Hey no worries Cecil, we can work it all out now.
Actually on point 3 I would say rather that my issue is that he was able to take Milan without having to go through me, despite the fact that IC I made it clear to him that I would stand in his way. On top of that he was able to waltz right back out again wtih 9k florins in loot which the Prinz had his eye on (the purpose for besieging Milan in the first place! I believe I should have been able to force him to show his hand by declaring war on me before he entered the city. The onus should have been on him to fight his way in.
However I'm happy to let this slide now if I get a chance to fight him for that cash now (as per my below comment).
6.11 came out of the Kaiser's re-assertion of control after the civil war. IC he was able to assert more power and control over the process of distributing settlements because he had all-but vanquished his enemies. So I think 3.4 should give way to 6.11 and the Kaiser should have automatic right of decision over all new settlements, until such a time as we might pass a Diet vote to amend the rule. Not sure if that's what you meant...
I'm happy for the rules to be clarified in this way and it makes sense IC that a rebel can decide not to hand over income. However, I think that if a rebel decides to hold on to a settlement in defiance of the Kaiser or refuse to pay income he should be automatically viewed as having declared war on the Reich unless there are IC negotiations to the contrary.
It's an interesting philosophical question about temporal precedence. Do all the actions that take place during one turn happen simultaneously, or in the order that the players take the save? If the latter there is unfairness as to who grabs it first. If the former we need some kind of decision-making process to handle such things as competition for precedence at sieges etc.
I like your idea of first refusal according to rank - but what if two Dukes are in a stand-off with each other? Does it become influence-based? And then if equal perhaps the influence of their combined House members? Or maybe the Kaiser is a tie-breaker?
And I think that if IC a rebel decides to ignore the rule then that should place him in an automatic state of war with the Reich and the other player should have the option of giving battle before the rebel enters the city.
According to your first point above Lothar should not have had control of Genoa anyway, so maybe the best thing is to say that the Prinz' army caught him outside the city and gave battle, before he entered?
A separate question is where is Lothar's treasury if not in Genoa? And if I kill him do I get access to that cash?
Because if not I'm going to have to go back to my complaint about not being able to stop him getting in (and out of!) Milan to seize all that loot in the first place. It's the money I'm really worried about.
Bookmarks