OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

This bit annoys me greatly. This seems to me to be an intentional exploitation of the AI. The whole reason that the Templar was moved in the first place was because the AI was too stupid to attack it and insisted on taking the long way around Anatolia. This is also a method that even circumvents my own methods of controlling the game, since the blatantly obvious thing for the Jihad armies to do is to squash the tiny army in their path and keep marching. However, I cannot start a battle when controlling the AI because it would have to be autoresolved, something which is very unfair to anyone controlling an avatar in the victimized stack.

However, the Jihad is part of the Crusade Event and therefore I can do what I want to make sure it is implemented properly. I am therefore declaring my intention to park those armies directly in Armatos' face next turn. If he does not move out of the way, I will then have the AI attack with both stacks and let autoresolve determine his fate. I will do the same for anyone else who blocks the Jihad armies but does not attack them. If you want to stop these things, you need to fight them. Otherwise, clear out of the way. Doing otherwise is exploiting the AI.

---

:applause:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

This bit annoys me greatly. This seems to me to be an intentional exploitation of the AI. The whole reason that the Templar was moved in the first place was because the AI was too stupid to attack it and insisted on taking the long way around Anatolia. This is also a method that even circumvents my own methods of controlling the game, since the blatantly obvious thing for the Jihad armies to do is to squash the tiny army in their path and keep marching. However, I cannot start a battle when controlling the AI because it would have to be autoresolved, something which is very unfair to anyone controlling an avatar in the victimized stack.

However, the Jihad is part of the Crusade Event and therefore I can do what I want to make sure it is implemented properly. I am therefore declaring my intention to park those armies directly in Armatos' face next turn. If he does not move out of the way, I will then have the AI attack with both stacks and let autoresolve determine his fate. I will do the same for anyone else who blocks the Jihad armies but does not attack them. If you want to stop these things, you need to fight them. Otherwise, clear out of the way. Doing otherwise is exploiting the AI.

---

We only did that because the Germans are blocking the river crossing. Which means Mak can't get to Armatos this turn. So, Armatos can either fight both stacks by himself right now, or stall the Jihad for one turn.

It wasn't meant to exploit anything and it certainly wasn't meant to annoy you. :no:

Next turn, the Germans should move south. Then the full weight of the Order will come down on those two stacks. We'll still be outnumbered pretty bad.

I repeat, this was not done to cause the Jihad to take the long way around.

I wish next time people would actually ask us why we did things before jumping to conclusions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

We only did that because the Germans are blocking the river crossing. Which means Mak can't get to Armatos this turn. So, Armatos can either fight both stacks by himself right now, or stall the Jihad for one turn.

---

That is exactly what I am complaining about. It seems I jumped to the exact right conclusion. You did it because you knew that the stacks would be stopped and would not attack Armatos. If I told you that they would just obliterate him and keep moving, you wouldn't have done it. This is exploiting the strategic AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

That is exactly what I am complaining about. It seems I jumped to the exact right conclusion. You did it because you knew that the stacks would be stopped and would not attack Armatos. If I told you that they would just obliterate him and keep moving, you wouldn't have done it. This is exploiting the strategic AI.

---

Actually I thought they would attack him and he would just retreat. We wanted to catch them in a pincer. We don't have a lot of resources.

This turn, Armatos has 3 options.

a.) Fight 2 stacks by himself. He has 6 units. I have 2 that have the MP to get to him. So, a total of 9 versus 2 almost full stacks in daylight. I asked him if he wanted to do it and he said no. I fully support him in this.

b.) Run to the pass. If the AI attacked, he'd back off. Next turn his army would be on one side, mine on the other. We'd hit them with a pincer move.

c.) Back off and just let the Jihad run into Anatolia. With their MP, we couldn't catch them. This means we'd effectively be left out of the Jihad event.

If you want us to do C, just say so. Because we are not doing A. And you don't like us doing B.

Please do not assume what I know or what I think. Because, in this case, you assumed wrong. Next time, just ask. :yes:

If you want me to attack him and autoresolve (which is what you are suggesting with B) then I will do so. I guarantee you will not like the result. The units in the armies are not high quality, but in an autoresolve that won't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

If you want me to attack him and autoresolve (which is what you are suggesting with B) then I will do so. I guarantee you will not like the result. The units in the armies are not high quality, but in an autoresolve that won't matter.

