OOC Thread

[TheFlax]

A questions and a clarification:

Rule II-4 states: "Each player receives the income from their settlements into their own personal treasury, as well as any money gained from destroying buildings in those settlements."

Is our starting amount of money 0 or something else? (I assume the income is received at the end of turn)


Also,

Rule II-12 states: "The tax rates of all settlements must be set to ‘normal’ at all times, except when an avatar is present in the settlement at the end of a turn."

Those this mean that if your avatar leaves a town, the taxes revert back to normal? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this one correctly.

[Cecil XIX]

A questions and a clarification:

Rule II-4 states: "Each player receives the income from their settlements into their own personal treasury, as well as any money gained from destroying buildings in those settlements."

Is our starting amount of money 0 or something else? (I assume the income is received at the end of turn)


Also,

Rule II-12 states: "The tax rates of all settlements must be set to ‘normal’ at all times, except when an avatar is present in the settlement at the end of a turn."

Those this mean that if your avatar leaves a town, the taxes revert back to normal? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this one correctly.

You all start with 1000 florins in your treasury, except for the first person to reserve the Prince. He gets 2000.

This is correct. I know that's a bit of a change, but it should work out nicely. (And if it doesn't, well that's why we're doing this.)

The primary reasoning behind that rule is to answer the question "Why would anybody want to vassalize someone if it means giving up a province?" This way there's an incentive to gift a province to a vassal so he can manage it in your stead, ultimately providing you with more income for the loss of some control.

It also offers different ways to roleplay threats. Will you stay inside your city for that extra income until the enemy is at the gates, letting others do the fighting for you? Or will you ride at whenever bandits threaten the land, for the good of the people and at great cost to yourself? And say you own a castle and a town. In times of danger you'll be tempted to relocate your person to your castle, but doing so will cost you extra income, so what will you do?

Now that you mention it though, I think at one point I was considering a variation of that rule where you could only *lower* taxes if a settlement didn't have a govenor, and in order to raise them back up you'd have to enter the city. Would that be more agreeable to everyone?

One of the things about these rules that I think could really work is that being chivalrous or dreadful would mean a lot more, since either path means less money for yourself.

[Zim]

Will an IC thread be put up soon? I feel we must discuss the vile presence of the English in our lands.