OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

If Kosmas is dead then Efstathios must swear an Oath to someone else ...

The House of Asteri is filled with crazy people who go against the odds and get their avatars end up dead! :dizzy2::laugh4:

Not that Efstathios is any better :clown:

I'm back! Enjoyed my holidays but had time to follow the forums.

Two avatars down already, and the Megas is annoying people left and right! Awesome! :2thumbsup:

Battle report is up :bow:

Welcome back Ituralde :2thumbsup:

Welcome back Ituralde!

Quote:

---

Two avatars down already, and the Megas is annoying people left and right! Awesome!

---

Doesn't that remind you of KotR...

For the record, I allowed Igno to block the Jihad (he only blocked 1 of the 2 crossing, but apparently the French then moved onto the other one, causing a blockage that wasn't there when Igno made his moves) because apparently fixing this would have required a lot more time to be spent and I want to keep the game moving. In addition, blocking the crossing with a fleet is a lot different from blocking it with a tiny army IC, because the Jihad army can't just stomp the fleet and keep moving. For this very reason, naval control of the Bosphorus has been of massive military importance for nearly all of human history.

I hope my explanation is acceptable to everyone, as I saw a difference in the circumstances.

Of course if the AI weren't completely incompetent they could just hire a jihad mercenary ship and only have to go two steps out of the way to get around the blockage. Seems like a very similar situation to the refusal to attack small armies in a choke point, unless we want to do the jihad shuffle (Letting them get as far as, say, the mountains south of Sarkel and then removing the ship so they start back for Con., then putting the ship back when they get close, etc.). AI abuse hardly seems warranted. :dizzy2:

:egypt:

Again, unlike in the previous situation, no one would have expected this to result in a reverse movement of the Jihad, as the other crossing was open. It just happened that the French Crusade moved there during its turn (before the Jihad got to move) and this then resulted in both routes being blocked. He then asked me what to do. I said I would prefer if it he replayed it, but that if that would take a lot of time he didn't have to. Apparently it would have taken a lot of time, as he did not.

Yes, I'm already regretting sticking my foot into this strategic AI issue in the first place. I think that was an error and I should just have let it be. Trying to figure out what is good and what is bad in this kind of situation may cause more problems than just dealing with the moronic AI as it is.

We could just pretend that the French did it to help us. :shrug:

And yeah, trying to save the AI from itself seems like a losing battle. :laugh4:

I hope it's obvious I wasn't complaining about the solution, but about the AI, which is always happy to abuse itself even when we aren't trying to abuse it. :laugh4: The jihad shuffle is just a particularly hilarious example of AI self abuse because if the AI didn't get map information it shouldn't have for it's pathing then the shuffle wouldn't work. One of those cases where the programmers tried to help the AI out and ended up making a royal mess of it. It'd be better if there were a simple sort of '+1' solution to cause the AI to wait at least one turn before deciding to go 15 turns out of the way, or even better if the AI could reasonably pick a good defensive terrain spot and wait it out there.

While I'm dreaming why not have the AI perform jihads the way a player would, conquering everything along a reasonably direct path to the target, eh?

:egypt:

Point of order:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus in reports thread

A noble asked to be adopted by my younger brother, Andronikos. Acting on behalf of my brother, I refused(As no one controls Andronikos, the decision falls to the Megas).

---

I was under the impression that this avatar was reserved for flyd once it came of age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

I was under the impression that this avatar was reserved for flyd once it came of age.

---

Last I heard, flyd hadn't made up his mind:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyd

I won't be jumping back in right away. Let's adopt a wait-'n'-see approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Let me know what you want to do about your reincarnation. We can pop an RBG for you by 1117 if you want. Also, Andronikos and Isaakios Komnenos will both come of age towards the end of this current term, perhaps a week or so from now.

---

---

All right then, my mistake.

In fact, the AI is more moronic than you think. I replayed the save, as TC asked me to do, and didn't block the crossing. The Turks still turned around.

Okay, I'm back. I'm mostly caught up, and I'll soon start posting and replying to PMs. (including clearing my PM Box. :yes:)

Somehow, I just knew I'd come back to see another post in the Mausoleum. :sweatdrop:

*cough cough*

*clearing of throat*

*taking of long, deep breath*

IGNORAMUS! CLEAR YOUR INBOX!!!!!!