---

No that is not what I was suggesting. (what happened to just asking what I think?)

I thought the AI would attack him since we're at war. Therefore, it would pop up as a defensive battle and he'd have the choice to fight it or retreat.

If I am wrong about this, then it is because I am wrong about what the AI would do. It is not a case of me trying to exploit the AI.

Before you accuse me, please try to find out my motive for doing things. Not everything we do is sinister...

This was an innocent move made from innocent assumptions. :yes:

You do realize that due to the higher Crusade movement rate (which you yourself noted) and the very short retreat distance, any retreat in such a situation would be followed up by a second attack from which there could be no retreat. I think it is reasonable to expect that people with as much M2TW experience as most KotR veterans have would know this. It seems to me that in such a situation, it would be highly unusual for a person to expect an army to survive unless they thought that the attack wouldn't happen in the first place. This also appears to have been a group decision. Are you telling me that no one even thought about this possibility, nor did any of them hit end turn to see what would happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

You do realize that due to the higher Crusade movement rate (which you yourself noted) and the very short retreat distance, any retreat in such a situation would be followed up by a second attack from which there could be no retreat. I think it is reasonable to expect that people with as much M2TW experience as most KotR veterans have would know this. It seems to me that in such a situation, it would be highly unusual for a person to expect an army to survive unless they thought that the attack wouldn't happen in the first place. This also appears to have been a group decision. Are you telling me that no one even thought about this possibility, nor did any of them hit end turn to see what would happen?

---

The retreat would have sent Armatos out of the Jihad's way. So I assumed they'd walk past him.

Under the crappy circumstances of this turn, we didn't know what else to do.

So yes, between Cecil and I, neither of us thought of the Jihad either obliterating Armatos or taking the long way around. I thought they only did that for the Templar because they are neutral.

I do not appreciate how I am being talked to. I had no sinister intent. If you have a problem, send a PM.

*edit*

As for hitting "end turn," I stopped playing ahead after it generated such a negative reaction in the beginning of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Are you telling me that no one even thought about this possibility, nor did any of them hit end turn to see what would happen?

---

As far as I am aware, that is exactly what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

You do realize that due to the higher Crusade movement rate (which you yourself noted) and the very short retreat distance, any retreat in such a situation would be followed up by a second attack from which there could be no retreat.

---

~:eek: :wall:

If you guys had discussed this on the AHEM board I could've explained the way it would work to you. Personally I didn't imagine the Order would take those legions of peasants and go after the jihad armies anyway. :laugh4:

I hate to say it but the way things stand now if the AI attacks (retreat, attacks again) the battle should have to be fought.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

If you guys had discussed this on the AHEM board I could've explained the way it would work to you. Personally I didn't imagine the Order would take those legions of peasants and go after the jihad armies anyway. :laugh4:

I hate to say it but the way things stand now if the AI attacks (retreat, attacks again) the battle should have to be fought.

:egypt:

---

I didn't think about the Jihad hitting Cecil twice in a turn. :embarassed:

I thought they would hit, Cecil would fight/retreat, and then they'd walk by. And we could then say IC that we tried. With the Germans sitting on a key river crossing, we had few options. Most of Mak's army don't have the MP to reach the Jihad this turn because of the blocked crossing.

For IC reasons, I didn't want us to just stand aside and let those Jihad armies through without at least trying something. We'd get barbecued at the next Senate session for doing nothing.

That's why we did what we did. I didn't think about exploiting the AI. Though in my defense, I have now proved that the AI is so stupid, that it can be exploited completely by accident. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

I didn't think about exploiting the AI.

---

Then I take you at your word and apologize if you were offended by my words. I will proceed exactly as I outlined in my initial post. I have to take control of Egypt this turn anyway, so I will park both armies right on top of Armatos and leave them there. If he remains blocking their path on the next AI turn, the battle will be autoresolved (because I cannot start a battle that can be fought by the Byzantine player - if I could, this wouldn't be an issue). As I understand it, this fits in perfectly with your plan anyway, so it shouldn't cause problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Then I take you at your word and apologize if you were offended by my words. I will proceed exactly as I outlined in my initial post. I have to take control of Egypt this turn anyway, so I will park both armies right on top of Armatos and leave them there. If he remains blocking their path on the next AI turn, the battle will be autoresolved (because I cannot start a battle that can be fought by the Byzantine player - if I could, this wouldn't be an issue). As I understand it, this fits in perfectly with your plan anyway, so it shouldn't cause problems.

