OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

[Rowan]

I prefer to see things move in baby steps. Big steps tend to come with big problems no one thought of. I propose three small changes:

1.) Garrisons/forts/armies are always "locked" as a default. The person doesn't even have to post a SOT. In case of player activity, these things can be unlocked by the head of that person's feudal chain. Or, if there is no head of chain, in 2 terms of no voting.

2.) Garrisons are capped at the settlement's free-upkeep level. This should prevent "garrison dumping."

3.) Only the first "insert fair number here" of units can be "locked" in a fort. This should minimize "fort dumping."

Leave the rest of the rules as is and see how these do first. If bigger changes are needed, make them then. I believe this would simplify the Megas job while helping to relieve the anxiety of the players.

Wouldn't 2. and 3. lead to SOT being littered with "Unit SuperX and DuperY are the garrison of Megatown" where Megas would still have to check SOT to determine which units belong to the garrison?

And what would locking an army mean in this context? Every strator walking around with huge armies?

Other than that, I like it.

[Cecil XIX]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So basically we need a method to refine or revise the PA system so that both the players and the Megas can use it simply. RAs are a bit more complicated since the Emperor can't join a House, but shouldn't be left without any troops at all. Let me see if I can lay out the complications and some of the solutions semi-organized for discussion:

Garrisons. Right now because the Megas can move anything, garrisons have to be 'locked,' but the power to lock in concert with PAs creates the potential for garrison dumping.

1. If we remove the power of the Megas to disband or move troops inside a city or under an avatar then garrison dumping isn't necessary, but PAs are much, much less important. Captain led stacks in the open are still under his control.

2. If remove the power of the Megas to disband or move any troops anywhere garrison dumping is gone and PAs are really just a technicality. Captain led stacks in the open require further explanation and rules.

3. If we cap garrison size we have to build in overhead rules to determine what size is allowed at what time and what does or doesn't comprise a garrison, possibly adding complications when we want to remove them. PAs could remain as they are, preserving the middle ranks.

Private Armies. Currently tracking and refilling PAs is a major source of complication for the Megas, and a frequent source of contention for the players.

1. If we eliminate PAs for House Armies, as in my idea, the middle ranks once again potentially lose power in exchange for simplification of the system. Garrisons could be drawn from the HA to eliminate garrison dumping, and control of the quality of troops in the HA would depend on the quality of settlements in the House. Houses would be top heavy, but tracking the HA by total number of units should be simpler and recruitment would be 'in House,' which cuts down on potential abuses of the Megas' requirement to fill the HA.

2. What else can be done about PAs? Maybe a system that puts more emphasis on the rights of those middle ranks without denying the top ranks their due? Say:

Rank 1: No army except your BG
Rank 2: One unit army drawn from the type of units available at your owned settlement. Can be SoT'd to your Lord to form a larger army.
Rank 3: 2 units to be drawn from your owned settlements or the settlements of your vassals. Can be SoT'd to your Lord.
Rank 4: 4 units and ditto
Rank 5: 7 units and ditto

etc?

Since the Megas cannot move troops we could then make it the responsibility of the individual players to track their unit and, when units are merged, decide who it belongs or inform the Megas of the need to replace it? The Megas would still make the decision as to where the available funds were spent.

Simplifcation and loopholing preventing. What's the worst part of being the Megas? Checking the SoT every turn and before every decision? The worst part of being a player, in my experience, is having to wait around to see what bit of trickery the Megas has concocted to **** you. TC has cracked down on the latter, and I know PK has been checking his path before he treads it, but it may not always be that way.

1. Taking the power to move or disband troops should greatly simplify the Megas position IMHO. The Megas will still control agents, expenditures, (And possibly ships depending on the title idea's passage) and be the one to hit 'end turn,' etc. but armies and movement won't be a matter of figuring out loophole, but a matter of having a player's explicit permission.

2. I've decided I dislike my captain led stacks movement rule because it's complicated and requires potentially new permission every turn. There are some good alternatives, like letting the Megas move anything on land, out of a city, which starts with 'Captain.' This may significantly expand the power of the Megas, but he'll still have to be wary not to let those men wander into range to be siezed by an avatar.

