Out of character thread XIV

**OverKnight** · 10-15-2007, 05:21

No offense on the current exchange, PK, but Matthias isn't currently in a happy place.

**Privateerkev** · 10-15-2007, 05:26

None taken OK. I'm just trying to be all co-operative and such. :D

The offer will still be there if Matt changes his mind.

**econ21** · 10-15-2007, 06:52

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

I'm worried that we might break the game in these ten turns if we're not careful.

As TinCow said, I take this as a compliment but I would not worry too much. I think people should play it out in character and most characters have a pretty strong survival instinct. Try to keep your character alive and you may end up being more cooperative than one might think. I was impressed by the rallying round Austria after the Bucharest debacle.

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

GH: You reap what you sow. ... People don't have to kill Popes.

The general principle may be right, but on the specific point about the Pope - someone did have to kill the Pope. That was part of the script. OOC we wanted the loyalty hit and the possibility of Catholics ganging up on us (although I could not avoid the stupid AI crusading on Tunis on my last turn

). GeneralHankerchief did not volunteer for the Pope-killer job - we actually had it scripted as Hans because he was the anti-Siegfried a couple of Diets back. However, the way the last Diet played out, it seemed more fitting that Dietrich do it and Hans play the loyalist. I think in the end GeneralHankerchief went through some pangs of conscience trying to justify Dietrich doing what was scripted. So, the defence that he was "just following orders" applies OOC here.

Ditto the Illuminati killing Siegfried for that matter.

OOC, GH and the Illuminati did me a favour.

IC Elberhard still hates them, though.

**econ21** · 10-15-2007, 07:13

Originally Posted by TinCow

Provinces that belong to a Count who remains loyal to their Duke will provide 1 "control" income to BOTH the Count and the Duke, as well as a bonus 1 income to the Duke: resulting in 2 income for the Duke and 1 income for the loyal Count (assuming the city is not besieged, etc.). Counts that rebel from their Dukes will receive an income of 2 from the province they declare as their 'Capital' for the rest of the Cataclysm, provided that all other requirements for the income are met, even if they are castles. Thus, Wolfgang has an extra 1 wealth.

I think you are skewing things too far against rebels by making a province give a net 3 if loyal to a Duke and only 1 if rebel. Even when it was 2:1, I thought it was a little unfair - a province does not double in wealth just because the Duke gets a cut (one might say more likely the reverse!).

To get of the current conundrum, why not just say that a city yields 3 income and, if loyal, 2 of them must go to the current Duke? Then to give Hummel a break, say that if a rebel only has a castle, it is regarded as a city minus one income?

Making cities give 3 points rather than 1 also makes them more strategically valuable - 1 militia per city scarcely makes them break even (it may take 6 or more to garrison it).

I'm not arguing this from self-interest, of course, otherwise the Kaiser would be demanding his own cut.

**Stig** · 10-15-2007, 07:38

Originally Posted by PK

OOC: I am talking to TC about getting 1 or 2 points knocked off of Ansehelm's income. I'll let you know what he decides.

And yes I sweared and I don't care at all

**Privateerkev** · 10-15-2007, 07:43

Originally Posted by econ21

The general principle may be right, but on the specific point about the Pope - someone did have to kill the Pope. That was part of the script. OOC we wanted the loyalty hit and the possibility of Catholics ganging up on us (although I could not avoid the stupid AI crusading on Tunis on my last turn

). GeneralHankerchief did not volunteer for the Pope-killer job - we actually had it scripted as Hans because he was the anti-Siegfried a couple of Diets back. However, the way the last Diet played out, it seemed more fitting that Dietrich do it and Hans play the loyalist. I think in the end GeneralHankerchief went through some pangs of conscience trying to justify Dietrich doing what was scripted. So, the defence that he was "just following orders" applies OOC here.

Ditto the Illuminati killing Siegfried for that matter.

OOC, GH and the Illuminati did me a favour.

IC Elberhard still hates them, though.

Oh I have no problem with what the Illuminati and GH did OOC. But I have a huge problem IC. And GH is asking OOC for us to "tread carefully" when he is the one that agreed to have his character be highly controversial. He is worried about us breaking the game when his character has significantly upped the amount of tension in the game.

