Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[a1s]

[newly  raised units] cannot spawn in border territories.

What does that mean in relation to vassals?

move 1 unit from 300 to 285
move 3 units from 289 to 286
Raise 2 units in 300

[Azkanan]

Do I find out if the nods agreed or not this turn? It's still basically a negotiation.

Next turn.

Also, I'd like to add to the NPC Logic topic, that although they are influenced by logic and numbers, I will personally assess any "Different/Creative" diplomatic resolutions you may offer, based on their situation and individual desires/plans.

[Noel.se]

Thanks.

Send spies to 91 and 54
Move all armies from 94 and 92 to 99. Ask them to be my vassals. Attack if they refuse.

[Azkanan]

Ask them to be my vassals. Attack if they refuse.

FYI: These sort of actions combined are processed as diplomatic threats before unit movement.

Edit; Also, you need to designate the unit split.

[Noel.se]

Ask them to be my vassals. Attack if they refuse.

FYI: These sort of actions combined are processed as diplomatic threats before unit movement.

Edit; Also, you need to designate the unit split.

Ah, okay

If possible, i revoke my earlier orders and:
Send a spy to 99 only
Ask 91 and 54 f they want to become my vassals.

After that, my turn is done.

[Patrick Hunt]

My turns done with that request, I can't do anything with the money.

[a1s]

[newly  raised units] cannot spawn in border territories.

What does that mean in relation to vassals?

So... can you raise troops in territories that only border vassal nations?

[Azkanan]

[newly  raised units] cannot spawn in border territories.

What does that mean in relation to vassals?

So... can you raise troops in territories that only border vassal nations?

Good question. Sorry, I must have missed it. You can raise them bordering vassals, but not allies, neutral, enemy, war, NAP, MDP, etc...

[swordsmith04]

By "Felwood", I meant the brown NPC in control of 64 and 70, not the new Bronzegate-Haystack NPC that was TarthPlus territory last turn. But I'll take the casus belli, anyway.
Can the declaration of war be retroactively extended to Bronzegate-Haystack?

Is diplomacy with non-neighbors not allowed? I tried to vassalize Massey's Hook, too.

And was this not accurate? (Well, it'd be 6 gold/turn, now.)

My income and expenditures according to the spreadsheet are incorrect, I think. Base 2 gold + 3 Territories + 5 economy levels = 18 Gold/turn, and -7 Gold/turn for defense levels + -3 Gold/turn for my units = -10 Gold/turn. So I should be getting 8 Gold/turn, not 3?

[a1s]

it's (2 for being awesome)+2*(economy levels)+/- (tribute).

[Azkanan]

By "Felwood", I meant the brown NPC in control of 64 and 70, not the new Bronzegate-Haystack NPC that was TarthPlus territory last turn. But I'll take the casus belli, anyway.
Can the declaration of war be retroactively extended to Bronzegate-Haystack?

Is diplomacy with non-neighbors not allowed? I tried to vassalize Massey's Hook, too.

And was this not accurate? (Well, it'd be 6 gold/turn, now.)

My income and expenditures according to the spreadsheet are incorrect, I think. Base 2 gold + 3 Territories + 5 economy levels = 18 Gold/turn, and -7 Gold/turn for defense levels + -3 Gold/turn for my units = -10 Gold/turn. So I should be getting 8 Gold/turn, not 3?

This is why I need you to give territory numbers, not names.

Income is two per player, not per territory, plus two per economy and 0.5 per vassal territory + 0.5 per vassal economy points.

[a1s]

BTW, defense is hugely expensive. And, except for border provinces, not worth it.
I would like to suggest we amend it to the following:
"territory has current_defense and max_defense,
upgrading a territory at max_defnse by 1 point costs the price listed in the first post (and raises both max_defense and current).
upgrading a territory below max_defense by 1 point costs the same amount of gold as the new current_defense.
(you can upgrade multiple times)
at the end of the turn you may choose to pay any amount of upkeep at or below the current_defense, and that becomes the final current_defense for the turn."
example:
Brandon the Builder has a 2/4 fort on territory 1 and a 3/4 fort on territory 2.
He expects to be attacked on territory 1, so he decides to upgrade it 3 times for (3+4+60)=67 gold. He also decides that 2 is safe and decreases it's defense to 1. He pays a total of (5+1)=6 upkeep on his defenses and ends his turn with a 5/5 fort on territory 1 and a 1/4 fort on territory 2

[Varee]

I dont think the problem is the cost. It that some of us have like one income per turn ......

[a1s]

Salsa is the only one with income below 10, and he more or less brought that on himself by specifically choosing a 2-territory state. The problem, trust me, is the upkeep (troops, ships and defenses).

edit: if we do the defense overhaul, I'd like to propose another special place: Harrenhal (111). There's a massive castle there, but it's been in ruins for generations. So all costs to raise max_defense are halved. On the other hand, it shouldn't be 5 defense right off the bat- the place is described in the books as being totally decrepit and barely lived in.

[Patrick Hunt]

I dunno I kinda like it expensive, it rewards people for making trade deals and working on economy and hurts warmongers who focus to much on armies and fleets.