OOC Thread

[OverKnight]

The burden of being Chancellor has increased somewhat, but not too much compared to Matthias's two terms. I remember the heady days of Otto's Chancellorship when I could basically do anything I wanted and send people wherever I wanted.

The major difference is I have to pay a lot more attention to various orders, queues and PMs. The job has become more clerical and less strategic, players have a lot more say in the direction of the game and I have to make sure it ends up in game play. Trying to forge a strategic concensus out of this might be difficult, like herding cats.

Considering I'm excaberating a civil war and possibly regicide by proxy without getting my own hands dirty, the job does have its advantages. Though it would be interesting to see if I could fight off an impeachment, as Louis is violating acceptable Chancellor behavior for some people and an Emergency Session would be one of the few ways, at the moment, to rein him in.

[Privateerkev]

I have rules question.

Does the Chancellor have to respect the SOT when he finds replacements for an army?

Here is the Chancellor report:

King Phillip's attack by proxy on Gascony has cost him his entire army. Alone in hostile territory, he hired a unit of Frankish Knights, the only mercenaries available in the area. The King has called on on Rheims (spear militia), Metz (armored spearmen and two sergeant spearmen) and Staufen (Feudal Knights and two peasant crossbowmen) to refill his ranks. This, plus another missile regiment recruited later, will serve as his new army. The question is if he can gather these men in time.

Now Rheims is fine because Gibson never posted a SOT. (hmm... remind me to ask OK to disband Rheims's militia... hehehehehehe)

But Staufen is the King's and he posted: "No units to be removed or disbanded."

And Metz is Poitevin's and he posted: "no units may be removed or disbanded."

Now if these two sent PM's saying units could leave, then my apologies. I'm just trying to get a grasp of the rules.

Here is something I just thought of. If the Chancellor wanted to refill the King's army quickly, he could have just sent units from his own army over to the King. They're pretty close to each other. I forget offhand what the Prince has but I'm sure it would go a long way towards fulfilling the requirements for a Royal Army. Then the obligation would be met, the Chancellor could recruit himself shiny new things, and we can get on with the business of killing each other.

[TinCow]

Yes, the Chancellor does have to obey the SOT. The restrictions on Staufen can definitely be ignored because the units are being supplied from the King's property directly to his own Royal Army. While perhaps technically illegal, it's within the spirit of the King's orders. Metz is definitely illegal, though and it's good of you to point it out. This situation is a bit awkward and it's worth some discussion to figure out what to do about it.

First, we could leave the rules as they are. That makes the mandated resupply of depleted Private/Royal Armies something of a pain. It would require IC dealmaking and negotiating. Usually that is a good thing, but since this is something the Chancellor has to do, it could be more annoying that it's worth.

Second, we could legislate an exception to the rules for the purposes of resupplying depleted Private/Royal Armies. This would be relatively easy and would go something like the following:

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. Units recruited for the purposes of restoring Private and Royal Armies to minimum strength may not have their movement restricted by the owners of the settlements in which they are recruited. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

(Addition is italicized)

This rule alteration may be the best way to go, as the Chancellor's life may otherwise become a huge pain in the butt.

[OverKnight]

You're forgetting that you took all my infantry PK.

I did the best I could recruiting units that Ramses could access in a reasonable time frame. Considering the Angevins are his allies, I see no problem. I've got a clear duty under 4.3, one that I think trumps local control of a garrison. Notice I'm recruitng troops specifically for the King, I'm not moving existing troops from the garrison.

If I don't get PMs forbidding me to move those troops out of the settlements by the respective owners, they'll go to Phillip.

[Privateerkev]

You're forgetting that you took all my infantry PK.

Yeah, and I still say they are the only reason Guillemot is alive right now. :D

I did the best I could recruiting units that Ramses could access in a reasonable time frame. Considering the Angevins are his allies, I see no problem. I've got a clear duty under 4.3, one that I think trumps local control of a garrison. Notice I'm recruitng troops specifically for the King, I'm not moving existing troops from the garrison.

If I don't get PMs forbidding me to move those troops out of the settlements by the respective owners, they'll go to Phillip.

But, I'm not sure you can "ignore" a rule. TC said something about rules being binding on the Chancellor. If TLG says no one can leave Metz, then no one can leave Metz. Period.

<-- smiley to add levity to a post that could be taken far too seriously.

[TinCow]

And that's why I think this rule change would be good, even though it removes an area of IC negotiation. The rules ARE binding on the Chancellor, but this one would not only create annoying negotiations on a regular basis, but it would also cause problems for the owners of Private/Royal Armies which would reduce their power somewhat. I think PA/RA need to remain 'big' rank bonuses, and thus we need to do what we can to preseve them. In this case, it looks like we need to allow newly recruited units to ignore local orders so long as those units are only being created to boost a PA/RA to minimum strength levels. Everything above minimum should require the usual negotiation or recruitment from a pre-authorized location, but that minimum level should be given priority over everything else IMO.

[Privateerkev]

And that's why I think this rule change would be good, even though it removes an area of IC negotiation. The rules ARE binding on the Chancellor, but this one would not only create annoying negotiations on a regular basis, but it would also cause problems for the owners of Private/Royal Armies which would reduce their power somewhat. I think PA/RA need to remain 'big' rank bonuses, and thus we need to do what we can to preseve them. In this case, it looks like we need to allow newly recruited units to ignore local orders so long as those units are only being created to boost a PA/RA to minimum strength levels. Everything above minimum should require the usual negotiation or recruitment from a pre-authorized location, but that minimum level should be given priority over everything else IMO.

But how does that work in a civil war? Doers that mean the Prince can recruite men for the King from Toulouse (Guillemot's castle) and Guillemot can't do anything about it? Since it could conceivably decide whether Guillemot lives or dies in a future battle, I'd be pretty pissed IC if that happened.

(OOC I'd be fine because its a rule. IC I'd be rightously pissed though. )

[OverKnight]

The King only gets one top-off and then, because he is in a Civil War officially after that, I don't have to reinforce him if I don't want to.

[TinCow]

But how does that work in a civil war? Doers that mean the Prince can recruite men for the King from Toulouse (Guillemot's castle) and Guillemot can't do anything about it? Since it could conceivably decide whether Guillemot lives or dies in a future battle, I'd be pretty pissed IC if that happened.

(OOC I'd be fine because its a rule. IC I'd be rightously pissed though. )

OK is right. It doesn't apply to a Civil War. Technically, the unit would have been recruited while Guillemot and Phillip were still neutral with each other. The current situation is only occurring because of the timing of the Declaration and the previous 'donation.' It's not really a question of recruiting units in your settlement for a hostile army, it's recruiting units in your settlement for a neutral army that you declared war on shortly afterwards.

Even then, it required a 'rules dispute' ruling which didn't go your way because of IC politics. If Gascony had held the highest rank outside FL, you could have ruled that Phillip shouldn't get his reinforcements in this specific and bizarre situation.