OOC Thread and Chatroom

[/Bean\]

So, according to our game rules(?), no commander can actually refuse to lead a legion? Sorry, I missed that rule.

[mini]

You miss the point entirely Bean.

If you are unable to play, fine. Then your 2nd in command takes over. but YOU remain the OFFICIAL commander as far as IC is concerned, you're just sick/uinjured whatever

but NOW, you OFFICIALLY (IC) relinquished your position as commander.
And then, it is not up to you to decide who is the new commander.

if you are unable to play, Aulus is still 2nd in command.

In the current situation, Aulus is the first in command officially (IC) which is illegal

[/Bean\]

Ok its illegal...oh dear. What a shame. Look how upset Swiss is.

[SwissBarbar]

He did not IC lay down his command. It was wrongly written in the curia-thread, but says that he spoke him outside the curia.


however.... I'm relly getting pissed off now. Avlvs is the second in command, leading legio II instead of its sick commander.

I mean...don't you see this? I mean.... can you not see how unlogial your arguments are? My eyes are almost falling out of my head by reading this. MAAAAAAAN!!!!

End of the story!!!

[mini]

however.... I'm relly getting pissed off now. Avlvs fu**ing is the second in command, leading legio II instead of its sick commander.

End of the story!!!

Yeah well, that's not how it was said in the curia, so that's why I commented.


If he edits his post to confirm the above, it's all fine by me as long as you dont do anythign else anymore


PS: I OFFICIALLY said IC in MY FIRST POST: that I will not prosecute anyone for the capture of Ambrakia, only that if Aulus would do anythign AFTER that, he would fiind a law suit.


so CALM DOWN.. jezus, why always taking things so personally..

[SwissBarbar]

it's not personal, I just can't calm down because you don't listen, and I can't stand that.


Well, again:

Aurelius told Avlvs that he stepped down, IN the curia-thread, but OUTSIDE of the curia, where noone could hear him. (it was a mistake)

in OOC we decided that bean's PC was stolen, Aurelius is sick whatever.

Thereby we decided that Avlvs is taking command as SECOND IN COMMAND, and Aurelius still is the official Commander, but represented by Avlvs. Exactly like in Legio III, which also acted legal.

And therefore the actions are perfectly legal.

In fact, nothing more legal ever happened in the entire history of the universe, than the latest actions of Avlvs Aemilivs in this game.


Do you feel me?


*Calming down*

[mini]

Well

I can EASILY roleplay some sneaky informant overhearing you. There's nothing to stop me :)
That's why I say: whatever is said in the curia = official :)

I do not want to sabotage you or anythign swissbarbar, anything but. If the vote comes, I'll even vote for you as the next commander.

But upon reading the Curia as it is, facts are that you were first commander. Which is wrong.
Now i also said IC, that I don't MIND the taking of Ambrakia. But any other action you might now take, IS illegal

which is what I said :)

And with the Curia being as it is now, your taking of Ambrakia is also illegal. Which is why i said you should be thanked, BUT also subtly receive a slight tap on the fingers, and a strong message that should you do anything else, you WILL receive more than a tap :)

[mini]

there, navarro ended it anyway.

Nice solution Navarro

[navarro951]

okay gents, im off to join the military hehe. wont be back till 2morrow, at which point all rule changes and an updated library will be made. At the moment, I ask that alll new suggestions or inquires be kept to yourself, i dont want to come back and have even more thrown on my plate. Let me finish what I have now, not to mention, I am sure I am already thinking of the same things you guys are so gimme a quick break here.

edit: TY mini, just right now we gotta get down to business, Legio's need commanders, a front needs to be closed in illyria, and war must continue with Carthage, its just the way things seem set up to be now.

[/Bean\]

there, navarro ended it anyway.

Nice solution Navarro

Stop climbing up his goddamn arse!

No offense Navarro.

[navarro951]

Stop climbing up his goddamn arse!

No offense Navarro.

none taken, but the idea here is to END the argument.

[/Bean\]

The way I see it is there never was an argument. But I'll drop this before TC has another go

[The Celtic Viking]

I just realized one thing: does mini's reforms regarding ex-consuls apply to Regvlvs, as he was CoF last term? If it does, that means I should get to choose a province to govern, right?

Oh, and no, this wouldn't mean that province would become idle, because guess what? I'm back, baby!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Of course, I'm back on my bloody laptop, but I can play, and that's what matters. Navarro, please add me to the list of potential generals, if the governing thing doesn't apply to me.

