KOTF OOC Thread

[Rowan]

It's good to know the glitch has only occurred in defensive battles so far.

Now that you put it this way, I distinctly remember that it happened in LotR also. So it might not actually be a glitch.

[OverKnight]

Since we have our first merchant, I was wondering how we should handle trading. As a long time M2 player, I know most of the major resources on the map. However in this game, much of the world is currently hidden from us.

So, do I send merchants only to resources within our line of sight, ie when resources are hovered over they give a tool tip, or send them out into the fog of war, ie into the Sahara?

[_Tristan_]

I would suggest making use of our knowledge gained by trading map information/trade rights with foreign factions. It would make sense both Ic and OOC to gain knowledge of what resources are available in said faction through diplomatic /trade exchanges. And requiring trade rights would also mean that our merchants have been granted a patent to trade in said factions.

Ie, if we have established diplomatic relationships with Byzantium, I'd be allowing trade of resources within their territory.

It is difficult to "not know" where the resources are in game as we're all veteran players but by creating the necessity for an established link, we somewhat limit ourselves...

So until we've conquered Egypt and the Moors, there should be no trading of the goods that bring so much cash (ivory, slaves, sugar...) as I think all diplomacy with them was forbidden (though that may not have been re-enacted this term).

[econ21]

I agree with Tristan that the fog of war in the game is too restrictive. I would make full use of your knowledge of trade spots.

I am not sure trading with Muslims counts as conducting diplomacy (as at some level it might be private, as opposed to official, trading) but that's the kind of thing that can be debated IC.

[Ituralde]

In KotR one of my characters actively supported trade and even pushed for a trade delegation to be send towards North Africa via ship. I think that most Europeans were aware that great riches lie in foreign trade. At the same time it was very dangerous to conduct, which really isn't modeled very well in M2:TW. Still the general knowledge, or at least an inkling that riches might be found could be enough to send Merchants abroad. For the rest of it, we should deal with it IC. Especially trading with slaves should be interesting.


Edit: Just saw the matter of Frankfurt. It comes from the word ford and is acutally quite a common German city name. If there's a rive and a ford and the Franks crossed it at some point. Well there you have it.

[_Tristan_]

"Bon messieurs, I say that the city of Frankfurt be renamed Passéaux, as there are is no water near the city. While not so grand as a Fort, it may perhaps help the populace be reconciled to the return of their city to our rule.

In fact, the city is built on the Main, a large river... hence its name (as pointed out by Ituralde, I've just seen)

[OverKnight]

Franc-gué?

Ah screw it, let's just call it Philippi or something.

[Braden]

Merchants – I also say we use our extensive OOC knowledge to get the best return from them, limiting ourselves to those factions we have (or have had) trade agreements with.

Frankfurt – personally, renaming it might get confusing and I don’t think its significant a win to be renamed. When we do rename a city, it needs to be big…you know, like renaming Antioch or Jerusalem in honour of the King.

[econ21]

I don't like the idea of Prince Charles being unclaimed for a long period, so I've taken the liberty of put an ad in the M2TW forum in the hope of recruiting a player willing to pick him up.

[_Tristan_]

...Or we could simply have him removed as he is a doppelganger... Early deaths in childhood happened often enough...

[Braden]

How old is he currently? Hasn’t he only just come to an active age?

Henri would be devastated if his little brother died, he “fathers” him...guess that could be good for IC character building though and as Tristan points out “sh*t happens”.

[econ21]

If we can't find a recruit, I would be in favour of keeping Charles for when one of us falls in battle. Maybe Zim could authorise the Seneschal to move him about a bit so he does not pick up too many vices for inactivity?

On another matter - Cecil, would it be possible to update the library table of our provinces: who owns what? Cheers.

[OverKnight]

If my memory is correct with the age mod we added, once Hugues and the King go past 50 they could drop dead at any time. Something to keep in mind.

[Ramses II CP]

Charles is still only 14, he's not active yet.

[OverKnight]

Interesting question, can Tristan disband men in a city Phillipe owns, but currently has another avatar commanding the army there?

Can AussieGiant move his army out of the city, barring avatars, without permission from the owner of the city?

My brain hurts.

[Ramses II CP]

My understanding from the past is that the answer has simply been Yes. If you move an army into a city it becomes the owner of that city's army. If you don't want to have that happen after capturing a city in the current game you simply refuse to turn the city over to the King's domain.

[Ituralde]

It's like I said earlier. Once you move your army into another persons settlement it is free game. So make sure beforehand that the owner of that city is friendly to you before moving into it. It's really the same thing as the Frankfurt situation. Once again it is potentially dangerous to enter another nobles settlement. The only way to make sure you keep your army is by staying out of settlements!

[OverKnight]

Seems a bit unfair since AG conquered the settlement thereby establishing Phil's ownership. Hmmm, something to keep in mind if I take any cities this term.

[Ituralde]

I think that's why there is that bit in the rules where a noble can refuse to give a conquered settlement up to the King.

At least that's the way I read the rules.
Of course most of the "My city, my army" rules come from LotR where there was no King distributing settlements.

