Out of character thread IV

[FactionHeir]

AG:
I don't know how we are going about this, but 40 years ago may be right in game years, but not in character years. Funny thing is its just 10 character years ago. 40 years ago truly most electors would have still been playing with toys :p


Others:
I'm almost ready to release another version this or next week (trying to get as many fixes as possible into one instead of releasing daily) but I was wondering if anyone feels they want something specific to be addressed in the fixes that is not already addressed? Can also be a suggestion for triggers, as in "People travelling with priests should become more pious" or "Guilds should have a better chance of giving traits/ancillaries" stuff like that. Not that it will necessarily be implemented, but I'm open to ideas.

[AussieGiant]

AG:
I don't know how we are going about this, but 40 years ago may be right in game years, but not in character years. Funny thing is its just 10 character years ago. 40 years ago truly most electors would have still been playing with toys :p

Hi FactionHier,

Yes I know how time is distorted, however none of these characters were even alive by reckoning. I could have understood if they were kids who had not come of age but they are not even that.

And if we are going to try and use a rational argument, then I'd assume there are better targets than me

My role playing is based around using Sigsmund as a reason for doing this...Ulrich's letter to Otto is rational but I am Role Playing having a serious problem with using the death of someone they didn't even know as being a critical mistake.

Warluster and Ignoramus let the cat slip out of the bag by brining this up previously. I gave them fair warning that if they want to do this then they should be aware of the consequences IC. In my opinion they are in danger of being seriously limited IC to what they can do after this as the Chancellor can control the game both IC and OOC.

[TinCow]

I gave them fair warning that if they want to do this then they should be aware of the consequences IC. In my opinion they are in danger of being seriously limited IC to what they can do after this as the Chancellor can control the game both IC and OOC.

Yep, there's a big difference between this and Heinrich's shenanigans. What Heinrich did was technically legal and the end result was some new legislation to close that loophole. This blatantly violates the laws, so punishment should most certainly be expected. I have no problem with the Swabians doing it, but they shouldn't be surprised at how hard they'll get smacked as a result.

[FactionHeir]

Its fun to awtch at the very least! :D

Only thing that annoys me a bit is the reference to Swabians in general. Henry and Hans aren't that involved in that rebellion now are they. Not a big deal though.

[StoneCold]

Well, all non-crusading swabians are siding with the Ulrich.

[OverKnight]

Warluster has requested that he sally out of Dijon. An attack on Ragusa is still pending, so once that is complete, the save will go to him.

As for Hummel's rebellion, I'll give him another year to run wild. If we get a cease and desist order from the Pope, I'll reevaluate.

I want to let the Swabians have their fun, it does make for good drama, but I feel even their troops would question going up against a Papal bull.

Of course, IC Otto is feverishly trying to restablish control of the situation.

Since we'll be waiting on two battles and some final setting of build queues from me, we have the time to consider options.

@Ignoramus, we exchanged letters in 1180, as shown by the date on the letter, not 1184, as shown at the top of the story. They precede our reconciliation.

So who's thinking of a trial thread?

[AussieGiant]

Its fun to awtch at the very least! :D

Only thing that annoys me a bit is the reference to Swabians in general. Henry and Hans aren't that involved in that rebellion now are they. Not a big deal though.

That I can understand FH.

I'll have to refine my generalisation to the two maniacs in question and not the two other fine gentlemen :)

OK, I'm just working out how many constitutional lawyers we will need for this little blow out :)

[OverKnight]

Let me see if I can shed some light on this:

IC: Chancellor Otto had no knowledge of Hummel's movements until he sieged Rheims. The Duke has disobeyed orders and has moved his HA on his own authority. Technically, Otto has the power to stop this, but he is currently thousands of miles away and has no means to enforce his rights at the moment.

OOC: Ignoramus approached me before the start of my term asking me if he could take the SwHA on a sweep through France. We exchanged many PMs and I was quite clear with him that there would be repercussions concerning Hummel's actions. I knew I had the right, as the chancellor, to refuse this request. However, since GH and myself had been granted some independent action when TC was chancellor, I decided to extend the same courtesy to Ignoramus. Disloyal nobles often took advantage of a Crusader King's absence to settle some scores, think Prince John, and I felt it would add an interesting wrinkle to the game. Once our reconciliation was final, I double checked with Ignoramus if he still wanted to continue. He did, and so we find ourselves in the present.

I'm willing to let this play out, but I will step in if it will lead to excomm. I figure that if the Pope speaks out, that even Hummel's own troops will spit the bit. I also reserve the right to enforce some desertion on Hummel's troops if he moves beyond Rheims.

I hope people can appreciate the difference between being the IC Chancellor and an OOC one.

[Ituralde]

The battle is done, Ragusa is ours. Whoevers's up next can take the save.

Concerning the situation with Hummel, I really like it as it adds a nice little touch to the game. I mean warring Dukes who follow their own private border wars, is pretty much what Feudalism is all about. Of course he can not count on the Diet's approval and I already have some Edicts up my sleeve that will make Hummel regret his actions, but for now I am glad to see that Overknight allows Ignoramus to play out his storyline a little. As long as it doesn't lead to excommunication I am completely okay with everything Hummel could do. OOC of course, IC now, that's another matter.

[Northnovas]

Let me see if I can shed some light on this:

OOC: Ignoramus approached me before the start of my term asking me if he could take the SwHA on a sweep through France. We exchanged many PMs and I was quite clear with him that there would be repercussions concerning Hummel's actions. I knew I had the right, as the chancellor, to refuse this request. However, since GH and myself had been granted some independent action when TC was chancellor, I decided to extend the same courtesy to Ignoramus. Disloyal nobles often took advantage of a Crusader King's absence to settle some scores, think Prince John, and I felt it would add an interesting wrinkle to the game. Once our reconciliation was final, I double checked with Ignoramus if he still wanted to continue. He did, and so we find ourselves in the present.

I'm willing to let this play out, but I will step in if it will lead to excomm. I figure that if the Pope speaks out, that even Hummel's own troops will spit the bit. I also reserve the right to enforce some desertion on Hummel's troops if he moves beyond Rheims.

I hope people can appreciate the difference between being the IC Chancellor and an OOC one.

Thanks for clearing this up. I have been reading along and thought I was in the loop knowing what was said in the Diet but if they didn't have the ability to move their troops I could not figure out what the big deal was with the talk.
Now this makes sense, I haven't loaded a couple saves so there has been action on their words. OOC this makes for interesting play but IC I will not stand for it now that I am fully aware of what has progressed.