That didn't seem to clear things up much for me while I was typing it, but... at least I tried?

In regards to Garrisons, I like Option 1. For PAs, I prefer option 2. The House Leader has a certain amount of soldiers he can theoretically call up, but many(most?) require the permission of his vassals before they can be called. Overall I think such a change would be monumentally for the better.

I also like the idea of letting the Basileus appoint a Naval commander. Perhaps we could make a retinue for the title?

I also like the idea of intermediary steps, but out of the ones PK proposed I think only one qualifies. I would definitely like to see that proposed next session, at least.

[Ramses II CP]

If you cap garrisons at the free upkeep point you're going to see some settlements rebel I'm afraid. Towns often have no free upkeep point until upgraded. Chivalry characters who want to occupy are going to have serious problems, especially under an unfriendly Megas.

[TinCow]

Regarding loopholing, a player who wishes to remain anonymous has suggested a solution to me. The problem isn't so much that people find loopholes in the rules, it's that they exploit these loopholes when no one else is aware that they exist. The proposal that has been presented to me is as follows:

1) I create a 'Rule Interpreation' thread. If you have a question about whether something is legal or not, you post it in a proper format in that thread. (i.e. Question: Can I shave my head and dress up like a clown?) I will then answer your question, and that will be that. There will be no rebutals or debate unless I specifically request further dialog on the topic. No one else may post a response to the thread, it is simply a direct Q&A session.

2) If the answer I give has the potential of causing harm to someone's avatar (such as the proper language for a SOT post), then I will pause the game for 24 hours to let people adjust anything that needs to be adjusted before the new 'ruling' starts to impact them. I will be the only person who will determine if something has the potential to cause harm.

3) If you exploit a loophole or unclear part of the rules WITHOUT posting a quesiton about it in this thread first, it will be considered an OOC rule violation, even if I agree that what you did was acceptable.

This has several advantages. First, all rule interpretation issues are publicly available for everyone to read. Second, every rule interpretation or loophole that has a potential to cause harm to a player will result in a short pause to allow that player to prepare themselves in whatever way necessary before it occurs. Third, OOC thread debates on rules will be reduced, because it will simply be a Q&A session between the poster and myself, with no further discussion.

The main disadvantage is that it's yet another info thread for people to read to understand how the game works. This would also be a U-turn on the game policy of "exploit it if you can find it." This may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. At this point, I'm inclined to toss loophole exploitation out the window and make following the rules (and the spirit of the rules) mandatory.

Please comment on this idea.

[Privateerkev]

Wouldn't 2. and 3. lead to SOT being littered with "Unit SuperX and DuperY are the garrison of Megatown" where Megas would still have to check SOT to determine which units belong to the garrison?

And what would locking an army mean in this context? Every strator walking around with huge armies?

Other than that, I like it.

Yeah, people would have to say in their SOT which are their garrisons. I didn't think of that...

Seems even my baby steps have unintended consequences.

What about:

1.) A garrison is what is recruited in the settlement. Any unit moved in is not a garrison.

This would still prevent dumping but would require less book keeping. It's not perfect but I welcome suggestions.

2.) The first 4 (or 3, 5 ect..) units of forts can be locked but that is it.

As for locking an army, I mean only PA/RA's since I am not proposing changing anything else.

If you cap garrisons at the free upkeep point you're going to see some settlements rebel I'm afraid. Towns often have no free upkeep point until upgraded. Chivalry characters who want to occupy are going to have serious problems, especially under an unfriendly Megas.

Could make it free upkeep +1 or +2. Or go with a "garrison is only what is recruited from that settlement" rule.

*edit*

I whole heartedly endorse TC's idea. (or technically, the idea of the anonymous person.)

Basically, loopholing is like nuclear weapons. You have em because the other side has em. No one really wants to use em but no one wants to give em up unless the other guy does too.

TC is basically asking us to all disarm. I am very much in favor of this. Especially since the Rules have become sacrosanct, we should get away from blatant "loopholing."