[mini]

well, since my reforms only go 'live' next session, the governing doesn't apply to you unfortunately :)

[everyone]

right now I don't see anything in the new reforms or FAQ that says that legion commanders need to be voted or chosen by the commander. so that argument shouldn't have happened, we should stop imposing our own 'house rules' onto the game. if it's not in the FAQ, we shouldn't assume/insist it is.

AS GM I CHANGED THE RULES TO HOW LEGION COMMANDERS ARE CHOSEN, I OKAYED THE WHOLE AMBRAKIA ARGUMENT, AND I AM HEREBY DECLARING THAT DUE TO A MANY RULE CHANGES; THE OLD WAY OF DOING THINGS IS THAT AT ANYTIME A LEGION COMMANDERS TRIBUNE OR TOURING LEGATE MAY TAKE COMMAND OF THEIR LEGION IN A THE COMMANDERS ABSENCE OR TEMPORARY RELIEF. OUR OLDER PLAYERS UNDERSTOOD AND PLAYED BY THAT RULE. THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE SOON YES, BUT FOR NOW NOTHING HERE IS ILLEGAL, THIS ARGUMENT IS FINISHED, LET OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES CONTINUE. THANK YOU, NAVARRO.

@ the bolded part:
what?! you mean in the future the tribunes or legates would not be allowed to take temporary command when their commander is absent? this is madness!

[SwissBarbar]

Of course they are, that's why the are called "second" and "third" in command. Anything else would be ridiculous. And as it was before, the voted commander of a legions still chooses his second and third and so on in command himself. That's how I get the rules

[mini]

that's not what it says Everyone.

You know that in the future only Provincial governors and the consul get control over a legion (or a legate under orders from a governor). This governor can choose his his legates/tribunes.
i'll give a few examples:

person A = governor of Gaul.
Gaul has 3 Legions designated by the senate to keep the peace.
Person A takes legion I
He then asks good friends B & C, currently not elected for any office, to lead those legions. (if they meet the requirements)

Person A also knows lesser friend D, whom he takes as Legate in his own Legion I

Then person A also knows a few young promising men. He asks them if they want to be tribunes in either one of his legions.


Now, person A becomes sick. ohnoes! (pc broken)
But no worries!
Person D can take control of the governors legion.
Person B & C have received certain orders from person A, and are able to act alone.

See, no problem, no voting, no fuzz.

But if Person A loses his governorship by something IC (political intrigue) or officially steps down as governor, person B to D and all tribunes, lose their position.
A new governor will be voted in the senate, and he get's to choose his own entourage.
(perhaps the tribunes can stay in place, but under the new rules, they can't command anyway)



Yet there's a difference with the previous discussion, as the situation was differeint (in my eyes and a few others, while nto in the eyes of Bean/others). This was also with the older ranks
Situation was:

Person A leads Legion x

person A then announces in the curia that he resigns command officially to person B.

Now I was under the impression that commands of a legion were to be decided by edicts.
Bean officially transferred his commandship to Swiss.
A few people felt that that was illegal, as Swiss his command was not voted by edict (but bestowed by Bean instead).


It was only afterwards that bean made some comment about his pc being stolen, that it was explained that he was still officially in command, but unofficially unable to play.
If Bean had just said from the start that he was unable to play, without makign that post in the curia about transferring command, nothing would have happened.

Just the 'official transfer' of command was what a few people found not-done :) As if Bean can decide that without an edict.
PERSONALLY, I didn't gave a fig, and IC Bean is my stephdad. So I did not want to make a big deal out of it.
But it had to be said, and then some ppl reacted very heavily, which of course I could not let pass :)




Anyway, don't worry. Being unable to play does not pose any issues. It's just a matter of how you put it and how you RP it ;)

[everyone]

this confuses me:

Gaul has 3 Legions designated by the senate to keep the peace.

how exactly are we going to implement that ingame? unless you're referring to a provincial legion/personal legion. then I've no problem with that; and shall propose some CA's next session to make that part easier to implement.
something like defining which regions belong to which provinces, etc. like what I've done in my Hayasdan campaign; defined a group of regions as a "province" and a few provinces as a "superprovince" (couldn't think of a better name) and have regional armies patrolling/guarding it.

and about those offices, when the person A is given a region to govern after his term as consul; how long does the governorship last? a session, 9 years, for life, etc?

[mini]

and about those offices, when the person A is given a region to govern after his term as consul; how long does the governorship last? a session, 9 years, for life, etc?