I am desperately trying to revive Efstratios' storyline.

I dont have SS installed yet. Where is he anyway, how old, etc?

Is anyone still interested in him as a character or should I drop out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I am desperately trying to revive Efstratios' storyline.

I dont have SS installed yet. Where is he anyway, how old, etc?

Is anyone still interested in him as a character or should I drop out?

---

He is still sitting in Durrazzo. Michail is still standing outside Durazzo with the spearmen.

Thanks, Privateerkev.

If I can get things working, I'd like to one day... maybe... even move my character around the map for once. :laugh2:

If anyone cares, Efstratios is currently being "held as a captive prisoner" by the "Free Durazzo Movement".

I recruited 2 units of Town Militia in Antioch, and two Peasant Archer units. The Order now has 6 infantry, 4 archers, and 2 cavalry, as required.

NM...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

I recruited 2 units of Town Militia in Antioch, and two Peasant Archer units. The Order now has 6 infantry, 4 archers, and 2 cavalry, as required.

---

Sorry Ig but they aren't in the save that you released at the beginning of the turn. Only 1 archer was recruited in Nicosia. So that is what I am going off of IC.

Did you mix up the saves when you and TC were trying to fix the French Crusade problem?

FYI unless there's something wrong with my game there were not two units of town militia available to be recruited in Antioch last year. :inquisitive:

:egypt:

Hey,can my avatar please have the title ancillary that comes from being the ruler of Armenia?:yes:

I'll transfer it when I do the Library update next year, along with anything else of a similar sort. I think several titles will need to be moved around.

Also, could you remove Ioannis' pagan magician?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

FYI unless there's something wrong with my game there were not two units of town militia available to be recruited in Antioch last year. :inquisitive:

---

I think he meant spear militia. At least, I hope that is what he meant... :clown:

Well, my point is simply that the 'rules' about private armies are more like suggestions, and I sincerely hope the next Megas is paying close attention to that fact. As long as you're willing to at least make an excuse that couldn't possibly be accurate no one will even notice whether you're upholding them or not.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

Well, my point is simply that the 'rules' about private armies are more like suggestions, and I sincerely hope the next Megas is paying close attention to that fact. As long as you're willing to at least make an excuse that couldn't possibly be accurate no one will even notice whether you're upholding them or not.

---

Just my opinion but I think Ig is telling the truth about the units. I think he did recruit them but with the jumble of saves him and TC worked on, something got lost or missed.

So, OOC I'm fine with this. I want it fixed of course but I am convinced that this latest "rule breaking" was an honest mistake.

IC however I consider it fair game and will act accordingly... :evil:

I am preparing a 'Guide' on how to play the Megas. As part of this, I will address the issue of breaking rules like this. The following will apply to all future Megas terms: If the Megas violates an OOC game rule and this violation is protested by a player (if no one protests, it must not be a serious violation) he will be given one turn to rectify the situation or begin rectifying the situation, if it would require multiple turns. If this is not done, or the rule is violated a second time, the Megas will be removed from office without an impeachment vote, and a new election will be held in an Emergency Session, in which the 'impeached' Megas will not be allowed to stand for re-election.

How many "unalligned Senators" are we going to allow in this game?

I understand TF and GH were special cases. But now ATPG, who has an avatar BTW, is now also playing a "generic Elector."

The problem with "generic Electors" is that you really can't interact with them in the rules. You can yell at them in the Senate and see that their legislation dies but that is it. He has no real political or military career for us to threaten. Doesn't seem fair...

I thought the "everyone must have an avatar" rule was written specifically to prevent this.

You seem to be interacting with and threatening his career quite well! :laugh4:

In case anyone cares, I announced my intention to do exactly this, long before my computer died and it threw off my entire storyline.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=503

Was quite a while ago, in fact. No one said anything about it being unfair or against the rules before.

But if it's REALLY a problem, I am certain TinCow can remove all posts related to the senator in question. If it's ruining anyones gameplay experience, I can simply kill off Monomachos and drop from the game.

If he has no political or military career for us to threaten, then he has no political or military power to threaten us. Seems fair to me.

