OOC Thread

[The Celtic Viking]

As much as I'd like to agree and it could make sense IC, as for the rules, in the way they are written now, this is incorrect. Maybe Ibn-Khaldun could re-write them but this would seem unfair at this point in the game. There is no special mention that Eleutheroi are neutral all-over in the rules. So, going by the rules, anyone can move their avatar into Eleutheroi territory.

The eleutheroi is a faction. It's a special faction, but it's a faction all the same, so it doesn't need any special mention. The special treatment they get is that declaring war on one of its provinces doesn't put us at war with all the rest. (As well as that strategoi can attack their provinces with private units whenever they want, apparently.)

Another loophole seems to be that, the Chancellor, controlling the diplomats, could theoretically make peace with anyone without consulting the council or Basileos.

For anyone who'd think that such control by the Basileos would be too harsh, let's just remember that this game isn't really made to encourage loyalty and togetherness

I do agree with this, though. Factional diplomacy should be in complete control of the Basileus and the Council; it doesn't make much sense otherwise. Especially not if the Chancellor can just unilaterally decide to give away the Basileus' provinces without his consent. Imagine if the Chancellor wish to go to war with the Basileus. What's to stop him from signing a peace with one of our enemies in which all of the Basileus' land is given away (except the capital obviously) right before he declares war, so that the Basileus loses recruitment grounds and scraps the income for his army?

[LeoCordis]

Also, I've started a little story on Meleagros' past which I will try to have catch up to current events. Trying to flesh out the character and to perhaps create some motivations for interaction beyond the rules

Loved the story. Can't wait for the rest of it.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

If the Basileus forbids entering an Eleutheroi province then players can always turn towards the Chancellor who could declare war on them. This will of course create tensions between the Basileus and the Chancellor but I think that is only good for the game.

About the diplomacy, propose law that give the power to sign peace treaties to the Council or to the Basileus.

[Myth]

I have a question about army size. Right now only the Polemarchos may lead 16 units in battle. How is the Basileus leading that huge army then? I didn't see anywhere in the rules that the Basileus and/or heir are exempt from this rule.

Also, in effect, without being polemarchos the only other way to get to lead more than 8 units is to have won a ton of victories vs non-brigands?

[Ashurnasirpal II]

The eleutheroi is a faction. It's a special faction, but it's a faction all the same, so it doesn't need any special mention. The special treatment they get is that declaring war on one of its provinces doesn't put us at war with all the rest. (As well as that strategoi can attack their provinces with private units whenever they want, apparently.)

Well, yes, they're a faction. But as far as the rules are concerned, we're always at war with them and there is no mention that they are a 'special' faction. I might be just arguing semantics here, but it is not in the rules and it should be if we are to stick by it. I understand there was a previous game like this one and that might have been the rule there. If we still want to use that rule, then it has to be written, it can't just be assumed.

I do agree with this, though. Factional diplomacy should be in complete control of the Basileus and the Council; it doesn't make much sense otherwise. Especially not if the Chancellor can just unilaterally decide to give away the Basileus' provinces without his consent. Imagine if the Chancellor wish to go to war with the Basileus. What's to stop him from signing a peace with one of our enemies in which all of the Basileus' land is given away (except the capital obviously) right before he declares war, so that the Basileus loses recruitment grounds and scraps the income for his army?

I completely agree. This is just an issue of common sense. Especially for province trading. But I think its fair to say provinces can't be traded without their owner's consent, and the Basileos owns about everything!

Since we're early in the game, I think these two points should just be clarified in the rules section, rather then left to some comments in the OOC thread. It'll help in the long run

Loved the story. Can't wait for the rest of it.

Thanks

I have a question about army size. Right now only the Polemarchos may lead 16 units in battle. How is the Basileus leading that huge army then? I didn't see anywhere in the rules that the Basileus and/or heir are exempt from this rule.

Also, in effect, without being polemarchos the only other way to get to lead more than 8 units is to have won a ton of victories vs non-brigands?

It says he 'owns a royal army' and later describes the royal army as having minimum 12 units. It's not clear, but I assume it means that as long as it is the royal army, the Basileos can simply command anything in it? It could also be made more clear

[The Celtic Viking]

Well, yes, they're a faction. But as far as the rules are concerned, we're always at war with them and there is no mention that they are a 'special' faction. I might be just arguing semantics here, but it is not in the rules and it should be if we are to stick by it. I understand there was a previous game like this one and that might have been the rule there. If we still want to use that rule, then it has to be written, it can't just be assumed.

You're kind of correct yet incorrect at the same time, I think, if that even makes sense. We can't be at peace with them unless we had modded the files so that we started out that way, and then at our first war we could never sign peace again anyway. To exploit this would not be fair, and in any case, the rule that johnhughthoum quoted does imply that, if he uses any non-private unit, we must declare war on that settlement before he can attack it. This also implies that the enemy status against the eleutheroi faction is not the same as an enemy status against any other faction, as there is no need to declare war on any specific Seleukid settlement (for example) before you can attack it.

If the Basileus forbids entering an Eleutheroi province then players can always turn towards the Chancellor who could declare war on them. This will of course create tensions between the Basileus and the Chancellor but I think that is only good for the game.

This does make the Chancellor's power #7 superfluous though, doesn't it?

(7) Can declare war on any faction who have an army in a Ptolemaioi province.