Don't know, I'm open to ideas of changing it, but the only one I can think of would be to bring back the Personal Armies and we know exactly what kind of brainf*** that was for the Seneshal to keep track of.

[OverKnight]

Uh oh, I have this sinking feeling we're going to be at war with England and excommunicated in about three turns. I used up all my reconciliation mojo as Otto.

[Ramses II CP]

AG had the option not to turn the settlement over to the King if he was worried. At the time he conquered it I don't think he had any reason to worry.

I would suggest that there is logically a period of time between the conquest and the handover, perhaps the rest of that turn, to move your army again and exit the city (I did exactly this at Valencia, Zaragosa, and Marseille, departing each time immediately after conquest). Unfortunately AG has been in Caeranarvon for quite awhile.

[OverKnight]

The explanations make sense, it just takes some time to wrap my head around the new rules.

[AussieGiant]

So what your all saying is that if I move any troops out of Caernarvon it's a rule violation because at the moment in time I took it, every unit was under the command of the King? Keep in mind that happened every single time with every single province capture and nothing was said.

Or is this something that was agreed IC and now is enforced in the OOC rules?

Would be nice to know before I took the save right now.

[Ramses II CP]

No, you have to relinquish it to the King's control. I've been operating on the assumption that surrendering it to the King happens by default because it would be tedious to announce it constantly, but the turn you take it you can decide not to give it to the King if you wish.

Since it's an active decision for the person capturing the city or castle I've taken it for granted that there is leeway the same turn as the capture to move your forces out... say it happens before you officially turn the province over to the King. After that turn passes, however, those men are the King's if he wants them.

This is the first time the rule has been tested, however, so we should work things out for absolute certain before we proceed if it's going to cause conflict.

[_Tristan_]

IC or OOC, Philippe would have faced the same problem in Frankfurt a few turns ago if Thomas had refused to let his men go...

So there's nothing new here. IMHO.

[Ituralde]

Maybe we should make it clearer in the rules when exactly this 'automatic transfer' to the King takes place, so when is the right time to refuse. If it would be the second after the capture then no one would have ever been able to pull out of a city he captured with his troops without the King giving permission or declaring war on the King. This truly would be absurd as AG pointed out rightly.

Maybe we should clarify this with a Rule Change. Something like the 'turn after the settlement is captured' inserted into the passage that handles the whole thing now.

[AussieGiant]

So at the moment everyone would be fine I get permission from the King then I can take the troops out?

We can tighten up the rule at the next council session.

[ULC]

Maybe we should make it clearer in the rules when exactly this 'automatic transfer' to the King takes place, so when is the right time to refuse. If it would be the second after the capture then no one would have ever been able to pull out of a city he captured with his troops without the King giving permission or declaring war on the King. This truly would be absurd as AG pointed out rightly.

Maybe we should clarify this with a Rule Change. Something like the 'turn after the settlement is captured' inserted into the passage that handles the whole thing now.

I always envisioned it as simply being until the next Council session, and IMHO, that would be the easiest way to implement it. Once the Council session starts, all "unclaimed" province "deeds" are gathered and sent to the Council, who then ratify them to make them part of the King's Demense. It is either at that time or beforehand that you declare whether or not you are giving up the "deed". This also gives plenty of time for the conqueror, and reduces the headache of keeping track of provinces.

[Ituralde]

As long as the King allows it it would be fine either way. It would become interesting if the King didn't allow you taking the troops out of the settlement.

The rule change would only make the whole affair more clear for future conquests.


So once again the disclaimer for everybody:

IF you want to keep your army:

Do NOT enter a town owned by another noble!
Do NOT stay in a town you have conquered!
Do NOT stay in a town you intend to give away!

UNLESS you are pretty sure of the noble who owns/will own the settlement.


Which brings me to another point that we should maybe cover now, before there is a rules dispute over it. As it stands currently you have no securities that the person of another settlement will not just change his SoT the second you enter his settlement. So before you enter, it said everyone can come and go, but once you have walked into his trap he can just change his SoT and have that juicy army of yours under his control.

Well I think that's stupid and also unfair, as accessing a save and moving is a much more time-consuming action than just changing a post on the forum. So maybe another Rule clarification is needed that states that SoT changes pertaining to the garrisoning of units do not go into effect until the next season. That way if someone changes his SoT you would have enough time to get the **** out of there.

Does that sound reasonable? Or have I lost everybody?

[Ituralde]

I always envisioned it as simply being until the next Council session, and IMHO, that would be the easiest way to implement it. Once the Council session starts, all "unclaimed" province "deeds" are gathered and sent to the Council, who then ratify them to make them part of the King's Demense. It is either at that time or beforehand that you declare whether or not you are giving up the "deed". This also gives plenty of time for the conqueror, and reduces the headache of keeping track of provinces.

That would give a problem with those provinces that were ratified beforehand. Should they also wait?
I would be fine with this too, but I think this shows that we obviously need some OOC clarification on the matter. It doesn't have to be a rule change, but some consensus would be nice.