Out of character thread III

[econ21]

add_money only gives money to yourself. Tried that extensively.

OK, so we would have to use something like a MP script (or the MP hotseat mode) to implement this. Given the problems with such a script - attacks on us would autoresolved - I agree your idea of a one-off 100,000 lump sum gift is better than giving 10,000 each turn. What we could do is every 10 turns (Diet), I could run a MP script or something to give each AI faction 100,000 florins. Does that sound feasible to you?

[econ21]

Just checking on the Edicts proposed, it seems:

E1.1 is for own crusade as TC proposed + limit on expansion

E1.3 is identically for own crusade as TC proposed but with limit on expansion struck out

What I am worried about is suppose there is a majority for our own crusade as TC proposed, both motions might still fail if those who want limits vote against E1.3 and those that don't want limits vote against E1.1.

To avoid this, I think those in favour of our own crusade as TC with limits on expansion proposed should vote for both edicts. If E1.1 passes, that will limit our expansion even if E1.3 passes with more votes.

If factionheir or anyone wants to block the limit on expansion should E1.1 pass, I think we need a separate edict only concerned with there being no limits on expansion. If that separate edict passes with more votes, it would override the no limit clause on E1.1.

Sorry if this is nitpicking or anal, but it is best to get this clear in advance of the voting as confusion can lead to people to vote against what they want or to bad blood after the polls have opened.

[FactionHeir]

You might as well use a Diplomat and move the same one around during the start of a new term and give out the money in exchange for map info or something else trivial that they gotta accept.
You can use the same Diplomat by using character_reset which resets movement and actions.
Just make sure you get it right the first time you talk to a faction that turn to give them the money or else they won't be interested and you get to go back next turn.

Also, the AI needs way longer than 10 turns to spend 100000. Just gotta see when HRE becomes 2nd or 1st in the financial rankings at the end turn report.

[FactionHeir]

Erm why would E1.1 be in effect if E1.3 passes with more votes? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Actually what would be best if you want to split it up is to have a separate edict for each of the points in TC's original E1.1


Btw, I just realized E1.1 #6 actually means that all edicts no matter what they say are in effect if that edict is passed?!

[econ21]

Erm why would E1.1 be in effect if E1.3 passes with more votes?

Because E1.3 does not contradict E1.1. If I am reading them right, E1.3 is identical to E1.1 except it does not have clause 5.

As currently written:

People who want a crusade with limits on expansion should vote for E1.1 and E1.3.

People who want a crusade but no limits on expansion should vote against E1.1 and for E1.3.

People who do not want a crusade should vote against both.

Actually what would be best if you want to split it up is to have a separate edict for each of the points in TC's original E1.1

Perhaps it would be simplest if E1.1 is reduced to clause 5 and E1.3 is left as is to refer to the rest of TCs proposal.

That way the vote on E1.1 is a vote on limits to expansion and the vote on E1.3 is a vote on the crusade.

You might as well use a Diplomat and move the same one around during the start of a new term and give out the money in exchange for map info or something else trivial that they gotta accept.

I think pressing end turn and letting the script do it would be easier than manually getting a diplomat to each faction.

Also, the AI needs way longer than 10 turns to spend 100000.

We were making around 8500 per turn profit according to TC's in character reply to Ignoramus. Effectively giving 10000 per turn to the AI may just level them up to around our position. If they end up with a large unspent balance, I am not sure that's a problem.

[FactionHeir]

It is if you capture a lot of their troops and ransom them back. AI almsot always pays up if it has large excess cash and this way we are basically cheating the money back onto our accounts

[econ21]

It is if you capture a lot of their troops and ransom them back. AI almsot always pays up if it has large excess cash and this way we are basically cheating the money back onto our accounts

OK, so I should add a "no ransoming" proviso into the Amendment? Chivalrous generals probably should release prisoners anyway, as I have heard that trying to ransom when the AI has no cash can lead you to pick up dread traits - you get blamed for the deaths.

[FactionHeir]

Nope, doesn't happen. I even tried that by modding the factionstanding file which controls the reputation gain/loss by release/execution and by rep stayed at immaculate even when ransom for large armies was repeatedly refused. Therefore you won't pick up dread traits either (linked to same trigger)
But ransoming is something which is part of the game and a good idea if you don't want to be any more chivalrous than you are or don't want to become dreadful. A middle path in a way. Forbidding that would be... not so great.

[TinCow]

Regarding Edict voting, there's a simpler way to do this. We can change E1.1 to remove the expansion limits, then get rid of E1.3 altogether and vote on a new Edict that is simply expansion limits. That way the vote on Crusade and the vote on expansion are totally separate.