The best way to post in a politically charged setting that can greatly affect your character, I believe. ~:cheers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
Printable View
The best way to post in a politically charged setting that can greatly affect your character, I believe. ~:cheers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
Well, it is probably appropriate, what else do you think Elector counts did but party party party?
(well, actually a lot of things, BUT THATS NOT THE POINT!)
No, I have let Cecil know what needing doing so the save is his right now, I believe...Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
As to my treasury, I traveled with it, how else could I have recruited so many mercs ? Now I've pooled all the resources Genoa had to offer... Off to Marseilles then to try and relieve that siege...
Hey guys, sorry for my recent lack of activity. Harold's going to be in the thick of things from now on.
Reading everything that's going on, I'm anxious to get back in the game. Here's to hoping a new character pops up soon. :grin:
Just let me accidentally kill my character off as always seems to happen, even though I don't even use my generals that heavily. THen the adoptions will come rolling in. :clown:
Although this one has some durability with his +2 hp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlax
There's one available this turn I believe... Or at lleast there was one whn I played my turn... Had a cool name and good stats if I'm not mistaken... Matthias something or other...
The adopter was Jens Herden, IIRC
Just posted an IC thread. It's meant to be a spot where the electors can run into eachother and interact in a more casual setting than the Diet, in the same vein as the Tavern or Hippodrome in previous games.
I've been asked to make a public clarification on the status of Lothar Zirn. Since no declaration of war has been made regarding him, he is legally still a normal member of the Reich. Being banned in the Diet does not make you a rebel.
Heads up guys, I'm going to be moving on Thursday. Although this won't affect the (well-timed) Diet Session, I may be a little slow to communicate for the next few days. Incidentally, I'd like to start participating in V&V as a player as well as the GM, however without a clearer separation between the two I wouldn't be comfortable having both roles. For that reason I'm proposing an OOC rules change.
Rules Change 4.1 -
Quote:
The following rule:
*2.1 Cecil XIX is the Game Master (GM) for Vassals & Valour. He is the only person who can decide when turns begin and end, either personally or through a temporarily appointed delegate. He has the final say on all rules disputes.
Will be changed to read: (bolded for emphasis)
*2.1 Cecil XIX is the Game Master (GM) for Vassals & Valour. He is the only person who can decide when turns begin and end, either personally or through a temporarily appointed delegate. He has the final say on all rules disputes, except those that his character is involved in. Such disputes will be resolved by a neutral third party to be determined by the arguing players.
Cecil, is there a save we can look off for the Diet Session?
That rules change sounds good to me. I had yet another potential adoptee this turn but he died unexpectedly, hopefully one will come up soon for you cecil that has a bit more stamina.
I support the OOC rules change. Anything that allows Cecil to get more enjoyment from this game is fine by me - he does so much work and should get as much reward for it as possible.
Also support. I don't think it needs to be proposed in the Diet though (quickly browsed through the Charter and didn't see anything to that effect).
Thanks for the point of order - do let me know if anything I'm doing is incorrect. This is my first crack at this.
No worries, I still have to check myself three times before I do anything - I'm still used to the KotR charter, which is about 3 years out of date now. :laugh4:
Also in favor of the rules change.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
I'm glad you enjoyed that!
I'm fine with the rule change.
All right, the voting is now up! My apologies for the delay, but I must say that I was very glad to see so much discussion in my absence! I particularly enjoyed the back and forth regarding whether the Marshall should be strong at the expense of the electors or weak and supportive of them. I've been reluctant to jump into this kind of thing for fear that my position as GM might inadvertantly stifle discussion, but should the OOC Rules Change pass I intend to get more involved. Good to see the game's going on a positive direction1
It was a fun Diet. Nice to see things heat up a bit. And that's without you and TheFlax in yet.
Who knew legislation could be fun? :clown:
I posted in the poll thread but we missed out Edict 4.1 (Ragusa) which got two seconders (myself and Zim). We really need that one as it's a castle and will enable me to hand off Innsbruck later to a new Duke of Bavaria if all goes to plan. I suggest it just passes as no-one seemed to be opposed to it but we can have a separate poll for it if necessary.
Yes, it's good to see things heating up in the Diet, a bit... I may have thrown a spanner in the works but I had to check it out with Cecil first, and was too late to have put to the vote (that's what you get for being on another quarter of the Earth...)
Maybe next time... If Lothar's still alive and not in chains...
I wouldn't object to having a mini emergency Diet concerning Zirn, assuming the rules allow for them. It seems like a pretty important issue.
