Out of character thread XVI

If the game ends in 2-3, then we won't set sail as you had insisted a few months back econ? :grin2:

TC,

I guess we fundamentally disagree with what the Charter says regarding who can be Duke. I believe it is already codified that RBG's can not be Duke. (Section 4 has some good points that support my stance.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Stewards themselves are not Counts. Like Otto in Innsbruck, they are just soldiers, self-made men of lesser station [think Denethor in Lord of the Rings]. They could be rewarded by being made a Count by their Duke when he spawns, though. And they could marry into the Royal line, potentially becoming the Duke themselves.

You see the opposite. I'll go with whatever Econ says about it.

That being said, something else has now come up with regards to this subject. It's now being bandied about that we might be ending the game soon. If we are indeed ending the game soon, then I will object a whole lot less to RBG Dukes.

If we are ending the game, then I don't care if we chuck some of the rules. My stance was more for the long-term benefit of starting a "class war". If we're ending the game soon, then that point is moot. :bow:

Given the amont of opposition, if Warluster does not think it a good idea, I may drop out of the Dukeship race. I'd rather not enter game beng resented by everyone in and out of character (unless it makes for good roleplaying! :beam: ).

I would like to heartily support the idea of recruitable generals being allowed into high ranks. I never saw non family member generals as non-nobles. I just figured they were not directly related to the king/emperor/whatever. I doubt every major leader in midieval England or the Holy Roman Empire was related to the King/Emperor( at least until after a few centuries of inbreeding).

OOC reasons have already been given. I agree that restrictions woube unfair, and perhaps from studying constitutions so long, I share Tincow's dislike for creating rules where they don't exist, especially when they only hurt people.

I'd be glad to fight for the rights of these generals OOC or within the game, of course! :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

OOC reasons have already been given. I agree that restrictions woube unfair, and perhaps from studying constitutions so long, I share Tincow's dislike for creating rules where they don't exist, especially when they only hurt people.

---

The way I read section 4, I truly believe the rule already exists. But I'll go with what Econ says. Also, if we're ending soon, I'll drop my objection completely. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

The way I read section 4, I truly believe the rule already exists. But I'll go with what Econ says. Also, if we're ending soon, I'll drop my objection completely. :yes:

---

I wrote the post befre seeing your most recent spoiler. It does indeed seem to imply only family members can become dukes.

Then the fight moves on to IC! :charge:

Also, I note you didn't disagree with the part about resenting me. ~;) :clown:

I think one of the main reasons it was brought up that the Dukeship could pass to someone else was the OOC notion (which I don't really agree with in all honesty) that players should not hold more than 1 significant post (emperor, duke) for the entire game until everyone else eligible had. Personally, I think this is very restricting and makes no sense ICly, and we are mainly here to roleplay, not to impose rules on people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I wrote the post befre seeing your most recent spoiler. It does indeed seem to imply only family members can become dukes.

Then the fight moves on to IC! :charge:

Also, I note you didn't disagree with the part about resenting me. ~;) :clown:

---

Zim,

It is because I secretly hate your guts.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

My objection has to do with how I read the rules and with my desire to see class warfare develop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Zim,

It is because I secretly hate your guts.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

---

I already knew it deep down inside yet it still makes me sad. ~:(

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

My objection has to do with how I read the rules and with my desire to see class warfare develop.

---

But in real class warfare, we'd greatly outnumber the nobles. As it is, we are a minority of what, two, three? :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

The way I read section 4, I truly believe the rule already exists. But I'll go with what Econ says. Also, if we're ending soon, I'll drop my objection completely. :yes:

---

The section you cite is specifically referring to two characters that existed at the start of the game. You are reading it entirely out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I think one of the main reasons it was brought up that the Dukeship could pass to someone else was the OOC notion (which I don't really agree with in all honesty) that players should not hold more than 1 significant post (emperor, duke) for the entire game until everyone else eligible had. Personally, I think this is very restricting and makes no sense ICly, and we are mainly here to roleplay, not to impose rules on people.

---

Exactly, so why am I being limited in which of my Counts I can name as my heir? Lothar is Duke of Bavaria, he should be able to name anyone he pleases to be his heir. If you want to tell him otherwise, you had best bring an army with you.

You do realize there is one at Bern and Bavaria also has Byzantines nearby?

:clown:

I think we should settle it in a diet vote rather than strangle each other over it now. Its not US Presidential elections afterall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

The section you cite is specifically referring to two characters that existed at the start of the game. You are reading it entirely out of context.

---

Quite possibly. Won't be the first time I mis-read the Charter. (probably won't be the last either.) But I still think the rules governing the setup of the game are still applicable to the later-game. That is where my stance comes from. Therefore, from my point of view, my stance is already codified in the Charter and would not require a CA. There are now 6 RBG's. If they band together and make some alliances, they could easily pass a "RBG rights" CA at the next Diet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

There are now 6 RBG's. If they band together and make some alliances, they could easily pass a "RBG rights" CA at the next Diet.

---

If my sig wasn't already full, I would add this to it. Hilarious! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

You do realize there is one at Bern and Bavaria also has Byzantines nearby?

:clown:

I think we should settle it in a diet vote rather than strangle each other over it now. Its not US Presidential elections afterall.

---

Ah, yes, scarcely an election goes by here without at least one strangled candidate. :inquisitive:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Everone knows it's really every other election! :clown:

I have no problems settling this in a Diet vote. However, if that is to happen I first want a clarification from the Kaiser (econ21) about what the rule is at this moment. That makes a huge difference, as the 'opposition' to whatever he picks will then have to come up with a 2/3 majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

There are now 6 RBG's. If they band together and make some alliances, they could easily pass a "RBG rights" CA at the next Diet.

---

Recruitable generals of the World, unite!

:charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I have no problems settling this in a Diet vote. However, if that is to happen I first want a clarification from the Kaiser (econ21) about what the rule is at this moment. That makes a huge difference, as the 'opposition' to whatever he picks will then have to come up with a 2/3 majority.

---

I'm totally cool with that. :yes:

as long as you agree that I'm right and declare me "lord of charter interpretation"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

I'm currently finalizing the next KOTRfix version (with a wealth of changes and fixes), and am needing an interpretation from a native English speaker.

What is "greater": "renowned" or "famous"?
I was checking through all ancillary icons and trait descriptions too and came across this for the VictorVirtue levels. Personally, I'd think Renowned is greater than Famous, but by all means, prove me wrong.

They seem to be synonyms. If I had to guess, I'd go with renowned being greater.

Yes, they indeed are, which is what makes this task so difficult. ~:)

In American English, at least, I'd say they're technically synonyms. Renowned does sound better, though. Someone could be famous for anything, good or bad. To be "renowned", I think a person would have to have accomplished something really great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I'm currently finalizing the next KOTRfix version (with a wealth of changes and fixes), and am needing an interpretation from a native English speaker.

What is "greater": "renowned" or "famous"?
I was checking through all ancillary icons and trait descriptions too and came across this for the VictorVirtue levels. Personally, I'd think Renowned is greater than Famous, but by all means, prove me wrong.

---

Well, the most common definition of renowned is famous. English is complicated like that. In common use, though, I'd say renowned is 'greater' if only because it is less used than famous. Renowned also inherently implies skill, IMHO, whereas famous does not. A famous swordsman might be famous for his luck, but he would never be renowned for his luck.

:egypt:

Great, thanks you three. Will change accordingly :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I'm currently finalizing the next KOTRfix version (with a wealth of changes and fixes), and am needing an interpretation from a native English speaker.

---

What exactly is being changed and why?

It's nothing personal Zim, I just don't like the Idea of the Kaiser parachuting his man into the duke's seat. IC the kaiser doesn't have the political power, and it make sno sense after Hans made Von Salza his hier. I think that RGB should be able to be stewards and dukes, just they have to have earned it.

Lost track of all changes, but those are the ones I can remember:
- Fixed NightBattleCapable (I made an error with it in 1.29)
- Fixed a wealth of trait descriptors
- Fixed several ancillary icons to show something more suitable
- Added more triggers for some less used traits
- Adjusted chances of obtaining several traits
- Made it more difficult for muslim nations to gain certain vices and virtues (for religious reasons, I guess)
- Changed a few traits effects (for example Arse and Girls now also decrease piety somewhat at higher levels)
- Made the Disciplinarian line of traits more available via construction of certain buildings
- Reduced the amount of loyalty gained/lost from Content/DiscontentGeneral from 1/3/5 to 1/2/3
- Added triggers for random_birth_turkey
- Changed the Jihad trait line for muslim nations slightly (for arriving at crusade region)
- Changed the way VictorVirtue is awarded (Now given when actually taking a city rather than after a siege battle with certain factors - siege battles are unreliable in that it can be siege sally too and sometimes it is not judged as siege if attacked by a reinforcing army, thus not giving points towards this trait)

All I can remember off the top of my head. Exact changes can be seen by comparing 1.29 and the soon to be released version using a comparison program. Note that you would need to compare all those files, and this is quite difficult to do for the bin files (as those are encrypted). So you can't easily discern the differences in trait/ancillary descriptors, but you can for actual trait/ancillary changes.

I've been trying to avoid saying this for a while now, but I am going to insist that this and all future KOTRfix updates be approved by a Charter Amendment. We originally approved this mod a long time ago under its first version. Since then you have been making changes to the game at will based on your own opinion of how it should be. This has an active effect on peoples' stats and will result in some of them changing, possibly giving or removing influence from existing players. That should not happen without an approving vote. I have no problems with using KOTRfix, but we all need to know exactly what is changing and agree on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I've been trying to avoid saying this for a while now, but I am going to insist that this and all future KOTRfix updates be approved by a Charter Amendment. We originally approved this mod a long time ago under its first version. Since then you have been making changes to the game at will based on your own opinion of how it should be. This has an active effect on peoples' stats and will result in some of them changing, possibly giving or removing influence from existing players. That should not happen without an approving vote. I have no problems with using KOTRfix, but we all need to know exactly what is changing and agree on it.

---

Agreed. It was bugging me to see Jan's traits yo-yo up and down. I don't mind using it but I'd like to know what the changes are.

I can see your point regarding playerlist influence being affected and don't mind such a vote if there are several seconders.
I would however say that it should be an OOC vote and not modified by character influence, and can be done before the coming diet session.
As options, I would suggest:
- Use most current versions as they are released
- Use a certain version (this will lead to a second poll if it wins to specify)
- Stop using altogether (this could lead to a second poll to determine whether nothing is used or something else is used)

[edit]
The reason you are seeing updates every month or two is because the fix itself has gone public quite a while ago, and is no longer KOTR only. This also explains why there are changes to other factions, rather than HRE only. There are a few KOTR specific things of course, but I am aiming for it to be a generally usable fix (which also means it will be more balanced overall)

I would have to concur not having the expertise of FH and maybe not coming across the opportunity to gain or lose a trait and therefore not know the difference. I have no objections to fixes but I would like to know what is being changed and is the change for the better.
Appreciate the work you have been doing with the fixes FH. A vote would be the best option for future fixes.

I agree it should be an OOC vote. For the record, I think you have done a great job with KOTRfix, but I think as a matter of policy these things should be reviewed and approved before being added. I don't expect a lot (if any) debate will even be needed. Just list the specific changes and toss up an OOC poll. You do good work, so I cannot imagine it not passing.