1 session.

this confuses me:

how exactly are we going to implement that ingame? unless you're referring to a provincial legion/personal legion. then I've no problem with that; and shall propose some CA's next session to make that part easier to implement.
something like defining which regions belong to which provinces, etc. like what I've done in my Hayasdan campaign; defined a group of regions as a "province" and a few provinces as a "superprovince" (couldn't think of a better name) and have regional armies patrolling/guarding it.

What I said so many pages ago :p
Provinces are NOT cities.

Provinces is a certain area, to be decided by the Senate, and can contain several cities.

Of course this excludes pomerium cities.

I can give you an example:
I want to suggest in next session that the cities of Bononia+Patavium+mediolanum+genoa (ingame name escapes me) will be formed into 1 province called Gallia Italica.
Since that province is not under direct threat from anywhere, it should only receive one Legion for defence: Legio Gallia Italica I

(of course, the senate can decide that for other provinces liek big ones or one with a war front, should receive more legions!)


If some ex-consul chooses to govern this province of Gallia Italica, he can set his 'capital' to Bononia and govern that city, while he asks good friend person B to take control of the legion.
He can ask friends B C & D to be quaestor in his other cities.

By distributing he gives his friends good experience(CHARACTER POINTS), who will return him the favour if he ever runs for consul again :)

He can also ask one quaestor more, and control his legion himself.
He then persuades the senate that the Helvetians are stirring unrest and have fought our allies the Aedui. So he asks for a vote for war, wins the vote, ans takes his legion through the alps, capturing a city and earning a triumph!

[everyone]

Provinces are NOT cities.

I know. anyway, I'm coming up with a coloured map of EB with lines drawn on it to define provincial boundaries for groups of regions that we may be conquering in the future. (which means everything up to Baktria, I'm leaving out the steppes because I doubt anyone would support a campaign to destroy the Sauromatae, even in the future; unless we find out that they have expanded south into Armenia)

and what I'm referring to when I'm saying "provinces", "regions" and such are:
city: the capital of the region
region: the area as defined by ingame boundaries
province: a group of regions.

[mini]

Well

I was more intent on making the provinces changeable.

That way, we create a province only when we conquer enough new territory.

Let's say that we conquer the south of greece.
We create (by vote) a province of Lower Graeca.

Then when we conquer athens, we add it to that province temporarily.
Then we conquer Thebe, we add that too

And when we capute Thessaloniki, we can call the vote to create a new province: Graeca Upper.


And if we even grow more, we can change again... and so on.
Naming other regions provinces before we capture them, would be silly.

We can take 1 blank screen of the map, and post this screen in the libary after drawing the current situation.
Should any provinces change, we can take the blank screen and update it and edit the library.


The advantage of making provinces voteable and changeable, is that it creates a dynamic political interaction between factions in the game

For example: House x wants greece as a big province, because this will get them much legions if they can get control over it.
(as a big province will receive more than 1 legion)

House Y wants to prevent this, and try to split op greece in smaller provinces, each with only 1 legion, and then tries to gain control of one of them. Therefore diminishing the power of house X in the region ASWEL as creating a small power foothold in greece for itself :)
of course it can backfire if House x gets enough support to get control of all the small provinces! :D That's a risk to be taken by house Y :D

It will be nice to see the power struggles! :D

[everyone]

oh, I would prefer if the provinces were already defined; so the characters/players could chose whatever province they think is the best. making provinces re-definable only serves to make things more complicated, even though it can help in power struggles. furthermore, it might eventually make unrealistic looking provinces, such as a "lower greece" defined as Thermon, Ambrakia, Lilibeo for a house which has its main power in Sicily but wishes to get part of Greece.
anyway wasn't it stated in your reforms that "provincial governors chose their capital in the province they are given" or something like that, meaning that they are given a specific province with the set number of regions; among those few, they chose one as their base.

and if control of a region is temporary, how are houses going to maintain the city which they reside in anyway? it could be taken over by a rival house. unless you're suggesting that multiple guys of the same house continuously chose their house's province after their term. but I don't like how that sounds. or if a house could change their HQ location wherever, then I'm fine with that.

[SwissBarbar]

lol mini, you just had to dig at me once more, did you. I won't comment it further, since I was right and the matter is settled.

To the subject. Now I see how it works, as you explained it with person A B C and D. Ok, it seems to be quite complicated from the first look, but actually it's not.

So, i just pick some names, Qvintvs could be leader of 3 legions.
He can elect his frieds as he likes to be the commanders of these 3 legions and fight at his orders. He decides himself if he has a strict style of leadership or if his commanders can act autonomous. His friends just need to fit the requirements of a Legatvs.