My apologies to everyone for the confusion surrounding this vote. Hopefully next time will be as I'll be following the Diet from the start of the session. For the sake of simplicity and to keep the game, moving, I'll consider all legislation, including the Ragusa edict, passed unless there's an objection.
Also, I'm planning an event to address the Zirn issue...
EDIT: Also, I must say that I'm particularly pleased with the Kaiser's invoking of rule 6.11 to take Genoa, which addresses a flaw in the rules that I was never able to see a solution for. I wanted a legal system to decide how provinces are allocated where Electors could fight politically over them after they had been taken, but I also wanted to make it possible for someone to buck the whole system if he was strong enough. Having someone take ownership of the province until the Kaiser asserts his legal right is a nice way to do this.
No objection here.
Another event? I hope it goes better for us than the last one! :laugh4:
Somehow I think it's a good thing that the word "event" suddenly fills me with a small amount of dread. :clown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
So whats going on now?
New turn just started, sorry for the delay everyone. Even though I moved into my new place a week ago, there's more work to be done then I thought and I confess I haven't had as much time for V&V as I should. Fortunately it's a temporary condition.
EDIT: Also, you'll notice the Milanese forces in Lombady have been rearranged slightly compared to the earlier save. This is intentional.
Its no problem cecil, I wasn't meaning to sound impatient! I just didn't remember you were busy. I hope you like your new abode!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
Is anyone actually playing as Harold Merode? If yes, could you move to Prague, please? If no one's controlling him, I have two questions:
1) Can the next guy who takes the save move Harold to Prague?
2) I suppose I can't, but may I reserve him for once Theo dies?
Quick note: I'm around, just really busy this weekend. Will be able to take the save/comment on the game tomorrow.
Ignoramus is playing as Harold Merode.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Thanks, phonics; I checked in the library but no one was listed as his owner. I'll throw him a PM.
This is the signup thread yes? I would like to give this a try.
Why yes it is, welcome aboard Visorslash! I'll put you in line for a general, but in the meantime you are free to RP with your your fellow players, speak in the diet, and even align yourself with another house.
Is Flax going to take the new guy? (Von Magdeburg I think his name is...)
Also, is it permissible for one of my House to take the save for me? I'm struggling to get to my gaming PC at the moment..
ok, so I don't like to be a complainer but I think what's happening with Milan is an exploit of a gap in our rules. My avatar besieged Milan before Zirn got there - it doesn't make any sense to me that he can assault and take the city without going through me (and my army) first.
I do agree that I may be exploiting a loophole but there's also no guarantee I can effectively win that siege... My army is undermanned and a siege situation makes me lose any advantage I might have in using my cavalry...
As to the siege proper, Milan is a great city and it doesn't seem too farfetched to imagine one could squeeze a small force (under the same colours and talking the same language) past the besiegers and take the prize under their nose...
Plus, it makes for an interesting IC situation, I think...
But I'm willing to wait on Cecil's ruling, either way
Yes that's how I'd tried to picture it but it still didn't quite sit right with me. I think Cecil's of the view that the rules don't cover this situation but that we should fix it at the next Diet, which doesn't really help me here. So I thought I'd post here about it and see what other players think. I'm not trying to make a big OOC situation out of it though, so if everyone just wants to get on with the game I'm ok with that..
Maybe if Lothar does push through with the siege the Prinz should have a chance to respond? For instance, by declaring war and continuing the siege against the town's new masters?
The only way I can see Lothar and Leopold responding to each other is by fighting each other. That requires a declaration of war. As long as one player declares war publically or in a PM to me before Milan is taken, then it would be resolved in a PvP battle. As the rules stand right now, both sides have equal claim to assaulting Milan. It's regretable that this loophole in the rule exists, but it's not something that can be changed right now.
Of course, settlements go to the Kaiser anyway, so they'd be fighting over how to achieve the same result. :clown:
I just noticed that the town militia in Magdeburg is listed as one of the Kaiser's units. As I understood things, they were a part of the remnants from... err, what's his name... TheFlax's first guy's army, together with the spear militia that are listed as mine.
The Reichsmarshall no doubt thanks Lothar for his 4317 florin contribution. :bow:
I wouldn't go so far as to say "one rule". After all, the Emperor now owns Genoa and Milan. Lothar gets no money or recruitment from them unless he's been awarded the provinces.
P.S. All hail the Emperor. Feel free to give both of those provinces to Elberhard, if you wish. :clown: :beam:
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
Sorry, but the Emperor still needs to assert his authority on Lothar's cities and Lothar won't relinquish any florins to the Marschall... Would you pay for armies that might march against you next season ?
