Lords of the Danube OOC thread

[Ignoramus]

Myth, I know how frustrating it can be if things happen that seem to be ahistorical, but don't let that detract from it. If vassals are being too rebellious for your liking, do something about it. You got powers as King - use them to suggest that loyalty and obedience is more profitable and safer than disloyalty.

[Nightbringer]

Just to let everyone know, I included a sample format for end of turn reports in the first post.

You can format them as you wish, but that is one example which is clear to me.

[Zim]

If nothing else, possession of two settlements and the King's Purse gives him a massive advantage incomewise. I can barely support my army if I leave the castle and lose the free upkeep.

Count sounds fine to me, although I rather like Groef.

Spoilered discussion starting here is likely might be better hashed out here in the OOC thread than trapped in spoilers in an IC thread...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053414415

That post sounds more to me like how Kings expected feudalism to behave than how it was on the ground in most countries. Unless Hungary was radically different in that period from other feudal nations.

Realism is tricky in these types of games, and often comes to a balance between making the game fun and versimillitude (not quite the same as realism. an example of is how much "your grace" bothers Phonics even if it was the right address for some levels of nobility), and where that balance should be is likely to differ among all players. We just have to find a point at which everyone can compromise.

Funny thing is, the more I read about medieval history the more I suspect the players in these games actually argue less and act more united than actual rulers did, from France to Anatolia to Baghdad to Tokyo.

[Nightbringer]

Count sounds fine to me, although I rather like Groef.

Anyone who wants to be a Groef just let me know, otherwise you will be a Count unless you come into possession of significant amounts of land, in which case the king might promote you to Duke.

[Myth]

I abandoned the first KOTN game exactly because TCV roleplayed the Basileus as the end-all, be-all ruler who owned ALL the armies and ALL the lands and no one could so much as speak rudely without worrying about being punished like a mischievous child. Even in my spoilered tag I said it makes sense game wise for the nobles to own their towns, otherwise the game will regress in a similar fashion.

I don't want to be a history nazi nor do I want to tell people what to do just because I got the King as a character, but a knight saying "our lands" in front of his royal sovereign is too absurd, hence me explaining feudalism. Monkey says he disagrees with "my view on history", I'd like to hear arguments and see sources of how feudalism actually worked which differ from my very simplified explanation, please

Once again: I understand that the King is in the most advantageous position mechanics wise and I do not want to force other players to grovel and scrape before me IC, that just sucks and repeats KotN all over again. I just want some historical accuracy at least fluff wise.

Two armies headed for Constantinople? NB I thought you said the ERE was tied up in Asia Minor

[Ignoramus]

I'm sure it will happen Myth - as phonics points out, you alone can afford to maintain a strong army No one can even afford the expense of rebelling against you.

[phonicsmonkey]

a knight saying "our lands" in front of his royal sovereign is too absurd

Not if they are his ancestral home.

I'd rather not go into too much detail about the reasons behind the very deliberate words I'm choosing (because it will spoil the game) but they make perfect sense to me given the backstory. My character's father was King before the current one. Then there was a deal between the two cousins quickly followed by a revolt / civil war. Think about it and you'll understand why I (and others) might feel that this particular King might not be as strong and able to be tyrannical as others.

EDIT: I don't have enough time to go into a full-blown historical debate about feudalism with you but I'll just quickly address your point by saying that I don't believe any King can ever rule without the consent of his nobles. They inhabit and bear arms to defend their lands and in that practical sense they own them utterly. History is full, absolutely full of examples of tension between the sovereign and his lords. Sometimes one has the political upper hand, sometimes the other.

[Nightbringer]

Two armies headed for Constantinople? NB I thought you said the ERE was tied up in Asia Minor

Perhaps that does reflect them being tied up in Asia Minor. If you manage to get some spies to Syria, I think you will understand.

[Myth]

OK :) Well guys it appears I need to check the save before responding. Mithirdate has spoken to the Cuman Khan and we may yet turn his private dealings to our advantage. We have good news concerning Venice but apparently the French King has gone apesh*t and so the West won't really help us. There's much benefit to be had if we vanquish the HRE but we have to secure our positions vs the ERE/Cumans first.

I have an idea about funds - I think of dismantling the Scholarii Barracks in Constantinople. This will be represented as Pozsony abolishing the training grounds and indeed the organization of the Scholarii/Cathaphractoi of old, raiding their building for the gold. The gold I intend to split between the nobles so that they can recruit or not go into debt. I'll see if there's any other "ERE only" buildings that could go. We don't really benefit from the Scholarii Barracks anyway, and if the ERE gets Constantinople I don't want them to be able to recruit them at least for a while.

Hopefully I can match that force outside the city and we can also defend Varad from the Coo-mans.

Yes I understand that in Feudalism we had the constant back-and-forth between centralized power and local power. A strong King means more centralized rule, a weak king means the nobles do whatever the hell they want. This doesn't change the fact that he technically owed their land though. I do understand your IC post now, I had forgotten about the backstory.

[Zim]

True, but "technically" owning land or even commanding armies of supposed slaves (speak with some deposed rulers from Medieval Egypt or the Ottoman Empire about that latter one) is very different from actually doing so, especially in the premodern period.

At any rate, here's to crushing our enemies and driving them before us~

[Zim]

That's a pretty big topic, and will likely need some sourcing from your end as well. All I can say for myself is that the common theme through university classes on medieval history was that feudalism was both caused by and a cause of decentralization. Monarchs would have much theoretical power but far less practical power to do what they want. Oftentimes even in situations where grants of land were not intended to be hereditary they became so (mid to late Ottoman history is a good example of this).

I've got the TWS2 rules revisions, work, and a night out with the wife this weekend, but I'll look through the books I do own on the subject when I can.

In the meantime rather than collect a few dubious internet sources or quick, possibly out of contexts quotes from flipping through aforementioned books I posted a thread on the topic in the monastery, where there are people more qualified than I to try to settle the matter one way or the other. The thread can be found here.