[Cecil XIX]

TC, I think that's a fine idea. Bringing things out in the open like that helps keep everyone on the same page, and that will help with the tension. Perhaps people should be able to submit questions anonymously, with the answer posted in the thread?

[TinCow]

Loopholing was interesting in KotR, because it gave us stuff like Heinrich's Popapalooza. I think LotR has enough freedom in it now that it no longer needs the extra excitement caused by loopholing. Unless someone's got a really good argument to the contrary, I think I'm just going to slam the door on this one.

TC, I think that's a fine idea. Bringing things out in the open like that helps keep everyone on the same page, and that will help with the tension. Perhaps people should be able to submit questions anonymously, with the answer posted in the thread?

That has merit as well. As long as the question and answer are public, the purpose will have been served.

[Ramses II CP]

to the loophole question thread. Call it the START IV thread, per PK's joke.

[Rowan]

Yeah, people would have to say in their SOT which are their garrisons. I didn't think of that...

Seems even my baby steps have unintended consequences.

What about:

1.) A garrison is what is recruited in the settlement. Any unit moved in is not a garrison.

This would still prevent dumping but would require less book keeping. It's not perfect but I welcome suggestions.

2.) The first 4 (or 3, 5 ect..) units of forts can be locked but that is it.

As for locking an army, I mean only PA/RA's since I am not proposing changing anything else.



Could make it free upkeep +1 or +2. Or go with a "garrison is only what is recruited from that settlement" rule.

*edit*

I whole heartedly endorse TC's idea. (or technically, the idea of the anonymous person.)

Basically, loopholing is like nuclear weapons. You have em because the other side has em. No one really wants to use em but no one wants to give em up unless the other guy does too.

TC is basically asking us to all disarm. I am very much in favor of this. Especially since the Rules have become sacrosanct, we should get away from blatant "loopholing."

I was thinking along your #2 for determining garrisons for forts and settlements. Although that would then require the owner of the settlement to juggle units in and out of the settlement, using movement points with potentially fatal consequences.

I'd like to include Flyds anything-just-recruited-is-free-for-megas-to-move rule. The game even does the bookkeeping for you. But that's quite incompatible with #1.
EDIT: And potentially game-breaking during a civil-war with Megas taking sides: recruit troops from defending city, move to opposing army, siege.

[Privateerkev]

I wonder how the game would go if we only implemented TC's "no loopholing" rule. The other rules are more or less proposed because people are afraid of being "loopholed."

If we take away the fear of being "loopholed," I suspect it will lower the tension and anxiety in this game quite a bit.

What would people think of only implementing TC's "no loophole" idea and seeing how it goes for a term? Since the next term will most likely be Ig's, I can't think of a better way to test it...

[TinCow]

Well, that's almost certainly what we'll be doing anyway. I have absolutely no intention of calling an emergency session to institute any rule changes before the next Senate session. We need time to think and talk about this and knee-jerk votes are not the right way to do it. The Loophole thread will go up soon and will be present for the rest of the term. We can keep talking about ways to simplify the game for the rest of the term and propose any potential changes in 1140.

[Privateerkev]

Well, that's almost certainly what we'll be doing anyway. I have absolutely no intention of calling an emergency session to institute any rule changes before the next Senate session. We need time to think and talk about this and knee-jerk votes are not the right way to do it. The Loophole thread will go up soon and will be present for the rest of the term. We can keep talking about ways to simplify the game for the rest of the term and propose any potential changes in 1140.

Well, I meant for next term but your way works too.

Alright, time to throw out all those evil ideas I had...

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Well, I meant for next term but your way works too.

Alright, time to throw out all those evil ideas I had...

As long as they are not against me then don't

[Rowan]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Regarding loopholing, a player who wishes to remain anonymous has suggested a solution to me. The problem isn't so much that people find loopholes in the rules, it's that they exploit these loopholes when no one else is aware that they exist. The proposal that has been presented to me is as follows:

1) I create a 'Rule Interpreation' thread. If you have a question about whether something is legal or not, you post it in a proper format in that thread. (i.e. Question: Can I shave my head and dress up like a clown?) I will then answer your question, and that will be that. There will be no rebutals or debate unless I specifically request further dialog on the topic. No one else may post a response to the thread, it is simply a direct Q&A session.