So I can understand wanting us to be understanding in the OOC thread towards GH for helping you guys out with a script. But, why should I give him a pass IC when his avatar did something that is completely anathema to everything my character stands for? He might not have volunteered but I doubt you and TC held a gun to his head. He didn't have to take the job.

So, that's what I meant by "you reap what you sow." I have zero problem with what anyone has done OOC. But if you are going to come onto the OOC thread, and ask all of us to "tread carefully", then I am going to ask you to examine your own avatar's behavior.

Originally Posted by Stig

And yes I sweared and I don't care at all

Well, then your taking the income hit because TC had calculated you as having 1 point for Jan being a loyal count. Since Ansehelm just fired Jan, I guess he can't quit. But Ansehelm just lost 1/8 of his income.

**Stig** · 10-15-2007, 07:47

No, Jan has never been a count, he can't even be a count as he's King.

Sides Ansehelm has 3 for Loyal Counts: Dieter, Fritz and Peter

And Tancred when he gets something

**econ21** · 10-15-2007, 09:03

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Oh I have no problem with what the Illuminati and GH did OOC. But I have a huge problem IC.

...I have zero problem with what anyone has done OOC. But if you are going to come onto the OOC thread, and ask all of us to "tread carefully", then I am going to ask you to examine your own avatar's behavior.

I was picking you up on the "People don't have to kill Popes" remark. This is the OOC thread and OOC someone had to. Asking GH to examine his own avatar's behaviour in that specific regard is unfair. He was only doing what I asked him to.

It's a small point, but I know players can get understandably angry if they get the flak for things I set them up to do. IC they have to take it, I am afraid, but OOC we should be nice.

But, why should I give him a pass IC ...

I never asked you to - I said Elberhard hates him IC - but this is the OOC thread.

Thinking a bit more about this, I guess my response to GH's post is don't meta-game. Just role-play your character. If Dietrich wants to run for Chancellor in 1340 that's a great reason for Dietrich to be agitating IC for people not to destroy buildings etc[1]. But OOC, I would just let people play as they wish. Let TinCow worry about keeping the game going.

Even then, I rather agree with GH's "fitting death" comment: I think it would be pretty awesome for this game to end in an AI victory as a result of the cataclysm. Only one PBM I know of ever ended in an AI victory (a Saxon one). I don't want it to end yet and would bet serious money it won't, but if it did end that way, it would be going out with one heck of a bang IMO.

[1]Maybe we are suffering from the closure of the Diet, so that IC stuff that is not specific to one house is getting transferred here? I am not sure what the answer is - a public announcements thread? That would have been suitable for Becker's proclamation and any calls for restraint that Dietrich, Elberhard etc want to make? I don't want to re-open the Diet proper though. I don't think we should be debating back and forth, but issuing various proclamations against each other sounds characterful.

**TinCow** · 10-15-2007, 12:11

Originally Posted by econ21

I think you are skewing things too far against rebels by making a province give a net 3 if loyal to a Duke and only 1 if rebel. Even when it was 2:1, I thought it was a little unfair - a province does not double in wealth just because the Duke gets a cut (one might say more likely the reverse!).

To get of the current conundrum, why not just say that a city yields 3 income and, if loyal, 2 of them must go to the current Duke? Then to give Hummel a break, say that if a rebel only has a castle, it is regarded as a city minus one income?

Making cities give 3 points rather than 1 also makes them more strategically valuable - 1 militia per city scarcely makes them break even (it may take 6 or more to garrison it).

I'm not arguing this from self-interest, of course, otherwise the Kaiser would be demanding his own cut.

Point taken. Privateerkev pointed out two other errors I made as well: Arnold has 1 more than he should have and Lothar has 1 less than he should have. However, I like the current balance of wealth so I am keeping it. I will take a good look at the city/castle/count/duke income system today and try to reform it in a manner that balances out. However, I will not make any more changes this turn because I do not want to confuse people. Any more adjustments will only take effect next turn: the wealth numbers on the current turn post can be relied upon 100%.

Also, for those asking, wealth you do not spend carries over to the next turn.

**GeneralHankerchief** · 10-15-2007, 13:34

I'm going to take the initiative and post an "Imperial Messenger Service" thread where people can make proclamations and the news will get out quickly.