Unaligned doesn't mean without an avatar, it just means that they're not a part of a House/Alliance. ATPG has an avatar and you can threaten him in the same manner as you can threaten everyone else. He may refuse to RP that avatar, but that's what his influence is based on, etc. I am not goint to tell ATPG how to interact IC, but his abilities in the game are still tied exclusively to his avatar.

Unless there are extraordinarily unusual circumstances that reduce me to tears at the very thought of the unfairness of the situation to the player, no one else will ever be allowed to play without an avatar. You don't have to move the avatar or fight any battles if you don't want to, but you must at least have one in the game somewhere. GH will be allowed to play in his current role until he gets a computer capable of playing M2TW or otherwise decides to leave the game. TF will be allowed to continue playing the Princess only until she dies. At that point, he must take an in-game avatar if he wants to keep playing.

Just my 2 cents but I prefer if people play with their actual avatars, or characters tied to their avatars as much as possible. YLC has been using Veronica in the Senate but she is tied to his avatar, Iakovos. Which allows us to hold Iakovos responsible for what she says.

As for not saying anything sooner, you didn't really speak much ATPG until now.

IC I will simply not see that Senator as "legal" and ignore him. OOC, I do wish that people with avatars play their avatars but thats up to TC to decide.

I don't want you to drop from the game ATPG but it does get frusterating having someone yell at you that you can't really do anything about. If an avatar yells at you, there are real IC consequences that can be brought to bear. But generic electors basically have a free pass to say absolutely anything they want as long as the Emperor allows it.

*edit*

Nevermind, TC made his ruling while I was writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I am preparing a 'Guide' on how to play the Megas. As part of this, I will address the issue of breaking rules like this. The following will apply to all future Megas terms: If the Megas violates an OOC game rule and this violation is protested by a player (if no one protests, it must not be a serious violation) he will be given one turn to rectify the situation or begin rectifying the situation, if it would require multiple turns. If this is not done, or the rule is violated a second time, the Megas will be removed from office without an impeachment vote, and a new election will be held in an Emergency Session, in which the 'impeached' Megas will not be allowed to stand for re-election.

---

I really like this! Clear OOC regulations will hopefully prevent OOC matters spilling into the IC part of the game. I always find it hard to roleplay in those situations. :2thumbsup:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Just my 2 cents but I prefer if people play with their actual avatars, or characters tied to their avatars as much as possible. YLC has been using Veronica in the Senate but she is tied to his avatar, Iakovos. Which allows us to hold Iakovos responsible for what she says.

As for not saying anything sooner, you didn't really speak much ATPG until now.

IC I will simply not see that Senator as "legal" and ignore him. OOC, I do wish that people with avatars play their avatars but thats up to TC to decide.

I don't want you to drop from the game ATPG but it does get frusterating having someone yell at you that you can't really do anything about. If an avatar yells at you, there are real IC consequences that can be brought to bear. But generic electors basically have a free pass to say absolutely anything they want as long as the Emperor allows it.

*edit*

NM, TC posted this while I was writing.

---

From what you're telling me, PK, using this non-player character to speak for myself in Monomachos' absence will be frustrating and therefore make the game less fun.

That was never my intention.

I respectfully request that this NPC character be withdrawn and stricken from the record, as he has proved to be a less-than-fun distraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

From what you're telling me, PK, using this non-player character to speak for myself in Monomachos' absence will be frustrating and therefore make the game less fun.

That was never my intention.

I respectfully request that this NPC character be withdrawn and stricken from the record, as he has proved to be a less-than-fun distraction.

---

Nah, don't do that. I will just advocate IC for tying your NPC to your avatar. If you refuse, I will provide the IC consequence of "ignoring." I will also attempt to get him banned from the Magnaura.

But please keep in mind that is all IC, not OOC. OOC, TC has made it clear. You have an avatar, therefore you can RP what ever you wish. So, OOC this is settled for me. :medievalcheers:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Nah, don't do that. I will just advocate IC for tying your NPC to your avatar. If you refuse, I will provide the IC consequence of "ignoring." I will also attempt to get him banned from the Magnaura.