2) If the answer I give has the potential of causing harm to someone's avatar (such as the proper language for a SOT post), then I will pause the game for 24 hours to let people adjust anything that needs to be adjusted before the new 'ruling' starts to impact them. I will be the only person who will determine if something has the potential to cause harm.

3) If you exploit a loophole or unclear part of the rules WITHOUT posting a quesiton about it in this thread first, it will be considered an OOC rule violation, even if I agree that what you did was acceptable.

This has several advantages. First, all rule interpretation issues are publicly available for everyone to read. Second, every rule interpretation or loophole that has a potential to cause harm to a player will result in a short pause to allow that player to prepare themselves in whatever way necessary before it occurs. Third, OOC thread debates on rules will be reduced, because it will simply be a Q&A session between the poster and myself, with no further discussion.

The main disadvantage is that it's yet another info thread for people to read to understand how the game works. This would also be a U-turn on the game policy of "exploit it if you can find it." This may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. At this point, I'm inclined to toss loophole exploitation out the window and make following the rules (and the spirit of the rules) mandatory.

Please comment on this idea.

I very much like the idea, but what about a situation like the one we had during Ig's megasy where people were interpreting a sentence of text in two different ways. One mans only possible interpretation is another mans loophole ;)

EDIT: The spending priorities controversy, RA > PA > PB > other

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Also I have to say that this 'loophole' and rules talk gave me a headache..

So can we go on with the game and take down the Basileus-wannabe's head??

[Privateerkev]

I very much like the idea, but what about a situation like the one we had during Ig's megasy where people were interpreting a sentence of text in two different ways. One mans only possible interpretation is another mans loophole ;)

EDIT: The spending priorities controversy, RA > PA > PB > other

The rule of thumb I've been using is, "If I have a question, ask it." The only thing that will change for me with this, is that I'll be asking the questions in public.

[AussieGiant]

Regarding loopholing, a player who wishes to remain anonymous has suggested a solution to me. The problem isn't so much that people find loopholes in the rules, it's that they exploit these loopholes when no one else is aware that they exist. The proposal that has been presented to me is as follows:

1) I create a 'Rule Interpreation' thread. If you have a question about whether something is legal or not, you post it in a proper format in that thread. (i.e. Question: Can I shave my head and dress up like a clown?) I will then answer your question, and that will be that. There will be no rebutals or debate unless I specifically request further dialog on the topic. No one else may post a response to the thread, it is simply a direct Q&A session.

2) If the answer I give has the potential of causing harm to someone's avatar (such as the proper language for a SOT post), then I will pause the game for 24 hours to let people adjust anything that needs to be adjusted before the new 'ruling' starts to impact them. I will be the only person who will determine if something has the potential to cause harm.

3) If you exploit a loophole or unclear part of the rules WITHOUT posting a quesiton about it in this thread first, it will be considered an OOC rule violation, even if I agree that what you did was acceptable.

This has several advantages. First, all rule interpretation issues are publicly available for everyone to read. Second, every rule interpretation or loophole that has a potential to cause harm to a player will result in a short pause to allow that player to prepare themselves in whatever way necessary before it occurs. Third, OOC thread debates on rules will be reduced, because it will simply be a Q&A session between the poster and myself, with no further discussion.

The main disadvantage is that it's yet another info thread for people to read to understand how the game works. This would also be a U-turn on the game policy of "exploit it if you can find it." This may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. At this point, I'm inclined to toss loophole exploitation out the window and make following the rules (and the spirit of the rules) mandatory.

Please comment on this idea.

A main part of my point way exactly this.

If there is any change in the "meaning" of a word in relation to the game it has to be publicly made available. I know this seems somewhat anti-competitive but it's the only way to avoid total verbiage warfare. The spirit of the game is more important in my view than a mental pissing competition.