I have a question about army size. Right now only the Polemarchos may lead 16 units in battle. How is the Basileus leading that huge army then? I didn't see anywhere in the rules that the Basileus and/or heir are exempt from this rule.

The Basileus doesn't have any cap on how many units he can command and is obviously not affected by the powers or penalties of positions that he doesn't hold. Since it's listed as a power it wouldn't affect me even if I was the Polemarchos, because I am also the Basileus, and the Basileus' power is greater. It's kind of like "with a car, you can travel to the end of this continent. But you also have a boat, so you can travel even further!" If it had been a penalty, I'm not 100% sure, but I'd assume that the Basileus' powers would still nullify it, since it is the higher position.

Regardless of that, though, for said reasons none of this is relevant to the current situation, though I'd like confirmation for future reference.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Tbh, it seems as if no one read the rules properly before the game started.

I'll answer shortly to your questions. I'll set up a special thread for talk about the Rules and where you can propose any Rule change during the Council session.

[Ashurnasirpal II]

We can't be at peace with them unless we had modded the files so that we started out that way, and then at our first war we could never sign peace again anyway. To exploit this would not be fair, and in any case, the rule that johnhughthoum quoted does imply that, if he uses any non-private unit, we must declare war on that settlement before he can attack it. This also implies that the enemy status against the eleutheroi faction is not the same as an enemy status against any other faction, as there is no need to declare war on any specific Seleukid settlement (for example) before you can attack it.

I completely agree, except, find that in the rules. It isn't there. My point is: if its a rule, than it should be stipulated so as clearly as possible.

Tbh, it seems as if no one read the rules properly before the game started.

I'll answer shortly to your questions. I'll set up a special thread for talk about the Rules and where you can propose any Rule change during the Council session.

Good idea. I read the rules, but they're not always entirely clear and consistent. We can deduce much of the spirit of the game, but the clear-cut isn't there.

[The Celtic Viking]

I completely agree, except, find that in the rules. It isn't there. My point is: if its a rule, than it should be stipulated so as clearly as possible.

What are you talking about? I just told you where in the rules it is. Here, I'll show you:

Strategoi can attack Eleutheroi settlements with their Private units(and only with them) even if war has not been declared against that settlement.

This says that to attack an Eleutheroi settlement with any non-private unit, it needs a declaration of war first. This means that

a) being at war with the Eleutheroi is not the same thing as being at war against any other faction when it comes to individual settlements

and

b) Eleutheroi settlements are considered at least neutral, since you don't need to declare war against someone you're already at war with.

Now, is this clearly put? No, but this is the only logical interpretation of it that I can see.

[Ashurnasirpal II]

Oh sorry I had misread your last post!

[The Celtic Viking]

No problem.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Aww what?! My trade proceeds have been cut in half!

Rebel armies(Brigands) do not have an effect on sea trade. So, your income is safe at the moment. However, all those who have estates in Alexandreia.. You are in trouble.

[Folgore]

Rebel armies(Brigands) do not have an effect on sea trade. So, your income is safe at the moment. However, all those who have estates in Alexandreia.. You are in trouble.

Really? Because, I checked the trade scroll in Hierosolyma and the income from exports and inports is 150 or so, which is far less than the 275 it was last season.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Really? Because, I checked the trade scroll in Hierosolyma and the income from exports and inports is 150 or so, which is far less than the 275 it was last season.

I meant that Rebels don't have an effect on how I calculate the personal funds. In-game it's another story.

[Ashurnasirpal II]

Rebel armies(Brigands) do not have an effect on sea trade. So, your income is safe at the moment. However, all those who have estates in Alexandreia.. You are in trouble.

The rebels are in the Memphis region, though they are closer to Alexandreia.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Damn, then get rid of them! I am the one losing mnai in here!

[johnhughthom]

Did you change the values in decsr_strat.txt for the frequency of rebel armies popping up I-K?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Did you change the values in decsr_strat.txt for the frequency of rebel armies popping up I-K?

Unfortunatelly, no.

[GenosseGeneral]

I am sorry for not being active for such a long time, but I think I can participate now again. Am I still in it?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Yes, you are! Your avatar is still in Alexandreia. Also, he have become very rich as you may notice in the Treasury thread.

[GenosseGeneral]

Okay, so I just roleplay he got stuck in discussions at the academia and building up his bussiness ;)

[Kogitsune]

awww i dont like the ptolemy's :p

[Ibn-Khaldun]

awww i dont like the ptolemy's :p

We are all imperfect. We can not expect perfect government. -Taft, William Howard

[The Celtic Viking]

If you're not perfect then there's something wrong with you. - Carlin, George

[johnhughthom]

That quote sums up your roleplaying perfectly TCV!

[The Celtic Viking]

Hah! Have you heard the saying, "aim for the sky and you'll hit the tree tops"? Well, aim for perfection and you'll still only hit imperfection, so how could I possibly expect anything less than a more-than-perfect performance from my subjects and still call myself a leader?

[johnhughthom]

What's happening with the turn then? I take it Leo had a battle to fight, then TCV and now we're waiting on Ash to end the turn?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Yes. Since I don't have the latest save I can not do it myself. Hopefully Ash can end it soon.

[Ashurnasirpal II]

I don't have the save either. TCV has it after his last battle.

[LeoCordis]

I didn't PM it. o.O