But please keep in mind that is all IC, not OOC. OOC, TC has made it clear. You have an avatar, therefore you can RP what ever you wish. So, OOC this is settled for me. :medievalcheers:

---

Not to beat this issue like a dead horse, but here's my thoughts.

IC/OOC often has a very blurred line. Your character won't interact with mine IC for reasons which are OOC. If this were "real", your character wouldn't be "aware" that this NPC is in fact an NPC, so therefore any issue your avatar has with this person is technically an OOC issue, now that the "rule" status of the character is settled.

May not seem like a big distinction, but it completely ruins the IC aspect of being in the senate for me. Which hampers my gameplay experience.

:laugh2:

The mere fact that your character knows mine is a NPC which is different from the others destroys the illusion of reality. I'd never be able to use that character with that mess hanging over things, or create a story, or even confidently debate in the senate without voting.

It is as though we are all collectively writing a novel, but one of the characters refuses to interact with another character when the story calls for it, breaking the suspension of disbelief, and possibly the fourth wall. If on an episode of "I Love Lucy", Fred and Ethel show up with some nephew that wasn't in the script, Lucy would attempt to interact with Fred and Ethel but the nephew would speak and just be ignored. It would completely ruin the audience's ability to enjoy the story.

I understand your reasons for not wanting an IC interaction with this NPC, and those reasons make it impossible for me to effectively use the character. For me to proceed from this point on would make the senate a farce. And after all that, what would I have done? Basically ruined several people's enjoyment of the game, all for the sake of introducing a completely unimportant character which everyone will attempt to forget ever exists.

I'm afraid although TC has ruled this character is legal, he unfortunately suffers from Chuck Cunningham Syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_D...am_Syndrome.22

A superfluous, out-of-place character whose minor interactions with others are best buried and forgotten. Or at the very least, written out of the story.

So, the "senator" in question can be quietly forgotten, dragged out of the senate in chains, or suddenly die of a heart attack. Whatever would best get the story moving again. I've determined that, under the circumstances, I can't really use such a character, and would not want to. It's already been too much of a distraction and I regret writing it.

You are correct, except for one thing: Your senator is not recognized as such in any official records, but he is speaking like he is. Makedonios does indeed have a justification for ignoring him that is entirely IC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

IC/OOC often has a very blurred line. Your character won't interact with mine IC for reasons which are OOC. If this were "real", your character wouldn't be "aware" that this NPC is in fact an NPC, so therefore any issue your avatar has with this person is technically an OOC issue, now that the "rule" status of the character is settled.

May not seem like a big distinction, but it completely ruins the IC aspect of being in the senate for me. Which hampers my gameplay experience.

---

I guess the way I saw it, this Senator didn't have Efstratios's "seal" so Mak didn't see him as legitimate. From my way of thinking, this was a totally valid IC issue for me to pursue just like it was totally valid IC for you to put him in there.

I saw us both as pursuing things IC for IC reasons. If you think I picked on you IC with my OOC knowledge, then I truly apologize. I never try to do that. :bow:

Your right, IC/OOC is a blurry thing. I do the best I can with it. :yes:

While RPGs by definition involve role-playing and story-telling, they are still above all else, games. The structure of this game requires that players' abilities and tangible interactions with the world and other players be done through their avatar. This is no different from Dungeons & Dragons or any other RPG system. We love to encourage creative story-telling and thinking in these games, so we also allow people to go beyond what a D&D type game would allow you to do in this context and players are free to create 'NPCs' and tangential storylines if they so desire. However, the game aspect of LotR will always take precedence. If you get banned from the Senate, all of your NPCs will also be banned, even if it doesn't make sense IC. This is because your avatar is your only true method of tangible interaction with the world and thus your avatar is also the way the rest of the world can have a tangible interaction with you. If you want to do role-playing and storytelling without any limits or consequences, I suggest you take a look in the Mead Hall.

OOC and IC .. lines between them .. rules ..

This is giving me a headache .. please stop!:dizzy2:

Another thing..

I hope TC finishes 'The Guide how to be the Megas' very soon..
So far it's been confusing.. the Megas can do what ever he wants but then again he can do nothing..:inquisitive:
This have also been the reason I haven't proposed my candidacy to be the next Megas...

