No problem Ignoramus, I'm glad to be of help on all language-related topics. :beam:
Also I gotta say I love the timing of Stuperman! :2thumbsup:
Printable View
No problem Ignoramus, I'm glad to be of help on all language-related topics. :beam:
Also I gotta say I love the timing of Stuperman! :2thumbsup:
Whoa, in case anyone were wondering why I haven't been very active the last couple of days, I've been insanely busy. Hope I haven't missed anything too important.
Also just a quick note. According to the library, Jobst's last name is Salza, not Salva as everyone seems to call him ;)
Good catch - Warluster, please can you correct your user CP title, it's confusing everyone. Unless you are roleplaying a chap with a lisp or something. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jalf
https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/...ealps10xr8.png
Here's Sigismund's last battle results. I'll get the other one up soon.
Gosh, looks like a really close one. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Yeah, sorry about that, just couldn't wait to get my 2 pennies in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
That would slow the game down a lot, and now that I think about it my original question didn;t entirely make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Er... does that count as a battle? I'll definitely add it to the kill/loss ratio, but should I give a +1 to battles based on squashing 34 men?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Why not? It was a general after all.
idk... he lost 18 good men in the squishing of the 34... that may make it a battle... but a +1 idk bout that :laugh4:
so im going to DC this weekend (friday-monday) for our school band... yay St.Patricks Day Parade!
anyways... the voting is going till when?... because if its done before Monday at like 9 or 10 pm... (central standerd time USA) then i cant vote... so if it ends before then... is there a way to like cast my votes on the currents ones before i lose Internet tommarrow?
ty...
PS... i may get internet there... but idk...i dont have a labtop so im hoping that i get WiFi in the room to use dad's internet-phone thingy... but i doubt it'll work...
I noticed just before how his name was Salza not Salva, but I really liked the name Salva, so i kept it,
I will change it now...mumble,mumble
I'd normally say a battle against 34 would barely count as one, but with over a thousand men against 34? Thats not a battle, thats a manhunt
Tincow is maintaining the library, so it is up to him what he defines as a battle, but if he is counting the casualties, for consistency, I think he should count the battle.
IIRC, this was an encounter in which Sigismund and his escort fought the Milanese general and his escort, one on one - he ordered his army to keep out of it. I think it was a characterful and chivalrous encounter and personally would record it.
Due to Sigismunds chivalric nature he has fought out this particular 'battle' only using his own bodyguard against he enemies general.
So while the setup was not very balanced, the fighting itself was, so he should get the acknowledgement for this battle, if you ask me.
Edit: Too slow :beam:
I really should post those screenshots up. It was quite a colourful affair. Oh and econ, can you pop over to the Swabia forum?
Yep, a 1 on 1 fight definitely works. I'll give it a +1. That stats are really only for curiosity anyway.
Just some clarification reading the edicts. Do they need TWO seconders to go to a vote?? Also another post mentioned the limit of edicts per character I don't know if it was amended. Electors 3 Dukes 5 and Kaiser unlimited. We have not been following that if it does matter.
I was more curious about having two members required to second an edict.
I've never heard of that limit on edicts, but given the excessive number we have during this session, that might be a good idea. The requirement of two seconders has been enforced from the beginning and is definitely still in effect. That's one of the reasons that econ21 makes the edict summarys, so that we can see what has been seconded and what hasn't.
The issue on vote limiting was proposed as a Charter Amendment during our first Diet session where we had an equally high amount of Edicts being proposed. I have to agree that the situation becomes a bit messy, but usually many of the Edicts don't receive the required number of seconders to be voted upon.
Since we're discussing rules, I've got a question. Otto will soon become Duke of Bavaria. Nuremburg is the capital of Bavaria.
The way I read this, Max will lose control of Nuremburg, which will become Otto's domain. If this is the wish of Duke Otto, it should definitely be done. However, if for whatever reason Otto wants to allow Max to remain in control of Nuremburg, this rule seems to prohibit him from doing that. Is that right? Could this be gotten around by formally moving the capital of Bavaria or would that also be prohibited?Quote:
4.4 Dukes can then grant a settlement to a player, making him Count of that settlement. The settlements remain nominally within the relevant Duchy. There are no Counts at the start of the game. Capitals of a House need no Counts and cannot be given to them - they belong to the Duke (or his Steward)
I think relocating the capital would be a characterful way to get round that rule, TinCow.
