a ideal position to "find" people to do it for you. HINT HINT!!
True. But it would be fun to do the bashing.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't completely feel the same way IC all the time. At the start I decide how my character's going to go, and then get rather attached to it OOC. For instance, Sigismund wasn't bashing or dictating to anyone.
And I'll send you PM shortly. :yes:
Hope you stay Ignoramus! LotR wouldn't be the same... Who could we all rant against?
Also, remember that once you become Basileus... You'll be way more powerful.
About House Korakas, the public decree is shutting it down, but the letter to Tagaris says he can be the leader if he wants to.
The thing that bothered me most was that there were something like 3 accidents in a row and it was always the Order that was disadvantaged. And there were no in game consequences for you. I take your word that they were accidents, haven't took it up before and will not take it up anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
As far as I know PK/Mak has done everything he can to remain within the rules of the game while getting back at the Caesar in every way he can. TC originally intended finding loopholes to be a major factor in the game but it seems that just doesn't work.
Says the guy with Influence 5 avatar :yes:Quote:
Secondly, I am frustrated by the way people are so democratic. We are talking about 12th century Europe, not 21st century Europe. While that's all IC and fine, it does detract when there is no fear of authority and everyone's essentially equal.
And I think most of us are not role-playing the religious aspects of the era as much as we should. Personally, I'm just not comfortable doing it and so won't.
Sorry guys for losing my cool. To be honest I thought that deguerra would accept my proposition, which was very naive of me, and so was rather shocked to find that he hadn't. I then unwisely posted before sorting things out.
I apologise if my hasty criticism hurt anyone. I really did take this issue too much to heart OOC, and should have realised that such things happen IC.
Deguerra and I are fine now OOC, and everything's resolve so I'll definitely be staying. I really do apologise for taking this issue way out of proportion. From now on, I'll try to fully separate OOC and IC issues. That way we can all enjoy the game.
To PK and the Order members, those rule violations were accidents, but they were more OOC rather than IC driven. Somehow, I took a disliking to the idea of an Orthodox Crusading Order, and so naturally Ioannis disliked them. It's worked out fine IC, but it's probably had unhelpful OOC results. So I hope I've learned from my mistakes, and will try and make the game fun for everyone.
And I will try to keep my PM box empty. :laugh4:
Ig,
Everything going on with me is just IC. The OOC stuff needs to be moved past and I'll do the best I can with moving past it. It just got a little frustrating and alarming to be "loopholed" no less than 3 major times and then find out you also have a war being planned against you too.
So, try not to take the IC stuff too personally. OOC I love your "plan" in the letter. But it goes against everything I stand for IC so I decided to post it. :beam:
So, I'm glad your staying and I'm looking forward to seeing how all of this is going to pan out. :2thumbsup:
Feel free to PM me OOC anytime. I assure you my PM box is not full. :laugh4:
Question..
Can I vote even though I don't have an avatar? TC will recruit one for me after the Senate Session but can I vote in the current one?
I've been thinking about and refining my ideas on armies, and I think it's time to get them down on paper, so to speak. The essence is this:
1. More strict limitations on army size by rank. Almost all of the current proposals have people commanding whatever is literally available to them, which reduces the importance of the middle ranks. I'd propose that we put stronger caps on the size of army that lower ranks can use outside their own provinces (i.e. Other than for defense). For example, cap a Strator at 4 units, Comes at 6, etc. When two lower ranks combine their armies the cap is additive (Strator + Comes is 10 in this example). If we use very low numbers (Strator = 1, Comes = 2, S+C=3) we encourage more cooperation and we come closer to the Fuedal ideal, but that may be more restrictive on gameplay than is desirable even with the jedi guards.
2. Armies consist of any troops in the same stack as an avatar, and you keep track of them in your SoT. Within an owned province the owner may control any quantity of troops, but in order to leave his province that man must take with him only as many soldiers as he is authorized to have by his rank. Violations would be OOC rule breaks, not IC. If you come to control more soldiers than your cap allows by virtue of rank reduction, co-leader avatar deaths, or various other means you can choose which men comprise your army but you cannot under any circumstances move more men than you are allowed to command by your rank. Unaligned avatars have a higher cap to keep competition for founding Houses open and to compensate for the politics necessary for them to get troops in the first place.
3. The Megas cannot move or disband troops, but he alone can recruit them (Per training orders in the structure owner's SoT). Captain led stacks are moved by the Emperor or his titled Lord of the Armies (But not both! If you appoint a LoA he controls them, to regain control the Emperor must revoke his title. More instability and conflict, I love it.), but can (obviously) be poached from by the owner of any lands they pass through, etc. The Lord of the Armies has his troop command cap increased by (for example) 3. Fleets by a Lord of the Fleets, same deal applies. The Senate can revoke these titles and reassign them by a 2/3rds majority vote, the Emperor must then wait until the next Senate session to reassign them. Every noble has confiscation rights over captain led stacks, if you encouter a captain led stack you can merge with it and take any troops from it up to your cap.