The first draft of the Guide will be posted later today. I'm writing it under the assumption that my (as of yet unwritten) CA clarifying the Rules about RAs, PAs, and PBs will be passed.

Well, since it took you almost one full term to get to Egypt your term would be almost over before you were back in civilization ;)

And, since TC managed to post about the issue at the same time, does the test game have any "constitutional" value? I mean if there are issues that were encountered during the test game and a solution was formed do we have to run into all the same issues again in LotR and codify them in CAs? Or can we just treat the test game as precedent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

This have also been the reason I haven't proposed my candidacy to be the next Megas...

---

You need land as well. :book:

TC .. we will make sure they are passed :yes:

(now I have to think who these 'we' are :embarassed:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

You need land as well. :book:

---

And wat you think Efstathios is doing in Egypt then not getting one?:clown:

I'm sure he is not there because of the weather :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowan

And, since TC managed to post about the issue at the same time, does the test game have any "constitutional" value? I mean if there are issues that were encountered during the test game and a solution was formed do we have to run into all the same issues again in LotR and codify them in CAs? Or can we just treat the test game as precedent?

---

Anything that was deemed sufficiently important from the Test Game has already been made part of the current rules. The Test Game no longer has any 'official' impact on LotR in any way, even if we encounter similar issues which did not end up being codified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

You are correct, except for one thing: Your senator is not recognized as such in any official records, but he is speaking like he is. Makedonios does indeed have a justification for ignoring him that is entirely IC.

---

True, but he is "an official delegate from the Durazzo province" who is the "replacement" for Senator Monomachos, filling out the "end of his term", rendering that point fairly moot.

It's just a big distraction, so I've decided to end his life in a most spectacular manner. So as not to distract from the actual Senate, here it is:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Taranto Giovinazzo, the impostor Senator, spy of the Kingdom of Sicily, is exposed by Makedonios for the fraud that he is, and the guards close in on him.

Just as they are about to capture him, Taranto Giovinazzo reaches inside his cloak and produces a grappling hook attached to a very long and sturdy rope. He whips the hook as hard as he can and it catches on one of the beams that run across the grand structure. With a jolly "ho ho!" the Sicilian spy swings over the palace guards and flips a full seventeen times in the air before landing on his feet.

The incredibly over-the-top and entirely unrealistic manner of his heroic escape has left him horribly, horribly dizzy and nauseated. Instead of rushing out of the senate to his inevitable freedom, he trips over his suspiciously large shoes and smacks his head against the stone floor. As blood pours from his forehead, Taranto attempts to regain his footing, but he is seeing stars, and lurches forward to vomit profusely.

Slipping in a puddle of his own abdominal spillage, he once again slips, this time landing on the back of his head. Blood pouring over his eyes, he struggles to turn over onto his stomach, but the slick stone floor prevents him from making any progress. He winces and cries out from the pain, and once again tries to get up. After several concussions and much blood loss, and twelve attempts to stand, Taranto finally rises to his feet and staggers towards an open window to escape.

Along the way, Taranto's mind begins to clear, and all the secrets of existence seem to be revealed to him. The severe brain damage he sustained against the floor somehow made the world seem simple and easy to understand. The meaning of existence, after centuries of discussion, is revealed simply to be the the logical, mathematically defined exception to all of the long odds against it's own being. For however unlikely is the birth of time and space and matter into existence, from nothingness, the mere fact that it is possible means that it is a mathematical certainty, given the infinite nature of nonexistence, that existence is possible. As for the meaning of life, it seems clear now that the purpose of human existence is to examine and document, as well as experience, the incredible and entirely unlikely possibility of the universe itself; to gain understanding over the nature of reality, metaphysics, mathematics, and harmony, and to take the lessons learned from that and apply it to one's personal code of ethics and philosophy, that one might bring reason, understanding, peace, harmony, and even life itself to other sentient beings, to help civilization discover more about this fantastic exception to the rule which is our very existence. The miracle of truth allowing the distinction between real and imaginary to generate the very fabric of our being, to allow for the concept of the laws of physics, of logic, of universal constants and the motion of time and space and energy, all while providing this existence with a form of justice.