I PM'd PK with this as an example:

----------------------

"My default setting is to play this game in good faith and in the spirit of gaming as it is generally understood. If someone wants to go "adversarial" on me, then please note I'll decide that personally, let the person know directly, and then persecute them to the best of my ability until they are dead or withdraw from the game."

That's just me though.

I'm not sure I can even be like that, and I think you are going to have to be like that to get ahead in this game.

----------------------

Simplify. It's the hardest thing to do on the planet.

Smart people can understand complex things and discuss them in complex ways.

Really smart people understand complex things but can discuss and present them in ways that just about everyone can comprehend.

i.e. Einstein.

The trick we need to accomplish is provide a framework for the game but make it as simple as possible, i.e. as few words as needed.

[Ituralde]

Phew, that's one hornets nest I kicked, haven't I.

I haven't read all of your suggestiont yet and I must say they are a lot. I had already figured that the moving portion my not have been enough and that in this way a loophole was created. Just skimming over the text I would have preferred it if something like that would have been made available to the public and everyone would have had the chance to adress this. I don't think anyone has ever explicitly forbidden disbanding in his SoT and thus whole garrison could have been wiped out without actually breaking the rules.

When I started my OOC inquiry this was all that I was after. Is it necessary to add even more language to the SoT to make it loophole-proof? I guess my question is answered. Aside from that I don't see any more reason to change the game right now. A new precedent has been made and we will now follow it.

Like GH mentioned this is the first game of its kind so there are a thousand situations waiting for us to be solved. Like AussieGiant I would prefer for these things to be handled on a mutual OOC basis.

Since it has been mentioned a few times and I know that many players still have a problem with this, I think we need a better way to overcome OOC rule violations. I haven't spoken about the things done during Ignos term, because I was on holiday during the time and only devoted as little time as possible to playing this game. I do not want people to interpret my silence as approval! It is not. I am completely against OOC rule breaking in any form!

Still I see that people feel the need to protect their IC characters by acting OOC. I am honestly sick of people pointing out Ignos rule abuse as an excuse for their playstyle. And though you may fear the death of your IC avatar, it is only that. An IC thing! I really hope that people learn to keep IC fears for their characters out of OOC discussions.

I think that this is the root of the problem. People are so used to plotting and scheming IC that many carry this over into the OOC. I would really appreciate if the suggestion of an official rule discussion thread is put into effect! That way everybody in the game can benefit from the newest developments in rule interpretation.

That's the way I have always tried to handle it. Once I saw something that gave me a headache and where I wasn't sure how it should be handled in relation to the rules I just went ahead and asked my questions within this thread. In public so that everyone knows what possibilities there are and what the rules say about them.

For this game to work there needs to be a strong OOC commitment amongs the playerbase. For me it is important to have a laugh together with the guy who I am currently pummeling IC. If this is not given this kind of game just does not work for me.

After all we're here to have fun as our primary goal. Maybe this is just a mad rant from me, but I hope that you find things to agree with. I will now start reading all of your posts thouroughly, so I'm sorry if some of this seems repetitive or redundant to you.

I hope we can find an amiable solution for our problems and enjoy this game together!

Cheers!

Ituralde

[Ramses II CP]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Phew, that's one hornets nest I kicked, haven't I.

I haven't read all of your suggestiont yet and I must say they are a lot. I had already figured that the moving portion my not have been enough and that in this way a loophole was created. Just skimming over the text I would have preferred it if something like that would have been made available to the public and everyone would have had the chance to adress this. I don't think anyone has ever explicitly forbidden disbanding in his SoT and thus whole garrison could have been wiped out without actually breaking the rules.

When I started my OOC inquiry this was all that I was after. Is it necessary to add even more language to the SoT to make it loophole-proof? I guess my question is answered. Aside from that I don't see any more reason to change the game right now. A new precedent has been made and we will now follow it.

Like GH mentioned this is the first game of its kind so there are a thousand situations waiting for us to be solved. Like AussieGiant I would prefer for these things to be handled on a mutual OOC basis.