---

:bow:

Ironically, if I was trying to exploit the AI, I would have really screwed up. Because I was operating off of faulty assumptions on the AI's behavior. :laugh4:

Plus, don't AI controlled Jihad/Crusader armies attack enemy armies in their way? They don't just wander like automatons towards the target do they? :book:

Also, if Cecil was attacked, and lost the battle, wouldn't his army just run to Adana? So the fear of "obliteration" didn't make sense to me. :shrug:

And yeah, what your outlining is very much in line with what we intended. Sounds good to us. :beam:

OOC I knew we were outnumbered and outgunned and we should just step aside. IC however, we couldn't do this. We're playing good brave Crusaders so Armatos and Mak wanted to at least try to make a dent in the evil armies. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Plus, don't AI controlled Jihad/Crusader armies attack enemy armies in their way? They don't just wander like automatons towards the target do they? :book:

---

Actually, yes. :wall: Anyone seen any news on the ETW AI?

For the record, since I had to take control of Egypt myself this turn to prevent them from walking into Russia, the game considered them player controlled and made 3 units desert from one of the armies (AI controlled Crusade/Jihad armies do not suffer desertion). If you aren't up for the battle in the current situation, you can RP it that you've managed to kill off those 3 units through skirmishing. That's at least helping somewhat. I wouldn't worry about the Jihad armies too much, though. Under AI control they are very unlikely to end their movement adjacent to one another, and those stacks are not of good enough quality to be too much of a threat individually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil

FRAPS is refusing to take screencaps for some reason. To summarize, it was a close defeat. They lost 48% of their army, we lost 2/3 of ours. (Not counting the ransom) They lost the general in their larger stack, we lost no avatars. (Although Armatos is the only one left in his bodyguard, and Nathanail only has one other guy left in his)

Also, after the battle the enemy Sultan offered to ransom away the soldiers. Since their's no mention of ransoming in the rules, and Armatos is a do-what-you-can-and-damn-the-consequences kind of guy, I accepted that. I hope that's not a problem OOC.

---

Love your work Cecil! :2thumbsup:

That was about as good of an outcome as we could expect.

I can't wait for a battle report. :yes:

I'll be out of town starting now, won't be back until monday morning. I should have sporadic access to the internet though, so hopefully I'll be able to chek what's going on once a day and fight any battles within a 24-hour timeframe.

Quote:

---

The man who was flogged on Efstathios Laskaris' (Ibn-Khaldun) ship the previous year soon recovered from his ordeal and began spreading subversive talk amongst the crew. Most of the men were perfectly content with their commander, but there are always a few troublemakers in any army, and this one was no exception. Soon these men were sowing discontent and discord amongst the fleet. The officers did their best to counter it, and they were aided by a large number of the crew, but a sizable minority soon began to openly express grievances. One morning, this entire group simply refused to emerge from their cabin to work the ship. The remainder of the crew did their best to keep the fleet moving, but the fleet had few hands to spare under normal conditions, and their progress soon slowed to a crawl. As the year ended, little progress had been made and the situation remained in a tense standoff.

---

Well.. was it sabotage or not? It's hard to tell:inquisitive:

No, not sabotage. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Nothing to see here...

TC beat me to it...

Looking at the current save, I'm in a bit of quandry. There's a turk Jihad army a few turns march from Constantinople along the north coast of Anatolia.

Now my normal reaction would be to find a choke point between the capital and the army, offer battle, whittle them down and fall back. However, Crusade AI is a bit. . .um. . .unique and while a normal army might stop to to attack an inferior force at a choke point, I think in this case the Turks would just find another route.

I find the idea of just sitting in the capital a bit unappealing, but I don't want to "exploit the AI". Any suggestions?

What if we situated ourselves on th east side of the straight that would ensure a field battle instead of a siege or do you think this would deter the AI and it would take another route? :book:

I see FD has found something to do while he waits for the Emperor's son to come of age...

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

Looking at the current save, I'm in a bit of quandry. There's a turk Jihad army a few turns march from Constantinople along the north coast of Anatolia.