On the number of edicts, I confess I am getting alarmed. I think I am going to propose a draconian Charter Ammendment, allowing only 2 edicts or ammendments to be proposed per player. We now have around 20 players, so there could still be 40 edicts. But it will make people prioritise and think a bit more about them. It should also encourage intra-House communication, as players with lots of ideas try to persuade others to propose them.
I think its a good idea. I dont want us to drown in bureocracy. I think that with 40 possible edicts we can decide all the matters possible for a single Chancellors reign.
If we need to limit the number of edicts proposed, let's do it in such a way as to utilize the House threads we've already got going. Let's do something like 1 to 2 edicts per Elector, with an extra 3 or 4 surplus per House which can only be posted by the Duke. So, if you want to propose edicts beyond your personal limit, you've got to convince your boss to support them. That would seem to play into our greater emphasis on the Houses.
I like that idea also Tincow. Maybe there should those two Edicts per Elector and a single or two house edicts,which could only used if the whole house agrees on the subject? I think this could create lot more discussion in the house threads.
I agree with TinCow's proposal on the matter, if any restriction will be put forward. But to be frank I don't see the point right now, we haven't even reached the 40 posts that the restriction would bring. I'm fine with the way it is now with some Electors posting many Edicts and others posting none.
Although I must say I'm intrigued by the In-House meanings of TinCows proposal.
Maybe another route would be to just generally hold back and instead of just proposing a list of Edicts,you start out with stating the personal opinion and agenda and see how other people react to it, before pressing it into a formalized Edict. The only problem I see right now is that we have many Edicts with similar meanings, but I'm even alright with that.
How about 2 edicts/elector + 2 House edicts, which must be proposed by the Duke and seconded by 2 electors of the same House? (avoids having to have formal votes within houses)
I don't want to be too generous on the numbers, as finding a like minded person to propose something should not be too hard.
Ituralde: I think the issue I have with the edicts is that some may be motherhood & apple pie stuff; others may be minutae that should be left up to the Chancellor. I think edicts should be for grand strategy and diplomacy - who do we attack/ally? I am not sure it would be much fun being a Chancellor with a checklist of 20+ tasks.
I think the 2 edicts/elector cap would in practice cut down the number of edicts dramatically - the 40 max is just to say if we desperately need 40 edicts, we could have them.
I agree with Econ´s last draft. I think in the future,the number of allowed edicts per Elector could be dropped even to 1+ couple house Edicts.. After all most people dont have lot to do specially at the times when the Chancellor reigns and this would allow for people to talk inside the houses and gather support/wrestle about the issues,they want to see proposed in the next Diet.
Yes the number of edicts has gone off the chart!
I'd say it's time to have the Dukes be the only ones proposing edicts and the House thread be used for the discussion on what each House wants to put forward.
I simply can't keep up and it's as if everyone is running off in a different direction.
In this form things would have to be discussed, thought out and persented in a co-ordinated fashion through a single point of representation rather than having 20 different agenda's trying to the tabled at the same time.
At the moment the overall effect it's reducing the significance of what people are trying to convey in the edicts.
What do you all think?
I'll go along with the Amendment, but Ituralde does have a point. I ran some stats and the 30 edicts and Amendment 5.1 were all proposed by 14 people. Of these, only 2 people proposed more than 2. Of those two, one was Ituralde himself, but since he's a Duke he would get the extra +2 anyway, so he'd only really be 1 edict over. So, under the proposed system the only serious violation would be the Fifth Elector of Swabia, who proposed 8. It looks to me like the 2 + 2 restrictions would cut down only slightly on the proposed edicts. In order to have a major cut down, it would have to be 1 + 2. I'm not saying we should do that, just puting the information out there.
Alright, I think I can see the point of making the House threads a kind of filter for the Diet. So I'll go with the last proposal made by econ21.
I just generally like for those things to regualte themselves without putting harsh measurements on them, but maybe in this case it's better to make official restriction to let it happen.
Good work on the stats, TinCow. Ok, it's disproportionate to have a Charter Ammendment just to beat down on one Elector. :sweatdrop: Let's beat down on all of us. :whip:
How about: 1 edict/elector; a kind of "private member's bill" as we call it in the UK
Plus 3 edicts/Duke which must be presented with the support (seconding) of 2 same House members. (i.e. should be discussed in-House first).