KOTF OOC Thread

[_Tristan_]

I concur...

Though I think this amendment can wait until the next council session.

It's not like we have the funds to make those changes now.

[AussieGiant]

Yeah, there's no chance in the next 10 seasons.

Let's make sure we table it in Council 2.

[OverKnight]

And away we go!

It's good to be back in the saddle, so to speak.

[AussieGiant]

Yes and I wish I would have known Zim was going to post it up like some type of play thing.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Normally, I'm not a fan of Aerosmith (more of a progressive rock guy), but in this case I think this is warranted.

[Vladimir]

This is more to my liking.

[GeneralHankerchief]

This is more to my liking.

[AussieGiant]

This is more to my liking.

One of the greatest Australian bands of all time!!

[Zim]

To be honest it never occurred that save #1 would need a Seneschal's report. Sorry for any trouble caused.

Yes and I wish I would have known Zim was going to post it up like some type of play thing.

[Vladimir]

Sorry, but unless you're reading another rules thread that also isn't true.

[Rowan]

Sorry, but unless you're reading another rules thread that also isn't true.

As it's currently written it is ambiguous but what it means (at least based on the previous two games, KotR and LotR) is that you can set what you want built and in what order in your settlement in the Status and Orders thread and the chancellor/seneschal will ultimately pick what to build in game.

Check the Chancellor/seneschal rank powers in the rules:

(2) The Chancellor is repsonsible for all monetary expenditures in the game. The choice of what to build/recruit is entirely up to him, except as stated in the Limitations on Powers.
...
Limitations on powers:
(1) The Chancellor must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. The Chancellor is not required to build anything, but if he does build in a settlement, it must be the first item in the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the Chancellor may build whatever he wishes.

I'm asking you to just accept this, most you will get is a rewrite of the rules clearing the ambiguity.


EDIT: There's also section 1(d), which reads:

...
After the annual report is posted, players will have at least 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any unit or fleet their avatar owns, and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. Player may also move any unit, fleet, or avatar they have been given specific permission to move by the respective owner, as long as that permission is posted in a public thread.

It specifically doesn't mention setting the build queue in-game.

[Vladimir]

I read them and a rewrite would help. Those are the rules I'm going to base my actions on.

[Zim]

Tristan and Rowan are right. The build queue you set in the SOT thread is for the Seneschal, it's not something you queue up in your settlement in-game. He doesn't have to build something in any given settlement, but if he does he has to follow the build queue posted by the owner of the settlement (if there is one, otherwise he can pick any building). Control over where money goes is by far and away the strongest power the position has.

Prioritized units are a limited exception to the Seneschal's total powers over the country's purse strings, in that he would be required to fill such orders before getting to allocate any other money at all to buildings or other recruitment. There used to be a very small number of prioritized buildings at higher ranks as well in the previous game, but this power was little used (anyone is free to try to reinstate that on at a Council, though. Getting the votes to pass would convince me it's popular enough to make it back in).

I suppose those of us who have been in this for multiple games have just become used to the wording.

And to answer an earlier question, refusing to allocate any money to a player's build queue is one way a Seneschal could "encourage" someone to permit the building of that trading port or market rather than those ballista towers or whatever other military building they want.

[Vladimir]

Reviewing the status and orders thread confirms my fears. We have settlements building a grain exchange first and roads fourth or even eighth! Trade moves along roads in this game. The purpose of settlements is to produce income for the faction. We'll have a new Senechal before we even have roads, not to mention markets and sea trade.

Is this how it worked in previous games? How was the faction funded?

France is woefully underdeveloped in this game.

[Ramses II CP]

Reviewing the status and orders thread confirms my fears. We have settlements building a grain exchange first and roads fourth or even eighth! Trade moves along roads in this game. The purpose of settlements is to produce income for the faction. We'll have a new Senechal before we even have roads, not to mention markets and sea trade.