So he can say, Avlvs, Tiberivs and Sextvs, you are the commanders of my legions, oh and Marcvs, Caivs and Titvs, you could be Tribvni in those legions, if you like.

Could Avlvs, Tiberivs and Sextvs elect Tribvni themselfes? I guess yes.

The most important point is, that after Qvintvs term ends, the chain is like erased and new elections have to be done.

BUT Qvintvs could run for the same post again, and if he'd be elected, the chain of command stays as it is.

[mini]

Why should houses need a HQ in the first place?

If they do have a 'HQ' let it be in Roma?
The income generates by houses, should be defined by the cities currently being governed by all members of said house.
Therefore Houses will need to secure good elections, so they can choose rich provinces.

Also note that only 3 provinces will be handed out to people on their choice (1 praetor + 2 consuls)

If we have more provinces, there will have to be a vote included in the session about who get's to govern the remaining provinces :)

it might eventually make unrealistic looking provinces, such as a "lower greece" defined as Thermon, Ambrakia, Lilibeo for a house which has its main power in Sicily

Cities making up a province, MUST be adjacent to eachother ofcourse. This speaks for itself.

The whole house-idea should not be geographically tied.
The idea of the game is that people get elected and go govern, but always for 1 session. So after every election, your job might change. 1 Sessions you're governing in gaul, the next you're gone to greece.

It's important for a house to dominate the elections.
There is no such thing as a territorial ownership for a house.
They must dominate the elections, get as much members as possible as provincial governor, and all cities under the regime of that governor will generate income for the house.

But of course, you never know what the next elections bring ;-)

oh, I would prefer if the provinces were already defined; so the characters/players could chose whatever province they think is the best. making provinces re-definable only serves to make things more complicated

Players can decide the composition of provinces! Besides, expansion will slow down a bit, so it's not like we will have to discuss 5 new provinces every session, trust me :)

anyway wasn't it stated in your reforms that "provincial governors chose their capital in the province they are given" or something like that, meaning that they are given a specific province with the set number of regions; among those few, they chose one as their base.

The only purpose this 'capital' serves, is that for the current session, this city is to be thought of as the governors seat for that province. This is to 'push' the governor a bit to chose 1 city, so that he will have to request quaestors for the remaining cities of his province. The governor must act from this capital, so he cannot reside in any other city of his province unless for troops rretraining.

[mini]

lol mini, you just had to dig at me once more, did you. I won't comment it further, since I was right and the matter is settled.
trust me, no pun intended to anyone!

To the subject. Now I see how it works, as you explained it with person A B C and D. Ok, it seems to be quite complicated from the first look, but actually it's not.

So, i just pick some names, Qvintvs could be leader of 3 legions.
IF his province has been awarded with 3 legions by the senate.
He can elect his frieds as he likes to be the commanders of these 3 legions and fight at his orders. He decides himself if he has a strict style of leadership or if his commanders can act autonomous. His friends just need to fit the requirements of a Legatvs.
Correct. It should be best if Qvintvs atleast makes SOME orders publicly (like no attacks outside our borders) but of course most orders he should keep a secret :) He can also just tell them: dont move until I say so.

So he can say, Avlvs, Tiberivs and Sextvs, you are the commanders of my legions, oh and Marcvs, Caivs and Titvs, you could be Tribvni in those legions, if you like.
Could Avlvs, Tiberivs and Sextvs elect Tribvni themselfes? I guess yes.
yes

The most important point is, that after Qvintvs term ends, the chain is like erased and new elections have to be done.
yes

BUT Qvintvs could run for the same post again, and if he'd be elected, the chain of command stays as it is.

yes, unless Qvintvs wants changes. He can choose

There we go ;)

[SwissBarbar]

ok, I got it

[mini]

I know it's a bit complex when you look at it.

But once we start working with it, the mechanics will become much much clearer to everybody.
It's basically a simple mechanic, it just looks complicated :)

[everyone]

let me summarise to get the idea more clearly:

-there is a list of provinces which are limited to a specific area. (e.g. we define some area as "Cisalpine Gaul", but do not specify which regions go into it; just that something like "Cisalpine Gaul should consist of the area north of the Pomerium and south of the alps")
-provinces are defined by the player who gets to be the governor of the said province and the players, who vote whether he gets the region into his province. (sounds like this needs a lot of voting, and that would complicate things and cluttering up the legislation voting thread)
-houses need not define which region they hail from, all houses have their HQs in Rome. (because governorships last only for the session unless reelected)
-the governor takes control of all troops/legions inside the province that are not under the control of another player (everything except stuff like other's personal legions, consular legions, standard legions). he may assign who commands or governs what within his province as he sees fit.