You cannot make a man an outlaw and expect him to respect those same laws...
Not a penny was given to the Reich from the sack of Genoa and neither will a penny be given from the sack of Milan... Lothar might be willing to negotiate a "donation" to the Reich's treasury as a sign of goodwill but nothing more...
But let's rather discuss this IC at the Tournament maybe... Guy is always available for some debate on the state of the Reich...
You can't act like an outlaw by ignoring the rules and then take advantage of being a normal player to steal a city from under the nose of another player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
A bit of a grey area... I'm still an Elector of the Reich (though banned from the Diet) but I wonder how the Kaiser could extend his authority on Genoa, Milan or Marseille without recourse to force of arms... Same goes for the sacking or ransom money...
It may become a casus belli but until then I think Lothar can get away with it (though I may be proven wrong by Cecil...)
As to the assault on Milan, Cecil himself conceded that it was possible though a loophole in the rules.
Anyway, I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings by acting like this... I'm rather trying to create a tense IC situation which at one point will bring one side or the other to concessions in order to make progress...
Then I propose pausing the game for a bit until Cecil weighs in.
Just this turn PhonicsMonkey is told he can't stop you taking a settlement from him since you're a normal elector, then you break multiple rules with no consequence. This isn't about feelings but breaking forum game rules, something I have a responsibility now to be involved in. If the rules of a game are enforced inconsistently in a game like this then we can't really play a game at all (at least not while any player is willing to take advantage). If some rules are IC and some OOC there should be more distinction so we know which ones.
I'm fine with this of course and will follow whatever course is decided by the GM.
I do not intend to break any rules though I'm surely trying to take advantage of a loophole... To me, it makes sense IC... And from the few contacts I had with Cecil, I thought I had some kind of green light on this...
I stand corrected if that wasn't the case.
It's just frustrating to see one player hurt by being told he has to go by certain rules and another helped repeatedly by ignoring them. It's not at all clear which rules I need to concern myself with as a player.
I agree with Zim that this situation is unfair - I can't stop Zirn from taking Milan but then he doesn't have to give any money to the Marshall? That stinks. I think I should have had an opportunity to prevent Zirn from assaulting Milan unless he was willing to declare war on me first. After all I was besieging the city - if Milanese troops can't get in or out without fighting me then surely I can stop a small force of cavalry!
And if Zirn is allowed to take settlements (by the Edict which we passed in the Diet) then he should have to pony up for the Marshall as per the game rules that we just established.
There's one thing for there to be a grey area and another for someone to exploit it so drastically to get an advantage over other players. After all, at any time Zirn has had the option to normalise his relations with the Reich (by swearing the oath) and thereby gain access to sacking florins, the ability to own settlements etc.
I'm siding with Tristan on this. These tax rules are IC and it's not at all inconceivable how Lothar could refuse to pay them. He should expect some IC consequences, though.
As for taking a province for himself like that, well, if that's not a casus belli, then I'll never see one. :laugh4:
I hear your arguments and see where you're both (Zim and Phonics) coming from... I don't see where I get such an "unfair" advantage... Everything Lothar owns has been bought on his own money, through his victories... He's got no access to the Reich's funds, recruitment capabilities, nor anything else... I have/he has to fend for himself with the always impending risk of being declared war upon, something which would bring him down quite quickly, I think...
I do agree that the Milan situation might seem a little (very much ?) cheesy but it is permissible under the rules... and could be justified IC (what's to prevent a small force to slip past the besiegers under the cover of night, for example ?)
I also agree that according to the rules Zirn should not be considered ruler of either Genoa nor Milan and that half his earnings should go to the Reich, but it is hardly justifiable IC. Unless Leopold steps in and declares war (though I think it is a prerogative of the Kaiser but I may be wrong on this), there is no IC reason for Lothar to recognize Imperial authority on these matters and no reasonable IC means to enforce it...
As I said earlier, I acted with what I thought was Cecil's go-ahead, I'm willing to amend if I misunderstood his words/his intentions...
I just think he should have had to go through me to get to the city.
We should wind back to before he assaulted the city and he should have to declare war on me if he wants to take it. If I'm besieging it then no armies get through without my say-so. You won't defeat my army in a PvP with only six losses.
Then we don't have any issue with taxes etc.
But if we're going that route it's hardly justifiable IC how he could not only assault Milan (and you played the battle so you know well no "sneaking" was not involved.~;p) and then sack and leave it all under the Prinz's nose. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
May I just add also that though taking the save earlier went in my favour this time, the situation could very well have been reversed had I accessed the save before Phonics on turn 31 ? Where would we be then ?