4. Higher ranks can confiscate troops from lower ranks within their House in any number up to their rank cap, but only in person. If you want that Comes' army you have to go where he is and take it. Higher ranks can order the disbandment of their vassal's troops across any distance (Minor edit), however, limited only by the number of disbandments allowed to that rank per Senate session (This is to give the lower ranks some encouragement to obey their Lord's orders). I would suggest that higher ranks can confiscate from lower ranks outside of their House but only much lower ranks (Dux can take from foreign Comes, for example).
5. The Emperor and the Caesar retain their Royal Armies, but they are reduced in size a bit. The Emperor has confiscation rights over all nobles in the Empire, but he must be physically present to take troops. The Caesar has confiscation rights over all nobles below rank X (Pick one), but has to be present, etc. The Emperor can order the disbandment of one company of soldiers from any army in the field (Not garrison) per year, the Caesar can order the disbandment of one (or 2?) per Senate session.
6. Nobles have 'priority recruitment' slots just like the priority build slots, and in about the same numbers by rank. We don't want recruitment to go over the top or to allow armies to max out such that our economy can be frozen within one Megas term.
This totally discards my House Army ideas because I can see how even they require too much player tracking. Under this system the basic mechanic is thus:
Top ranks assemble armies from lower ranks, often requiring multiple generals to be in a single stack to have a very large army. Garrisons can be locked even against your own lord's confiscation, but disbandment powers can be used on garrison troops (This makes garrison dumping less effective). Field armies are subject to confiscation in person up to the higher rank's cap.
We would need consensus on how to balance the priority recruitment slots by rank, and where to go with the cap on troops commanded. I favor a low number, but that might make Houses considerably stronger than unaligned nobles such that we end up with no one unaligned.
Is there anything in this system obviously unaddressed? I intend to put this proposal in a more formal framework and have it put up as a CA next session, unless something similar or superior catches my interest first. :laugh4:
:egypt:
Yes, with influence 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
That's good to hear. Not that my influence was higher than 1 before :beam:
When will the emergency session end and when the supposed one turn will be passed on? For example Oojebus has been very little online lately and if Komnenodoukai have to start a war, just in case that he wont be online to sign peace and will be then happily butchered by the order completely within the rules, im not sure what to say about it.:shame:
I would like to know this too.
What will happen to those people who don't show up during the next turn? Will they be forced to be part of the war although they have no idea about it or will they be considered neutral?
I think they should be considered neutral..
Jebus is in one of the hotseats I'm in, so hopefully he'll be on soonish. For my part I wouldn't attack an avatar whose player is not present under any circumstances, and I would vote to extend him however much time he needs to declare his neutrality, if he wishes, even if the game goes forward.
:egypt:
The emergency session ends in about 30 minutes, though I won't be around to open the voting poll for about an hour after that. As normal, there will be 48 hours for voting, then the game will resume. All people involved in the Civil War except for the Caesar and Makedonios will have until the end of the next turn to declare neutrality.
So, that's probably going to be something like late Thursday or early Friday.
Well that Emergency Session was even more eventful than I thought it would be. :sweatdrop:
I aint signing no peace deal, I want a civil war dag nab it! We can't let all of those fancy rules go to waste! :clown:
OOC I've been chomping for one, but IC... :no:
:egypt:
I'm sure there'll be a right and proper one at some point, but this one would be a poor excuse for civil war: Almost no one wants to fight it, and the would be belligerents are far apart.
I know we have wonderful rules for civil war, but I hope Aleksios's role as Imperial Wet Blanket will hold out for a few more years.
I just want to know where I can buy "I survived the Paper War" tee shirts.
Let's not forget what followed the actual Phony War.
If someone does not actually want a war, then they should not have their avatar say in the Senate, "I declare war..."
:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyd
Miguel's T-shirt's.:cheesy:
Anyways, I am stuck, now, without a house...:shame:
I'm sure Ituralde could make an exception if you wanted to go back to the Komnenodoukai, although it would require us to change our Charter.
I am un sure that if you give your blessings after the fact, it still counts...
I will waive the 5 turn ban on reswearing if the person in question reswears into the same House. The purpose of the rule was to prevent defection, which would be served in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Ah.
I suppose the only roadblock at this point is the charter?
House charters are made to be broken...Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
:saint:
We can alter it. I'll talk with Ituralde about it.
Besides, you're a Komnenoi, and in the Komnenodoukai, we like to keep Komnenoi.