that's all I could see, sounds reasonable.
but during times of Civil war, I think the involved houses/players should retain their territory; because they are probably against the senate/backed by the senate to defend their province from the rebels; and also it would be odd considering that the theatre of the civil war moves from Greece to somewhere like Africa after a session; or the civil war goes into a stalemate when the houses gain different territories after a session.

and with the decrease of the size of provincial legions as per your legion reforms, I think we could have more regions/provinces.
but how 'provincial legion' is defined is rather unclear, don't you think? according to mini, it's "an army that is stationed at a region" (or something like that). according to the rules it's "a legion that serves a province (which is a set of regions) in defending it from enemies"

[mini]

let me summarise to get the idea more clearly:

-there is a list of provinces which are limited to a specific area. (e.g. we define some area as "Cisalpine Gaul", but do not specify which regions go into it; just that something like "Cisalpine Gaul should consist of the area north of the Pomerium and south of the alps")
No. We clearly define the province. For example: Gallica italia = total territory of : Bononia+patavium+mediolanum+Genoa. This way, the province get's outlined according to the ingame borders of each city. So the 'province' is the total sum of the territories of all cities which make up the province. Which cities these are, are to be debated in the senate when the province ism ade.
-provinces are defined by the player who gets to be the governor of the said province and the players, who vote whether he gets the region into his province. (sounds like this needs a lot of voting, and that would complicate things and cluttering up the legislation voting thread)
No, provinces will be decided now in the next session. IF we expand, the conquered settlement will be added to the province of the conquering provincial governor.
Only if players think a certain province is becoming to big, they can start a vote in the senate to split 1 big province into 2 smaller ones.
For example: Quintus is governor of province Graeca Italia. (sparta, corinthe)
He then captures Athens. Athens will become part of Graeca Italica. BUT: if he conquers 3 more cities, other players might think he becomes too powerful, and want to split all the new cities into a new province, thus no longer part of quintus province.
-houses need not define which region they hail from, all houses have their HQs in Rome. (because governorships last only for the session unless reelected)
correct
-the governor takes control of all troops/legions inside the province that are not under the control of another player (everything except stuff like other's personal legions, consular legions, standard legions). he may assign who commands or governs what within his province as he sees fit.
All except the CoL can only command 1 legion in person.

that's all I could see, sounds reasonable.
but during times of Civil war, I think the involved houses/players should retain their territory; because they are probably against the senate/backed by the senate to defend their province from the rebels; and also it would be odd considering that the theatre of the civil war moves from Greece to somewhere like Africa after a session; or the civil war goes into a stalemate when the houses gain different territories after a session.
In case of Civil War, people declare which side they are on and all recruiting stops. Every single person who controls a legion at that time, can do as he like. Recruitment will halt, and so will elections.
Basically everythign halts until the civil war is solved.

and with the decrease of the size of provincial legions as per your legion reforms, I think we could have more regions/provinces.
I never said how many provinces we should have? I think it would be wise to look at the geography when making a province. I think with our current territory, we can have 4-6 provinces right away.
but how 'provincial legion' is defined is rather unclear, don't you think? according to mini, it's "an army that is stationed at a region" (or something like that). according to the rules it's "a legion that serves a province (which is a set of regions) in defending it from enemies"
When the Senate 'creates' a province, they must include how many legions will be available to defend this province. So this number will be fixed, until someone makes an edict to add/detract a legion.
For example: the next session, the senate creates Gallia italica (descibed as above). We award this province 1 legion.
So, until someone in a next session proposes a change, Gallica Italica will have 1 legion stationed there permenantly.

Governors leave everythign behind in their province after their term. if they have to govern another place, they will not take their legion with them. The legion is bound to it's designated province

See remarks in quote.

[everyone]

oh crap. I just lost what I was thinking.

seriously, I do not understand how a province is defined at all.
is it that a series of regions under our control at the session is defined as a province.
e.g. bononia, Segesta, Patavium is declared "Cisalpine Gaul"
then whoever becomes governor would have that.
within that guy's (let's call him Decimus) province, he has those 3 cities as defined.
during his term, the Aedui declare war. then Decimus is allowed by the senate to attack the Aedui and kick them out of Mediolanum.
the following session, the senate decides Mediolanum would be part of Cisalpine Gaul.
then Decimus becomes governor of Cisalpine Gaul again. just that this time, he has another city under his control.
ok never mind about my first two sentences. I just figured it out. correct me if I'm wrong