Now my normal reaction would be to find a choke point between the capital and the army, offer battle, whittle them down and fall back. However, Crusade AI is a bit. . .um. . .unique and while a normal army might stop to to attack an inferior force at a choke point, I think in this case the Turks would just find another route.

I find the idea of just sitting in the capital a bit unappealing, but I don't want to "exploit the AI". Any suggestions?

---

If you are marching out with the intention of giving battle as soon as you meet them, you can do whatever you want. The only thing I was considering exploiting the AI was intentionally delaying them. If you're actually going out to attack, I have no problems with what anyone is doing, regardless of how the idiotic AI reacts to it. In addition, there are far fewer choke points in the northern part of Anatolia. Cecil (and the Templar before him) just happened to park themselves right on the most crucial point which then resulted in a massive (5-6 turn) detour. This is vastly different from any spot around Constantinople (except for possibly blocking the ocean crossings).

What about if you fight them, lose, and end up without MP and still blocking the Jihad?

:embarassed:

Also, I whacked one of the generals. I am assuming this will make that army drop out of the Jihad. Am I right?

flyd, that Story post may be one of my favorite posts ever in the Throne Room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

What about if you fight them, lose, and end up without MP and still blocking the Jihad?

---

Under no circumstances whatsoever will a person EVER be penalized in any way for fighting a battle.

Quote:

---

Also, I whacked one of the generals. I am assuming this will make that army drop out of the Jihad. Am I right?

---

I think so, but you can never tell with the AI. It might spawn in a new general for all I know.

Or, being freed from the constraints of Jihad, it may decide to visit Antioch or Adana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

flyd, that Story post may be one of my favorite posts ever in the Throne Room.

---

Seconded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

flyd, that Story post may be one of my favorite posts ever in the Throne Room.

---

Well done! :2thumbsup:

What can I say, spending so many turns as a political ally of Ignoramus while he chooses to play a classic Ignoramus character can make a man get creative when it's over. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyd

What can I say, spending so many turns as a political ally of Ignoramus while he chooses to play a classic Ignoramus character can make a man get creative when it's over. :laugh4:

---

I would argue that this is a different Ignoramus character from all other Ignoramus characters that we have seen.

I mean, for once, he is the one in charge. Who is he supposed to rebel against? Himself? :clown:

Don't forget that my first character(Sigismund der Stolze) was the most loyal character of the game. I'm actully relishing the opportunity to be the one in power, rather than the one rebelling against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

I'm actually relishing the opportunity to be the one in power, rather than the one rebelling against it.

---

I don't believe it. Some of us have a pool going on how long it will take for you to get bored being in charge. I believe eventually you will rebel against yourself and try to start up your own independent state. :clown:

Iggy, I'm going to give you the same advice I gave Ituralde when he played Siegfried: Enjoy it, because there's going to be plenty of people who are going to be doing the exact same thing you did.

can I just publically state that Tagmata may have the Athens garrison for three or so turns without having to formally changed the SOT thread?

Your post in the Megas thread was fine for that, although since Tagamata does not have a Private Army, the Megas himself can still mess with the force if he wants to.

Flyd, those propaganda statements you wrote are just pure Gold!:bow:

Great stuff indeed :laugh4:

But I must admit that I'm tempted to ask flyd's permission to let Savvas kidnap "Demosthenes, Friend of the Roman People" to... teach him about the different social classes and how to critisize those of higher classes in a more appropriate way :evil:

Very nicely written.

May I just say most awesome opening ceremony ever. And now im going to bed. Good night.

Igno, this is really getting tiresome.Would you be so kind and answer my pm´s. If its IC reason you dont want to answer, i can accept, but if its OOC and i have to wait couple weeks to get an answer, then....:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

But I must admit that I'm tempted to ask flyd's permission to let Savvas kidnap "Demosthenes, Friend of the Roman People" to... teach him about the different social classes and how to critisize those of higher classes in a more appropriate way :evil:

---

What do you mean? Satirical flattery seems like a wholly appropriate way to criticize someone in a position of power. You were only being used as a literary device. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyd

What do you mean? Satirical flattery seems like a wholly appropriate way to criticize someone in a position of power. You were only being used as a literary device. :beam:

---

I demand that propaganda be more factually accurate in the future. I mean, who ever heard of sarcasm, distortions, embellishments, lies, and un-truths in propaganda!?!

