OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

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

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

:egypt:

---

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

Just to answer Tincow's point from above :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northnovas

Taking the save!

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

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

---

Likewise. :clown:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

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

---

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

I hadn't thought of that.

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

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

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

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

Ituralde

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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

---

That sound so familiar :laugh4:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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

---

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

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

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

New version of Secession Rule Change:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

The following ranks will be added to Rule 2.7:

• Rebel:
  Requirements:
  (1) Must own at least 2 contiguous provinces and then declare oneself a Rebel in a public thread OR
  (2) Be a vassal of a Rebel.
  Influence: None
  Powers:
  (1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Rebel are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Rebel Powers and Penalties take precedence.
  (2) If the Rebel rank is obtained by declaration, rather than swearing, the Rebel must designate one of his provinces as his Capital. The Capital must be contiguous to at least one other province owned by the Rebel or any of his vassals. At the moment that the Capital is declared, provinces owned by the Rebel or his vassals which are not connected to the Capital by contiguous land borders are instantly lost and become the property of the Basileus. TinCow will determine whether an island province is contiguous to continental provinces. This territory will be known as the Rebel's 'Realm.'
  (3) If the Rebel rank is obtained by declaration, the Senator automatically breaks any Oath to his Lord.
  (4) If the Rebel rank is obtained by swearing an Oath, all of the Senator's provinces which are not contiguous to the Realm of the new Lord become the property of the Basileus.
  (5) Is not bound by any Senate Edicts or Amendments.
  (6) Is immune to Basileus' Powers 6, 7, and 16.
  Penalties:
  (1) When this rank is obtained, the Rebel is considered to have made an automatic declaration of war against all Senators who are still part of the Empire. Rebels cannot make Peace Treaties.
  (2) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
  (3) Cannot prioritize any Units or Buildings.
  (4) Taxes are set to Very High in all settlements within the Realm.
  (5) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Rebel is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.
  (6) Cannot hold the ranks of Dean or Scholar.
  
  
• Secessionist:
  Requirements:
  (1) Must have been a Rebel for 5 turns OR
  (2) Be a vassal of a Secessionist.
  Influence: None
  Powers:
  (1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Secessionist are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Secessionist Powers and Penalties take precedence.
  (2) If the Rebel rank is obtained by swearing an Oath, all of the Senator's provinces which are not contiguous to the Realm of the new Lord become the property of the Basileus.
  (3) Is not bound by any Senate Edicts or Amendments.
  (4) Is immune to Basileus' Powers 6, 7, and 16.
  (5) Taxes are set to High in all adjacent non-Realm settlements.
  Penalties:
  (1) When this rank is obtained, the Secessionist is considered to have made an automatic declaration of war against all Senators who are still part of the Empire. Secessionists cannot make Peace Treaties.
  (2) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
  (3) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Secessionist is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.
  (4) Cannot hold the ranks of Dean or Scholar.
  
  
• Independent Ruler:
  Requirements:
  (1) Must have been a Secessionist for 5 turns OR
  (2) Be a vassal of an Independent Ruler.
  Influence: None
  Powers:
  (1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Independent Ruler are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Independent Ruler's Powers and Penalties take precedence.
  (2) May create his own title instead of "Independent Ruler" and may determine the correlating titles of all his vassals, unless the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
  (3) If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 unit per province within the Realm and 1 building per 3 provinces within the Realm per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term. This Power is cumulative with the ability to Prioritize units under any other rank held by the Independent Ruler. This power is void if the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
  (5) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason, unless the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
  (6) Is not bound by any Senate Edicts or Amendments.
  (7) Is immune to Basileus' Powers 6, 7, and 16.
  (8) Unless they have the permission of the Independent Ruler, any neutral Senator entering a province of the Realm owned by the Independent Ruler is considered to have automatically declared war on the Independent Ruler.
  (9) During any Senate session, can give a temporary bonus of 1 influence to any loyal Senator of the Empire for every 2 provinces in the Realm. The loyal Senator must agree to accept this temporary bonus before it can be added. The offer and acceptance of the bonus may be kept secret until all votes are tallied, but TinCow must be informed of the deal via PM. This power is void if the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
  (10) Taxes are set to Very High in all adjacent non-Realm settlements.
  (11) Can move the Capital to any other province within the Realm, but this results in the Independent Ruler becoming a Secessionist once again. This power is void if the Independent Ruler is loyal to another Senator.
  Penalties:
  (1) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
  (2) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Independent Ruler is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.
  (3) Cannot be a Dean or a Scholar.

Megas Logothetes Powers will be altered to read as follows:

Quote:

---

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

---

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

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

"Dear Senators of the Roman Empire,

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

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

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

I wish you well in your own endeavors

Respectfully, Comes Helarionas Anargiros"

Demetrios then turns and calmly takes his seat.

---

I think a rebel can declare war - maybe not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:clown:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

He better...:hairpin2:

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

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

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

---

It's a game and each game has rules.

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

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

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

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

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

Just my :2cents:

I agree with you, Andres.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope you see my point...

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

:evilgrin:

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

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

No Edicts no direction for the Megas during his term.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

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

---

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

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

Good day all.

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

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

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

Take it easy everyone.
AG

Good holiday, AG...

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

Thanks Tristan.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

Ituralde

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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Hmm, it would appear this is correct. Tortosa belongs to Kousinos Sophianos (Cecil XIX). Apologies for not noticing this. I will not re-do the election poll until Ramses has a chance to respond and perhaps point out which province he does own (since the Library could be inaccurate on that).

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[IMG]https://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b...maphistory.jpg[/IMG]

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

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

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

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

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

:egypt:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

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

---

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

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

Ok, I have added a chart of all provinces and their current owners. Doing this has pointed out some errors in the Library, which I have now sorted out. The following provinces did not have anyone listed as their owner:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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

---

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

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

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

The rule on this is clear:

Quote:

---

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

---

:oops:, sorry about that. :embarassed:

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

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