Since it has been mentioned a few times and I know that many players still have a problem with this, I think we need a better way to overcome OOC rule violations. I haven't spoken about the things done during Ignos term, because I was on holiday during the time and only devoted as little time as possible to playing this game. I do not want people to interpret my silence as approval! It is not. I am completely against OOC rule breaking in any form!

Still I see that people feel the need to protect their IC characters by acting OOC. I am honestly sick of people pointing out Ignos rule abuse as an excuse for their playstyle. And though you may fear the death of your IC avatar, it is only that. An IC thing! I really hope that people learn to keep IC fears for their characters out of OOC discussions.

I think that this is the root of the problem. People are so used to plotting and scheming IC that many carry this over into the OOC. I would really appreciate if the suggestion of an official rule discussion thread is put into effect! That way everybody in the game can benefit from the newest developments in rule interpretation.

That's the way I have always tried to handle it. Once I saw something that gave me a headache and where I wasn't sure how it should be handled in relation to the rules I just went ahead and asked my questions within this thread. In public so that everyone knows what possibilities there are and what the rules say about them.

For this game to work there needs to be a strong OOC commitment amongs the playerbase. For me it is important to have a laugh together with the guy who I am currently pummeling IC. If this is not given this kind of game just does not work for me.

After all we're here to have fun as our primary goal. Maybe this is just a mad rant from me, but I hope that you find things to agree with. I will now start reading all of your posts thouroughly, so I'm sorry if some of this seems repetitive or redundant to you.

I hope we can find an amiable solution for our problems and enjoy this game together!

Cheers!

Ituralde

This sounds almost exactly like what I posted about keeping IC and OOC apart back when the whole mess started (Bottom of page 42 of the old thread) and it still seemed like a friendly little discussion could resolve it. I hope you get a better response than the one I did, which was absolutely none, private or public, followed by two more abuses.

I've said this in various place before and I'll say it here too, I've never had a problem with Igno before. He invited me to the MPC hotseat game, my first one and, as far as I know, the first one at The Org, 'way back when' so to speak, and was the first guy to speak to me IC in KotR. I have no idea what's gone on behind the scenes because I don't take part in it, but I was dissappointed to come to a public thread and raise an important issue in a lighthearted way and be completely ignored. I went out of my way to concede my own faults and point out that it was a hard job, and make every other excuse for the first time. The consensus was to handle it IC, and that's what I've done since despite the incidents being repeated just as I warned.

So if anyone has anything to say to me, please believe that I'm not going to rip you one if you drop me a PM. I have a (hopefully) well deserved reputation for in game viciousness, but IRL I'm just a dude like any other. I absolutely promise I'll have space in my inbox and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

And with that I am well and truly done. Nothing more to say on the subject in the OOC thread, even if we get more drama thrown around. Anyone at all is welcome to contact me anytime.

[Privateerkev]

Still I see that people feel the need to protect their IC characters by acting OOC. I am honestly sick of people pointing out Ignos rule abuse as an excuse for their playstyle. And though you may fear the death of your IC avatar, it is only that. An IC thing! I really hope that people learn to keep IC fears for their characters out of OOC discussions.

I hope that one wasn't directed at me. I've never used Ig's actions as an excuse for my own. I checked with TC, and based on his advice, I made some moves that people now find questionable. I didn't do it because Ig did his. If we haven't had an aboveboard loophole discussion thread before, that certainly isn't my fault. My playstyle is my own and I don't need Ig's rule breaking to justify it.

As for our avatars, many of us have put a lot of time and energy into them. So, I hope people forgive me if I get a little miffed when I find out that the same guy who broke the rules to hurt my avatar is also plotting my avatar's death. If the rules are OOC, and the avatars are IC, then Ig did something OOC to hurt me IC.

I am absolutely amazed that my disbanding of a fort is causing an uproar from the same people that sat by silently as their House Leader broke the rules to withhold building legally mandated armies just so he could then funnel the money into the settlements and armies of the same people who stayed silent.

I'm sorry but the timing of some of you is mighty "convenient."