If it is just a question of who grabs the save first...
I had thought about it as far back as that and I was pleased to get there first because I assumed that if you besieged the city before I got there I would have to fight you for it. In fact I discussed the possibility with Zim at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
If we're not going to go back, then at least I should be able to trap you in there and fight you for the loot. Otherwise what is the point of a siege at all?
I think Phonics would have been in favor of Zirn being able to try to stop him as well.
A lot of rules help or hurt one or another player. I think all we need is just some clarification on which we can safely ignore. :beam:
For instance, the rules state those troops the Prinz lent me are still his. After taking Zagreb I could say "well, they've been with me for a year now and have fought with me, I should be able take control of them. Surely they'll follow me if I give them all the loot from the city and promise more". Then I decare Zagreb part of the "duchy" Zimonia, with it and all settlements taken after being completely mine, as is the sacking money, but still saying when it advantages me I follow the normal rules as an elector because, after all, noone has declared war on me.
I would expect someone to complain (I would if it was soeone else), and would try to point to Zirn and Provence as precedent. :clown:
At any rate, I think our stances are laid out pretty well. It is now up to the wise and powerful GM to descend and make his pronouncement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
I would have liked to have done this, unfortunately I was offline and didn't get the chance. Of course I would prefer if it were up to him to attack me to get through but if it's the only way I can stop him then I'll do it. Could we wind back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I am going to refrain from comment on any issue until Cecil gives his two cents.
Ok, let us wind back to the previous save and forget I ever assaulted Milan... Lothar will just pack and go relieve the siege of Genoa...
Everybody's happy with this ?
Nope, we thought of something better. Much better - no replays, no need to re-write history.
Now I'm in Genoa with you and I'm declaring war. Look forward to the battle.
Cecil did weigh in on Milan, even if some people disagreed. The ownership thing still confuses me though, and I don't even see how the sacking proceeds rule can be ignored...
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
Hey guys, sorry for my relative inactivity of late. Uni's been quite busy, but I hope to keep on top of things from now on.
No harm. I believe Merode is currently marching north towards Brandenburg. :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Well, the Margrave requested that he should move to Prague, i.e. Bohemia, but it's possible that he never got the message (I might have missed sending the PM). In any case, the request is now obsolete, as I had planned that he should lead an army from there into Poland, which he now can't do, thank you very much mr Pope.
Not to be nitpicking, but I think this violates rule 7.1 : the declaration of war has to be made before taking the save... But nevermind...Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
Good eye. I've been rereading the charter and am still amazed how easily I miss things on the earlier readings.
Although, using the same "does it make sense IC test" for the rules as has been used earlier this turn, there's no reason someone might not hide their hostilities until after entering a city and then start fighting in the streets to depose a rebel.
6.11, 6.12., now 7.1. It's been a rough turn for the Charter. Makes me wonder how active this thread and/or the Diet one would be if PK were still around. I recall he was quite passionate when it came to rules disputes. :beam:
And to keep it IC, do you believe Lothar fool enough to let someone he just wronged with his whole army through his gates ?
And I find myself wondering at times if I'm not suffering from PK-possession...
It may have been better if all this had been kept IC, it would have provided some much needed heated debate in the Diet
Or that the Prinz would be fool enough to watch you march into Milan and then back out after warning him?
I think PK might have been more antiloophole, or maybe it changed depending on how reasonable he thought the loophole was. I remember my avatar's namesake the original von Essen. From nervous youngster to lawyer in the span of a couple posts. :laugh4:
One way or another Diet style threads were definately always interesting with him around...
I disagree in that we're running into some major OOC issues, with players feeling cheated rather than just their characters. With have a system where certain rules count but others only do if we enforce them in game, but they're not really distinguished in the rule set so we don't know which is which. Almost everything is stated as if absolute.
My examples of how the Prinz could have walked into Milan before declaring war or Elberhard just bribing and seizing troops lent to him make just as much sense as Zirn's flouting of multiple rules for IC reasons (and use similar logic of what might be "reasonable" IC). But, really, people can come up with IC counter arguments to all of those (and against the counter arguments) forever. It wouldn't make for a stable or fun game. If some rules aren't really rules we need to have at least some vague idea of which are which and not guess which will be ignored to our disadvantage.