I am very disappointed...

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Igno, this is really getting tiresome.Would you be so kind and answer my pm´s. If its IC reason you dont want to answer, i can accept, but if its OOC and i have to wait couple weeks to get an answer, then....:shame:

---

To make sure this isn't buried.

On a side note though, if I ever become Megas I think I might just turn off PMs for the duration of my turn. Seems like it would take care of a lot of problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

To make sure this isn't buried.

On a side note though, if I ever become Megas I think I might just turn off PMs for the duration of my turn. Seems like it would take care of a lot of problems.

---

*raises his hand to affirm the motion*

It might make the Senate more interesting in between terms... :yes:

And then we will have many people complaining that their buildings are not built and their armies are not recruited :clown::clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

And then we will have many people complaining that their buildings are not built and their armies are not recruited :clown::clown:

---

I hope no one here would do that. If your army is not being recruited, or your building is not being built, you should definitely not complain in the Senate. The Senate is only for very serious business and I would hope that no one here would ever spam it up with such posts. :clown:

Quote:

---

2.4 – Wills & Inheritance: On his death, all of a Senator’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the Senator’s death. Except as noted below, a Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A player's next avatar may only inherit a single province and a single retinue. A Will may name multiple Senators as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single Senator. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the Senator’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the Senator also has no Lord, the Basileus gains possession of the province.

---

Now.. It is said that the Will is valid only if it 'names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated'.

So this means that I can not give a settlement conquered by me, managed by me, defended by me to my next avatar?
Why can't I make a Will that says 'I will give my province X and ancillary Y to my next avatar"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

Now.. It is said that the Will is valid only if it 'names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated'.

So this means that I can not give a settlement conquered by me, managed by me, defended by me to my next avatar?
Why can't I make a Will that says 'I will give my province X and ancillary Y to my next avatar"?

---

There is also this: "A player's next avatar may only inherit a single province and a single retinue."

Your next avatar is an exception to the rule. You can give 1 province and 1 retinue to your next avatar. Otherwise, it can only be to an avatar that has a current different player.

So, in your will, you can leave province X and retinue Y to your next avatar. The rest has to go to avatars that are currently in the game and have different players.

Just filled in a quick story over Ioannis Komnenos II's birth.

Wait, who was it that fought at Yerevan?

Ituralde. I auto-resolved the battle, as he was away, and had given me leave to control his character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

http://www.mizus.com/files/pbm/LOTR-1122-1.zip

Tried to assault Alexandria. It went...badly.

I should have a battle report up within the day. If possible, I'd like Kosmas' whereabouts to be unknown until I post it. :yes:

---

What were you thinking? :clown:

Last browsing shutting it down soon.
Will be out of play for the next 2 weeks though no one will notice. :embarassed:
Andres is the official spoke person for the House including swearing and breaking oaths paper work has already been submitted through channels.

I'm noticing, have a fun vacation! :2thumbsup:

For those of you using the Caliph in your stories, keep in mind that I just killed him. :2thumbsup:

I apologize ahead of time if that messes up any stories but he insisted on joining the Jihad and wandering around Antioch. :clown:

Regarding breaking the rules, there's nothing in the rules which say you can't build before replenishing armies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Regarding breaking the rules, there's nothing in the rules which say you can't build before replenishing armies.

---

spending priorities are such:

royal armies > private armies > prioritized buildings > buildings

Therefore: private armies > buildings

According to that, it seems you can't spend a dime on one thing until the items before it are satisfied. It's the thing that compels you to OOC to maintain the "props" to our avatar's power.

At least that is the way I read the rules. I'm more than willing to settle it IC or OOC. OOC we can just wait for TC to rule on it. IC, we can declare it a "rule dispute" and let the Rules dictate our next actions. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Regarding breaking the rules, there's nothing in the rules which say you can't build before replenishing armies.

---

With all due respect, I hope you're asking a question instead of proceeding on your own interpretation of the rules again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

For those of you using the Caliph in your stories, keep in mind that I just killed him. :2thumbsup:

---

Different character. The game calls him Sultan, the players call him Caliph. Therefore, he's still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Different character. The game calls him Sultan, the players call him Caliph. Therefore, he's still alive.