During Ig's term there was plenty of opportunity to talk about "loopholing" since me and a few other players were getting reamed up the arse with loopholes. But I go and do something relatively minor and I hear complaining that loopholing will ruin the game.

WELL WHY DIDN'T THE SAME PEOPLE SAY SOMETHING WHEN IT WAS BEING DONE TO US!?!?!



Ok, I feel better now...

I'm done. I had my angry rant and got it out of my system. If anyone wants to discuss it further in PM's, I'll be more than happy to.

[OverKnight]

An idea I've been kicking around for a bit is this:

Each House would have a minimum number of units determined by adding together their various mandated armies and the garrison capacity of their settlements (Free upkeep level plus +1 or +2 units for each city, castles would be a number (TBD) determined by it size).

The House would have the right to apportion this minimum number of units among it's garrisons and armies. So if the House has some settlements in the interior and some needing heavy garrisoning on the frontier, it could move manpower to the frontier to keep rebellious cities under control. Anything left over could be added to the field armies.

The ranks would stay the same, so only nobles with a certain rank would be able to command the field armies.

The House could petition for forces above the minimum, if they have a friendly Megas or such, but these units would not be guaranteed.

At each non-emergency Senate Session, the force minimum would be recalculated for each house. The house would then decide where to apportion these forces. Any extra units over the minimum would be ranked by level of priority, ie which extra units would be disbanded or transferred first.

The new elected Megas would have the authority to disband or transfer extra units for each house using the priority list, but he could never reduce a House below it's minimum unit level. If a House fell below its minimum unit level, due to battle and such, the Megas would be obliged to restore it by recruiting within that House's settlements, or if need be by mercs. It would then be up to the House to deploy these reinforcments. If a house was in a civil war, this would not apply.

Units recruited for a House would be under that House's control, avatar led or no, as long as they were part of the minimum required manpower. Any surplus units could be used by the Megas as he sees fit.

This keeps some of the Megas's power, while leaving the nitty gritty of deployment to the House.

[Privateerkev]

I like it. Seems like a good "middle ground."

I want the Megas to still control things but for the Houses to take some of the paperwork off his hands. This idea does both.

[deguerra]

Hmm. One issue I have with it is that it actually changes the role of lower ranking House members. Currently, while they cannot own Private armies, they can command them, which IMO is useful of keeping things interesting for everyone. Under your new rules, you can only command Private Armies if you have the necessary rank to own them. I can see what that is necessary under your rules, but I am not sure it is a good change.

Beyond that, I like the plan.

[OverKnight]

Huh, I could have sworn that Strators couldn't command armies. In that case, I'd just keep the ranks the way they are.

One of the reasons I'm kicking this around is that at a certain point, which I think we've reached, we'll be creating mandated armies at a greater rate than the economy develops. With the various garrisoning loopholes and such, this could spell perennial bankruptcy. Hopefully by having a "salary cap" for each House this can be avoided while keeping compeititve balance.

[Privateerkev]

One of the reasons I'm kicking this around is that at a certain point, which I think we've reached, we'll be creating mandated armies at a greater rate than the economy develops.

Now that the Crusade is no longer self-funded, we are definitely there. We have 10 armies and I can see 3 or 4 more on the horizon.

[Motep]

No way in hell I am reading that many pages right now.

[deguerra]

No way in hell I am reading that many pages right now.

BURN HIM!

OK, that is the way I always thought the rules worked. I think it came up in TC's Exarch guide that you can give command of armies to "lesser" vassals, and I think it is mentioned in the rules somewhere.

*runs to have a look*

[deguerra]

found it

The owner of a Private Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

[Privateerkev]

Moved closer to the capital, where I hope to catch a ship to egypt. (where do I make this request...here?)

You simply ask your friendly neighborhood Megas. A man who is infinitely reasonable and remembers well what it is like to need a ship.

Or, if you have a lord, or someone who will be your lord, you can have him ask the Megas for you.

Simply send a PM, or have someone send one for you if your afraid you'll get ignored.

[Motep]

Oh...

Well...

Can I request a ship in here, then? Oh, grand Megas!

(I am not meant to be a brown-noser...)