OOC Thread

[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.

[Privateerkev]

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.

Yeah, and thats one of the reasons I declared war. He was able to do one "lend-lease" act and that is it.

In hind-sight, I should have just declared war on him in turn 1. But I was afraid I'd lose people in my chain and that neutrals would jump in on the King's side.

[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.

[Privateerkev]

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.

Ah, ok that makes more sense. OOC, I didn't really care which way it went but IC it just seemed strange to me to have a possible situation where Guillemot's castle is used to recruit men that would probably be used to kill Guillemot. I simply saw a "dis-connect" IC where it just didn't make sense.