---

He had the title "Caliph of Cairo." Of course there is now a new Caliph, but the old one is still dead. At least according to SS. You guys can feel free to ignore or retcon that if you wish but I thought it was something you'd want to know. :yes:

Then ignore it I shall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Then ignore it I shall.

---

My caliph can beat up your caliph. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

With all due respect, I hope you're asking a question instead of proceeding on your own interpretation of the rules again.

---

With all due respect, I don't think that's very complimentary.

Here are the powers regarding the Megas:

Megas Logothetes:
Requirements: Must have been elected Megas Logothetes
Influence: During Emergency Sessions called during his term, 2 + up to 5 Stat Influence, or the Senator's normal Influence, whichever is higher. For every term of 6 turns or more that a Senator serves as Megas Logothetes, he will receive a permanent +1 bonus to his Influence and a permanent increase of +1 to the maximum Stat Influence of his feudal rank. This bonus is cumulative for Senators who serve multiple terms as Megas Logothetes. The in-term bonus does not apply to the Basileus. The post-term bonus does not apply to the Basileus or to any Senator who ceased to be Megas Logothetes because he was impeached.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the Megas Logothetes are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the Senator’s other feudal ranks.
(2) Unless otherwise restricted by the rules, the Megas Logothetes can do anything he wants inside the game except use console cheats, which may be used only as specifically allowed by the Rules. Edicts are only binding on the Megas Logothetes to the extent that the Senate chooses to enforce them.
Limitations on Powers:
(1) The Megas Logothetes must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. With the exception of Prioritized Buildings, the Megas Logothetes is not required to build anything. However, if anything is built in a settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the Megas Logothetes can build whatever he likes. The Megas Logothetes may upgrade a province’s walls at any time unless such an upgrade is forbidden in advance by the Senator who owns the settlement.
(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the Senators who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the Megas Logothetes may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.
(3) The Megas Logothetes must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(4) (4) The Megas Logothetes cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the Megas Logothetes may do freely.
(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.

Nowhere does it say that Armies take precedence over construction. Nowhere.

I am not trying to skew the rules for my benefit. In fact, the building of the church in Yerevan was not trying to manipulate the rules. It's jolly hard to remember every clause of the rules, especially where they don't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the Senators who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the Megas Logothetes may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.

Nowhere does it say that Armies take precedence over construction. Nowhere.

---

Actually it does say so in the rule 4.3:

Quote:

---

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

---

which is where PK gets his building order.

Edit: I think a "Megas cheat sheet" would be quite handy. Basically a list of things for Megas with all the rule interplays such as this written out.

Something like:
1. Post new save & report,
2. Wait 24 hrs,
3. Move
4. Replenish armies
5. build & other recruit
6. Press End Turn,
7. GOTO 1).

It says that Rule 4.3 takes priority over prioritized buildings, not ordinary buildings. As I have no more prioritized buildings for my term, I can build normal buildings over army replenishment.

Ok, I can see how you could read it that way. I think we just have to wait for TCs interpretation.

Ignoramus, if a private or royal army needs to brought up to minimum strength, you have to do it. Not only does it have precedence over priority building, it has it over any building. At least that's how I am reading it.

I was in a similar position in the test game. There was no way IC that I would have funded the resurreection of the French King's army once he had destroyed it against the Prince's allies, but OOC I had to follow the rules.

The armies rule is one of the few of the OOC non-partisan things a Megas has to follow, but it is very important to the balance and nature of the game that we do so.

I actually read those rules the same way Iggy did. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over prioritized buildings, which happen to take precedent over regular construction. So the last time this came up Iggy should have filled armies before building Makedonios' prioritized building, and since he had to queue that building before normal construction, it meant he had to fill up the armies before constructing anything. The prioritized building provided the link in the chain of requirements.

It isn't stated explicitly in the rules that 4.3 also takes precedence over regular construction (although perhaps the rules are intended to be read that way).

I actually mentioned in an IM discussion over the last time this came up that it made the prioritized building ability much more useful than I had thought. :clown:

Guy's,

I brought this up IC and OOC previously. It's been confirmed that all recruiting for Royal and Private armies must occur before any building is queued up, whether prioritised or not.

The only section that gets the Megas out of this bind is "unless the Senators who Prioritized them agree otherwise.".

Now I'm pretty sure those who are not happy with what is occurring have not contacted the Megas and said "Sure, build the church before replenishing my forces!" :balloon2:

Just a quick note to say I'll be off-line while I move house over the next few days.