Is this how it worked in previous games? How was the faction funded?

France is woefully underdeveloped in this game.

The King's edict has to be kept in mind as well; it requires structures to be built before recruitment takes place. That's why I left my build order as it is, I wanted to free AG's hand to put things in the correct order within the structure of the King's edict. I hope that's clear in the way I wrote it out.

In previous games if the Seneschal didn't like your build order he didn't build anything. If people get too annoyed about it they can try to introduce an Edict to force the settlement owner's hand, but the realistic truth is that we don't have one hand guiding our nation, we have many. That makes for a disorganized game of MTWII, but a very interesting game of politics and negotiation.

[Zim]

My guess? A combination of Econ's revelation that not having a grain exchange can cause negative traits for governors and the first part of Edict 1.1 (which won with 100% of the vote, including yours. ).

Edict 1.1: No recruitment of any kind will be allowed in towns or castles that do not have at least a small church or chapel and either farms (OOC : lvl 1) or a grain exchange.

Do first level roads affect trade? They never show a projected increase in trade when I queue them. and in LTC ports don't produce trade until the second tier (I found that one out recently on the LTC forum).

Unless we're already showing a large deficit for turn two I wouldn't worry. Money has tended not to be a problem in these games, and after the first couple terms we always seem to be stinking rich. At the end of last game while I had the Seneschal equivalent position I even purposefully ran our economy into the ground with a huge debt to help support a rebellion, and we could have come out of it within a few turns.

I also suspect if our economy showed any weakness many of the players who were pushing for slower expansion would suddenly be in favor of war against England or some other neighbor...

[Vladimir]

While I've always been stinking rich in LTC it's always been a result of having control of an entire faction and a fiscal growth policy. I do so love playing Venice. France is another story. My heart fell a little when I realized how poorly developed it is.

[Ramses II CP]

My guess? A combination of Econ's revelation that not having a grain exchange can cause negative traits for governors and the first part of Edict 1.1 (which won with 100% of the vote, including yours. ).

Edict 1.1: No recruitment of any kind will be allowed in towns or castles that do not have at least a small church or chapel and either farms (OOC : lvl 1) or a grain exchange.

Do first level roads affect trade? They never show a projected increase in trade when I queue them. and in LTC ports don't produce trade until the second tier (I found that one out recently on the LTC forum).

Unless we're already showing a large deficit for turn two I wouldn't worry. Money has tended not to be a problem in these games, and after the first couple terms we always seem to be stinking rich. At the end of last game while I had the Seneschal equivalent position I even purposefully ran our economy into the ground with a huge debt to help support a rebellion, and we could have come out of it within a few turns.

I also suspect if our economy showed any weakness many of the players who were pushing for slower expansion would suddenly be in favor of war against England or some other neighbor...

Roads, FYI, make a huge difference in trade income. They do more in Broken Crescent, but it's a lot in vanilla and I presume in LTC as well. Those prediction screens are unreliable in the extreme.

[econ21]

Reviewing the status and orders thread confirms my fears. We have settlements building a grain exchange first and roads fourth or even eighth! Trade moves along roads in this game. The purpose of settlements is to produce income for the faction. We'll have a new Senechal before we even have roads, not to mention markets and sea trade.

...

France is woefully underdeveloped in this game.

I know you may have rules queries, but this kind of concern is exactly the sort of thing that we should debate in character rather than out of character. Take it up in Council and/or with your Duke etc. The more genuine political debate we can generate the better. We're often trying to manufacture conflicts, but if you think something really hurts the kingdom, raise a stink over it.

[Vladimir]

OK. My impression was that the initial game rules were an OOC thing and that no more edicts can be proposed until the next council session. My IC concerns will develop over the next couple turns and are influenced by my character's fiscal traits.

[AussieGiant]

Yes I'd be more than happy to have someone challenge the position in character.

Then you can really get a feel for the obvious, and not so obvious leverage options available in the game.