As Taranto pondered whether or not a divine entity caused this great exception to nonbeing, and all the other metaphysical questions that have caused mankind to theorize and debate, and just as he was about to reveal to everyone in the Roman Imperial Senate the very truth of their existence, Taranto suffered a fatal burst of flatulence which caused him to explode, and the oil-fuelled lighting fixtures which provided light for the Senate chambers caused that gas to ignite into a massive fireball.

And so all that remained of Taranto Giovinazzo was a large spill of blood and vomit on the senate floor, and a large floppy clown shoe.

And a decidedly unpleasant odor.

:laugh4:

will do. Everyone should get a chance to enjoy the demise of a character, when he is gracious enough to expire in a humorous manner!

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

will do. Everyone should get a chance to enjoy the demise of a character, when he is gracious enough to expire in a humorous manner!

:clown:

---

Sorry, ATPG, when I realized my post could be seen as taking your joke too seriously, I edited it. I didn't know you saw it and was working off of it. :laugh4:

No, seriously, I thought it was a good idea. So, for the record, the Stories Thread will now contain a written record of these events, just in case anyone wants to easily find them.

I know this much; If I write something in the Magnaura, I cannot ever find it again.

The first draft of the Megas Guide is now complete. All comments and criticisms are welcome. Please point out anything I missed or anything that should be improved/added.

Thank You TinCow! :bow:

I think there are two people waiting for PMs from me - apologies, guys. This is a busy week for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I know this much; If I write something in the Magnaura, I cannot ever find it again.

---

If it's important enough OK will link to it in the history, which I appreciate greatly :2thumbsup:

Ye gods, Vissa is very glad he wasn't within a hundred miles of the senate to witness the exit of the 'Sicilian spy.' I wonder if they felt the concussion in Egypt.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eliit Tuhkur

If it's important enough OK will link to it in the history, which I appreciate greatly :2thumbsup:

---

If people want a discussion in the Magnaura to be linked into the history, please send me a PM with a link to the discussion, ie the post where it started, and a rationale for the request.

Obviously linking every post made in the Magnaura would add a great deal of work and jam up the History, so not everything is going to be catalouged. I usually link to the Senate when some memorable argument or hissy fit is taking place. Though this is in the eye of the beholder and I make no claim that I've linked to everything memorable.

The History does have a link to the Senate thread at the beginning of each term at least. So if you know which term you made a comment, you can use those links to search for it.

Edit: ATPG might want to edit in a link to the relevant Senate post that would introduce his story. Also linking in that Senate post to the story as well might help to alleviate some, if not all, of the confusion future generations might have when reading the History. :wink:

I'm not very happy. When I loaded the save, fog of was off. Obviously Warmaster Horus had been looking at the save without the fog on. This is completely against the spirit of the game and gives unfair advantages to those who do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

I'm not very happy. When I loaded the save, fog of was off. Obviously Warmaster Horus had been looking at the save without the fog on. This is completely against the spirit of the game and gives unfair advantages to those who do it.

---

What is the fun in playing the game with the fog off? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

The first draft of the Megas Guide is now complete. All comments and criticisms are welcome. Please point out anything I missed or anything that should be improved/added.

---

Wow. When I suggested the idea I was prepared to write the guide if it was deemed necessary but I never could have done anything near as good as that.

Someone with Megas experience can comment on the substance but I think that guide really lowers the bar to get new people to try their hand at being Chancellor/Megas.

Great guide TinCow! This should make being Megas a lot easier for all involved!

Of course a question has come up though concerning the replenishing of RAs/PAs.
Imagine a scenario where the Private Army of House Awesome is standing around in the domain of House Awesome which consists of three provinces. Now each of those provinces has it listed in the SOT that no garrison units may be removed from those cities.

Now the logical thing to do as Megas to replenish the PA of House Awesome would be to recruit the necessary units in the three provinces nearby, but once recruited the Megas could not use them to replenish the PA. My question now is, is the Megas then required by the rules to recruit those units either a) somewhere else in the Empire or b) hire Mercenaries?

Or could he say that he recruited the necessary troops to replenish the PA and force the involved House Awesome to use the newly recruited garrison troops? Or are SOT restrictions on garrison units void if those units were specifically recruited to replenish a RA/PA?