I'll be watching from work but it will take a little while to get back online from home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

spending priorities are such:

royal armies > private armies > prioritized buildings > buildings

---

It would be better to look at it like this:

royal armies > private armies > prioritized buildings > everything else

The first three are MANDATORY. If any money at all is spent that turn, the first three things (RAs, PAs, PBs) must be taken care of first and in the order indicated. Once all of those have been dealt with properly, then whatever money is left over can be spent on everything else (buildings, misc recruitment, forts, mercs, agents, bribes, etc.). If there are still required RA, PA, or PB expenditures to be made, the only option the Megas has is whether to fund them or whether to save all his money and not spend any of it.

That said, I see how Igno is interpreting this, and his take has some validity. The wording of 4.3 does specifically refer to other recruitment, not all other monetary expenditures. The above paragraph is my recollection of how it was intended, but I think an error may have been made in the language drafting. It might be a good idea to fix this via CA at the next session.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

With all due respect, I don't think that's very complimentary.

Here are the powers regarding the Megas:

Megas Logothetes:
Requirements: Must have been elected Megas Logothetes
Influence: During Emergency Sessions called during his term, 2 + up to 5 Stat Influence, or the Senator's normal Influence, whichever is higher. For every term of 6 turns or more that a Senator serves as Megas Logothetes, he will receive a permanent +1 bonus to his Influence and a permanent increase of +1 to the maximum Stat Influence of his feudal rank. This bonus is cumulative for Senators who serve multiple terms as Megas Logothetes. The in-term bonus does not apply to the Basileus. The post-term bonus does not apply to the Basileus or to any Senator who ceased to be Megas Logothetes because he was impeached.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the Megas Logothetes are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the Senator’s other feudal ranks.
(2) Unless otherwise restricted by the rules, the Megas Logothetes can do anything he wants inside the game except use console cheats, which may be used only as specifically allowed by the Rules. Edicts are only binding on the Megas Logothetes to the extent that the Senate chooses to enforce them.
Limitations on Powers:
(1) The Megas Logothetes must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. With the exception of Prioritized Buildings, the Megas Logothetes is not required to build anything. However, if anything is built in a settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the Megas Logothetes can build whatever he likes. The Megas Logothetes may upgrade a province’s walls at any time unless such an upgrade is forbidden in advance by the Senator who owns the settlement.
(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the Senators who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the Megas Logothetes may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.
(3) The Megas Logothetes must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(4) (4) The Megas Logothetes cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the Megas Logothetes may do freely.
(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.

Nowhere does it say that Armies take precedence over construction. Nowhere.

I am not trying to skew the rules for my benefit. In fact, the building of the church in Yerevan was not trying to manipulate the rules. It's jolly hard to remember every clause of the rules, especially where they don't exist.

---

My problem is that this exact question was asked and answered during the test game, it was asked and answered the last time you went off on a wild hare, and, frankly, it's an obvious underlying assumption of the rule base. The rules don't have to say 'Strator ek Lesvou cannot destroy all buildings in Constantinople and disband the Emperor's entire army...' in literal, useless detail, instead they lay out the powers available as a general base. We had a whole test game just to sort out these kinds of absurd little abuses of the system.

And, as far as I can tell, you weren't paying attention or just don't care.

Furthermore the real point here, and the real problem with handling this 'IC' the first time, is that these aren't meant to be laws that the Caesar can manipulate to his advantage, they're OOC rules that all of the players mutually respect and follow in order to help each other have fun. You were unpunished the first time you did this, and, exactly as predicted, you have almost immediately done so again. You won't be the last, you can rest assured that even now someone is poring over the rules looking for any slight technicality to harm their supposedly IC opponent.

There's an essential difference, IMHO, between a character abusing his power and a player abusing the rules. I know very well that not everyone sees the game the same way I do but I'm quite hopeful we'll get a better idea of where this group of players stands on the matter this time.

I've read this in some more depth now and the rules are definitely not as clear on this as they should be. This is what I intended it to be (I think, it's been a while):

royal armies > private armies > prioritized buildings > everything else

But in practice it really does read like what PK is saying:

royal armies > private armies > prioritized buildings > buildings

Under PK's interpretation (which I think is accurate), the 'everything else' is actually not covered at all. Under the current rules as written, forts, towers, agents, etc. (everything that isn't a military unit or a building) can be built regardless of any RAs, PAs, or PBs. That isn't working as it was intended to. All that stuff should be dumped at the bottom along with the buildings. I will try and come up with some langauge to fix this that can be voted on at the next Senate.