If Cecil decides everything Zirn has done is fine I'll be aggravated but I'll at least be happy if we get some clarification on the rules, rather than having anyone think certain characters are bound by rules and others aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
seems like a hot discussion :)
for some diversion of all this, 2 questions:
what install should i do to be able to participate?
how can i participate while waiting for a character (and does that means once i get an avatar, i have to 'disband' my imgainary one?)
and to really go off-topic:
i'm suprised no one has probed for interest in a s2 pbm :p
intermittent heated rules discussions seems to be a sign of how much people care about the games. :clown:
-It's Lands to Conquer Gold I believe.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=137614
Also there's a file that affects the ingame names. Here's the link to it and the post that explains what file it replaces.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053197420
http://www.mediafire.com/?5rce4230cbx1p1c
Lastly, the most complicated change is to make the Holy Roman Empire's family tree appear properly (The LTC mods sets them up a bit like the Teutons in the Teutonic Campaign).
Go to your Lands To Conquer folder, then to data/descr_sm_factions and open it with notepad. The HRE will be the third faction down from the top. Change the "has_family_tree" from no to yes and save.
-You can make up an elector to particpate in Diet discussions, stories, etc. It might be possible to talk to Cecil about taking up an agent as a character, although I'm not sure if they're doing that in this game (not sure it's come up, actually...). No need to retire a character who isn't represented in game once you pick up a general. Plenty of players have "extra" characters that may represent their main ones in the Diet, or appear in stories.
-I've thought about starting a thread about it to see how people think S2 would work for an rpg. I'm thinking it might be better to wait until the game receives some patches before actually starting the game, though. You never know when they might throw a non save game compatible patch at us. It might also be interesting to see what the expansion will be first as well, since it might add factions or broaden the scope of the game in way that would appeal for an rpg.
@zim : I agree with you that the distinction between OOC and IC rules is not clear...
However, I don't think I broke any OOC rule in doing what I did... Oath-swearing, taxes, ownership of settlements have always been IC issues and thus were always enforced ingame (see Methodios secession in LotR for example)
Let me state also that I understand why Phonics feels cheated, I would have certainly felt the same had we traded places... But feeling cheated and being cheated is quite different...
In LotR didn't we create special rules to allow rebels more autonomy? In direct contrast to Methodios, Zirn is in every way a regular elector in the game and the only difference between him and the others is that he can't post in the Diet. Nowhere is it stated that that makees him immune to rules he disagrees with. In the bulk of games thus far the rules have been determined OOC. This has extended to settlements and money, which are especially important in any of the newer games where avatars can declare war and kill eachother. When avatars had more freedom it was a result of rules changes or exceptions (like the Cataclysm) in the rules. This game apparently has more exceptions than any past ones but noone is quite sure what they are.
Note that the rules specifying that the Marshall receives half of sacking money are in the same exact section as the rules on barring those who don't take the oath from the Diet, the rule that gives new provinces to the Kaiser, and the rules that limit who can move agents. Which of these are inviolable? Does one just cherrypick the ones they like and ignore those they don't? It's obviously not as simple as "Sections 5 and 7 are OOC and inviolable, others are not"
Using the same kind of spurious reasoning for Zirn violating multiple rules the Prinz should have been able to stop you and when Phonics was unclear about whether he could he was not given time respond after a decision was made. Then later that same turn you declare "sorry, but these other rules don't apply to me". Phonics could then easily justify, using the same kind of "IC" logic, his being able to march into Geno before a declaration of war, even though that wasn't his intent (he just noted there was no "warrning period" for declaring war and thought it was ok). The rules can't just apply when they convenience Lothar and not when they don't.
There certainly is a difference between cheating and just making someone feel they've been cheated. It's not at all clear whether one has been done or both.
Well, first of all I would like to express my interest in joining this game, or rather, formally apply ;)
Second, I know it has been asked a few posts further up, but to go into more detail: What exactly can I do and what can't I do before I get an ingame avatar?
And, to add to the general confusion, I think the dispute that is going on here (having read the diet and most of this thread, leading up to the current problems), has to be settled OOC in a way that states, in what way characters can violate rules, because their character does actually violate a rule and when that is just not possible, because the rule is not just an IC rule but an OOC rule that ensures enjoyment of the game for all players ;)
As I understand it you can debate and vote in the Diet, interact with other players in the Tournament thread and things like that. Basically all things that doesn't necessarily require an avatar (such as lead armies, fight battles or own property).
I see, well, I don't want to seem stupid, but if I make up a character, who is an elector (which he would need to be, in order to vote and speak in the diet), what happens to him when I get an avatar? I mean, I could of course just imagine a subordinate of an "unknown elector" but I guess that would create problems with an oath and other things.