I remember that we had this discussion before but I don't remember the outcome anymore and couldn't find anything in the rules.

Hi Ituralde,

Interesting twist there.

TC even mentions it in the guide under Point 3, section 1, Military Units.

Honestly, if the Megas is replenishing that particular Private army then the fact that they get instantaneously "caught" in a settlement as a "garrison" troops is not valid in my view. This seems a little nutty.

Perhaps there should be a cap on how many units can be retained in a city or castle for garrison purposes. Any troops recruited once the cap had been hit would be available for the Megas to use to reinforce armies if he saw fit.

In cases of civil war this would only apply if recruitment was being used to replenish friendly forces.

I would like to have it in a way, where you can just recruit those troops and mark them as part of the RA/PA and that makes them exempt from any SOT rules. But in practice this might turn out to be really complicated to keep track of which units are intended for RAs/PAs once we get more of them.

And I don't even want to think about codifying the above in a manner that doesn't result in huge loopholes that completely defeat the whole thing. :inquisitive:



The other way of course would be to negotiate with House Awesome and get them to change their SOTs but to me that seems a very time-consuming process and I don't want to interchange PMs for a day or a half before I can advance the turn...

Well, there's always the I-can-replenish-your-army-with-local-troops-you-will-release-or-with-peasants-from-halfway-around-the-world argument Megas can use in those situations. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

Perhaps there should be a cap on how many units can be retained in a city or castle for garrison purposes. Any troops recruited once the cap had been hit would be available for the Megas to use to reinforce armies if he saw fit.

In cases of civil war this would only apply if recruitment was being used to replenish friendly forces.

---

I think that's a good solution.

Something along the lines of : "Garrisons consist of a max of X units (of low quality infantry). If there are more than X units in a settlement, then Y units can be used freely by the Megas, with Y being the number of units in the settlement minus X. Bodyguard units do not count as units in the sense of this article."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

Of course a question has come up though concerning the replenishing of RAs/PAs.
Imagine a scenario where the Private Army of House Awesome is standing around in the domain of House Awesome which consists of three provinces. Now each of those provinces has it listed in the SOT that no garrison units may be removed from those cities.

---

IMO, this is an IC political issue. The Megas should negotiate with the owners of the settlements to let them release the units. If they don't, he's screwed up in his recruiting and will have to spend another turn trying to get the RA/PAs up to the proper level. I like IC negotiations, and this seems like an area that has so far not been explored much due to the general level of cooperation across the Empire.

The idea of a cap on garrison units would work, but I think simple IC politicking would as well.

Good call TC

You know what I would do IC...I'd simply publish the recruiting queue's and for which armies they are designated for. Then ask if anyone has some issues with the allocation next turn.

If anyone wants to be a pain in the ass, then it wold be right out in the open for all to see. :balloon2:

Nothing like total transparency to get the juices flowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

IMO, this is an IC political issue. The Megas should negotiate with the owners of the settlements to let them release the units. If they don't, he's screwed up in his recruiting and will have to spend another turn trying to get the RA/PAs up to the proper level. I like IC negotiations, and this seems like an area that has so far not been explored much due to the general level of cooperation across the Empire.

The idea of a cap on garrison units would work, but I think simple IC politicking would as well.

---

The highlight is mine and that's the point that worries me. I am also much in favour of IC politicking, but wouldn't that mean that I'd be breaking the rule for this turn, which is prohibited? And shouldn't that be avoided by the alternatives a) and b) mentioned above.

I'd be very much in favour of just telling House Awesome that I can't replenish their army and it's their fault and they have to fix it, but I can't because I am forced to recruit something for them somewhere.

I see your ruling and think it's good, but it also contradicts things you mentioned earlier and might therefore be hard to understand for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

The highlight is mine and that's the point that worries me. I am also much in favour of IC politicking, but wouldn't that mean that I'd be breaking the rule for this turn, which is prohibited? And shouldn't that be avoided by the alternatives a) and b) mentioned above.

I'd be very much in favour of just telling House Awesome that I can't replenish their army and it's their fault and they have to fix it, but I can't because I am forced to recruit something for them somewhere.

I see your ruling and think it's good, but it also contradicts things you mentioned earlier and might therefore be hard to understand for everyone.

---

Well, I wouldn't consider it a rule violation, because in this situation the Megas actually did properly do recruitment for the RA/PA. It just so happened that the person who owned the settlement in which the recruiting occurred then seized those units before they could be removed. That's no different than any current recruitment any of our Megas' have done, except that they all seem to have had cooperation by the Senators who owned the settlements in which they were recruiting. If one of those people suddenly turned and changed their SOT to prevent the removal of those troops after they had been recruited for a RA/PA, there's no real way to blame that on the Megas unless there was some kind of evidence that it was an intentional scheme between the two people in the first place. Even if the Megas' RA/PA recruitment is blocked in this way and someone does complain about it, the Megas would be given time to rectify the situation. He controls the pace at which the game advances, so he could spend as much time as he wanted negotiating with the uncooperative Sentator. He could also just shift future recruiting to a different city which he knows won't cause this kind of problem. Both of these actions would certainly qualify as trying to rectify the situation.

In general, I want to encourage people to use politics and negotiations to solve their problems, not rules. Rules can help simplify a situation, but complexity and uncertainty sometimes adds flavor to the game. It's possible that these situations could cause enough problems to warrant a rule change, but it's also possible that they can be dealt with IC without any new rules. When it comes down to it, the barometer of whether a rule change is necessary is you guys. A rule change can only pass if 2/3 agree with it, and if 2/3 agree with it then it's probably a good thing. I therefore think the proper thing to do in this situation is just to propose a CA (assuming you want a new rule) and take the debate to the Magnaura.

FYI, I am not opening the new Senate Session until the 1125 AD save has been posted. Ignoramus appears to have finished his term, but somehow forgot to post the newest save. When he does, I will open the next Senate Session.

I will begin working on the Library update this evening.

Just a question :

I've noticed that almost all crusaders have troops despondent, undisciplined or mutinous.

I understand this is due to the SS system but shouldn't our "crusaders" be a bit more fanatical ?

Possibly, but most of you have also had ridiculously hard voyages. The only one who had it easy then got himself and his entire army slaughtered to the last man. Sounds like a reason to be depressed to me.

OK...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Possibly, but most of you have also had ridiculously hard voyages. The only one who had it easy then got himself and his entire army slaughtered to the last man. Sounds like a reason to be depressed to me.

---

Just a thought.. Did you change the army supplies trait before the crusade? If not then it's not quite fair because most of the generals already had traits that said 'Army supplies 75 percent' or something like that. So they all should have had a fresh start.

I think the supply system is absolutely perfect for what has been attempted on the Crusade.

Spend years on cramped boats, storms, sabotage, and then land in hostile territory that by the way is predominately desert...seems mild to me.

I have never touched the supply trait system and I dont see why I should start now. You all knew the risks of the Crusade before you joined, including that you would end up stranded in a far away land that was not Orthodox. That said, I highly doubt whether anyone else will die on the Crusade. The way it is shaping up now, both Alexandria and Cairo will be assaulted by large armies. Even with a hit to your morale from the supply system, I suspect that good generalship can win the assaults without too many difficulties.

If you are all so very afraid of losing, all 6 of you could join forces together and take Alexandria first. Such a huge army would have no chance of being defeated. You could then simply wait in Alexandria until it reached 50% Orthodox and your supplies recovered, and you could then move on Cairo. This would take a long time, but it would work. If you don't want to take a long time, then you are taking a greater risk for a greater reward. The choice is yours to make.

If you really don't like any of these options, I noticed that Igno had moved a large fleet nearby in the 1124 save. If you can get the next Megas to agree to send it to the Egyptian coast, I would consider letting people abandon the Crusade (their army will disband) and sail to wherever the Megas decides to take them.

I knew the risks and there is nothing to change here anymore.. I'm fine with the current situation.
It's just that Vissarionas was 'Out of supplies' and had 'Desperate Troops' at the beginning of the Crusade..
Kind of weird if they were just joining the Crusade and took a lot of supplies with them..
Anyway.. it's all in the past now and we can't change that..
Perhaps when we have our second Crusade or something then all people could get a fresh start..