That said, the rules are pretty clear that at least when it comes to hiring military units and funding construction, the following priority of investment must be used:

Royal Army > Private Army > Prioritized Building > Building.

The RA and PA part comes directly from 4.3 and is obvious. The PA over PB and PB over Building part comes from Megas' limitation #2.

[edit] I will try and write up a plain English 'Guide' on how to be the Megas so that the job is easier for other people in the future.

Eek....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

It says that Rule 4.3 takes priority over prioritized buildings, not ordinary buildings. As I have no more prioritized buildings for my term, I can build normal buildings over army replenishment.

---

If Igno has indeed completed all prioritized buildings, he is technically correct. Unfortunately, the wording of 4.3 skews from what was intended, as far as I can remember it. 4.3 specifically states that RAs and PAs take priority over "military recruitment." This definitely doesn't cover buildings. Megas' Limitation #2 also only specifically states that 4.3 takes priority over "prioritized buildings," not all construction in general. Thus, completing all prioritized buildings makes this bit inoperative.

Technically, as the rules are currently written, I think Igno is correct (assuming he has finished all prioritized buildings). This is, however, a loophole in the rules and not how it was intended to operate. I will propose a CA to fix this problem at the next Senate session (not too far off). For now, Igno has not technically violated a rule as far as I can tell. I would greatly appreciate it the spirit of the law, rather than the letter, would be obeyed until this can be rectified.

Sorry for the multiple posts, they come at various levels of caffeination.

I would love to see this fixed. As written, it is technically legal for a Megas to just gift the treasury every turn to another faction. Or spam agents and avoid recruitment. Or build a massive navy. Or build in every province and neglect recruitment.

All of these take away the power of an independent army. Private armies are very much the building block of power in this game. Or at least one of them. If the Megas can use loopholes to deny or delay it's formation/rebuilding, then it really kills the power of some of the avatars.

I'd also like to address building private armies on the opposite side of the Empire or stranding them on islands. Both are "technically" legal but again they chip away at this crucial building block of power.

I wouldn't mind making the private/royal armies smaller if we could guarantee that the owner would get them in a turn no matter the circumstances.

Hello all.

In the battle I played Kosmas was said to be "captured" (despite no ransom offered. :clown:). I was thinking of doing a story or two about it, but I probably won't be able to now. :sweatdrop:

So I'm withdrawing my request to delay responses to Kosmas' death. :yes:

Battle report should be up pretty soon. Only really notable events from it are that midway thrgouh the battle it looked as if the enemy army might all route. Sadly, that turned out not to be the case (at least, those that routed regrouped quickly). :clown:

My sympathies on your loss Z (:shame:), I hope you didn't attack just because I said I thought you could win. :laugh4:

I'm rather curious, what actually killed your avatar? Did you try running through those middle tier arab spearmen, or did your morale break down?

You better be lining up another character as we speak. Wouldn't be LotR without you. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

Well, I suppose our conversation gave me the idea I might be able to win. :clown:

Of more effect was actually winning siege assaults with those kinds of odds. :yes:

It was the middle tier spearmen that did Kosmas in, when he had to shore up my crappy militia spearmen unit (although the militia did better than the "elite" Varangians). His morale broke at the very last second, when only he and one other bodyguard member was left. :sweatdrop:

I would like Kosmas' final epitaph to be "Varangians suck".

I'm not quite sure when I'm getting back into the game. Some time in the next couple of terms, I think. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

My sympathies on your loss Z (:shame:), I hope you didn't attack just because I said I thought you could win. :laugh4:

I'm rather curious, what actually killed your avatar? Did you try running through those middle tier arab spearmen, or did your morale break down?

You better be lining up another character as we speak. Wouldn't be LotR without you. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

---

Sorry for your loss, Zim. That really sucks.

Two questions though:

1) What were your chances of winning?
2) Do you still have plans on doing a battle report?

1. Rather pathetically, the computer put my odds at 1:1. :embarassed:

2. I'll still do a battle report. :yes: