A Kingdom at War (Arryn Free, Lannister Free)

[Mithridate]

Im fine with redoing the turn, tecnically Stannis is no longer independant and part of the Joffrey faction

i thought he did ask you to sub him, but in this i am indeed bias

[Dr Mac]

It's fine, we've already progressed too far. This makes it a nice challenge now

[Pinkerton]

I'm having problems with the old enhanced version,
Can Joffrey or Lannister sub me?
BTW, next time PM please

[jacb547]

I'm having problems with the old enhanced version,
Can Joffrey or Lannister sub me?
BTW, next time PM please

Sorry about that

[Mithridate]

Ill sub, password... TO ME!

[Mithridate]

Subbed

[vozd]

Next!

[invicta]

Lets the memory rest in peace

The Preamble

Renly's messenger: my Lord, I'm bringing news that Lord Stannis is gonna betray you.
Lord Renly: what? Why? We had an agreement to fight Joeffrey together. I promised him King's Landing and every other lands once controlled by our brother Robert would have fallen in his hands.
Why? Betraying his own blood, just to become the pet of a spoiled kid..an impostor? This can't be true.
Renly's messenger: my Lord..here..here there's a message from lord Stannis explaining his betrayal..
Lord Renly: give me the damn letter

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"you say i would have indipendance, but it is security im looking for and survival, your method would have me killed"
it is much easier for me to get castles from you then the capital of a supernation from my ally. also are chances were very tiny, you offered to send me 1 large stack to help, joffrey has 3 so your stack would be slaughtered in a few moments.
in the long run i would sucumb to joffrey's strength. you think im scared, i think i am merelly bieng realistic

Lord Renly: just let him know this
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

Lord Renly's thinking..
I never got along with my older Stannis, but somehow I always admired him. He seemed strong, tenacious and his strong will inspiring like my other brother Robert.
But I realize now it was just the illusion of my memories as a child.

The present :
Lord's Renly messenger: my Lord ,Lord Stannis is asking forgiving and mercy..
Lord Renly : is there any decency left in that man? He betrayed me, he was ready to kill me, and now he asks for mercy?
I order to cancel any trace of Stannis from the family. He's no longer a Baratheon. He's just a pathetic men. Prepare the attack , and at the end of the battle bury him like a commoner with the others. And let my dogs piss on the burial ground!

[invicta]

Also , @DrMac you cannot reinforce the fort where your defeated army retreated.
It was one of the fort you left empty, so you're not supposed to use it, as you built 2 more in Storm's End.

[Dr Mac]

Rule 15 Renly?
I'd like you to retake your turn as I need the funds from looting Fellwood which you have now deprived me of

[Dr Mac]

Also , @DrMac you cannot reinforce the fort where your defeated army retreated.
It was one of the fort you left empty, so you're not supposed to use it, as you built 2 more in Storm's End.

This wasn't intentional. Like I said I was relying upon Stannis, if he was here I wouldn't have needed them forts

[Frogspawned]

Retaking slows everything down. I'm against it on principle.

The fort thing shouldn't be a problem if you'd left it empty before being forced to retreat there, because that would've normally meant it disappearing.

The sallying thing was a break though, but we have procedure for rule-breaking already.

[Pinkie Pie]

Also , @DrMac you cannot reinforce the fort where your defeated army retreated.
It was one of the fort you left empty, so you're not supposed to use it, as you built 2 more in Storm's End.

I was sure that I am the admin here. The only condiition I am imposing is that he ensures he only has 2 forts garrisoned at the end of his next turn.

[invicta]

This wasn't intentional. Like I said I was relying upon Stannis, if he was here I wouldn't have needed them forts

Well apparently he couldn't rely on you to be saved..
Maybe if you were not greedy and a better ally, you would have accepted peace in order to save Stannis, and maybe he would have felt more motivated to help you out with his fleet.
Latins were wise with their proverb : "do ut des"
Here the new save.

I was sure that I am the admin here. The only condiition I am imposing is that he ensures he only has 2 forts garrisoned at the end of his next turn.

Then explain me this pls:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The 2 forts under siege are the one which were not empty when i opened the turn.
The Joeffrey's fort that it's not under siege is the one were his defeated army retreated and it's the one that was not supposed to be there in this turn.
Now he has 3 forts occupied in Storm's end and he might not be able to change that during his turn
But the main problem is another one: if he hadn't the 3rd fort unoccupied, his armies might have retreated next to Brozengate (being 20 units they wouldn;t had retreated into the castle).
Next turn I could have attacked the army , again in the open (since he could't have been able to move it) defeating also the army in Brozengate.
Instead now, I won't be able to siege Brozengate directly next turn but I have to wait one more turn because Joeffrey had 3 forts at the same time.
So others people do not respect the rules and I get penalized.

[Pinkie Pie]

Like he pointed out, this it not something he did intentionally. At the end of his last turn he had 2 forts occupied which is within the rules. Was there no way you could have taken the fort before defeating his army?

on a similar note, I thought unnocupied forts were destroyed at the beginning of the turn (after the rebels/slaves finish their moves).

[invicta]

Like he pointed out, this it not something he did intentionally. At the end of his last turn he had 2 forts occupied which is within the rules. Was there no way you could have taken the fort before defeating his army?

on a similar note, I thought unnocupied forts were destroyed at the beginning of the turn (after the rebels/slaves finish their moves).

I never said it was done intentionally: but intentionally he built 2 forts when he had already one.

I even told you in private, that imo the rule should be respected literally (2 forts, whether they are empty or not) .
A fort whether is empty or not, has still a function, and now you see I'm right: now this 1 turn delay that this fort in the way will cause me in besieging Brozengate, could cost me a big defeat (as with one more turn he might be in time to bring reinforcements) or I might be forced to call of the attack.
So the one that didn't break the rule get penalized, and the one who unintentionally might break it will get an advantage from it.

It's not my duty to take a fort which is not supposed to be there in the first place.
And even if I had a unit, the risk would have been that Joeffrey could have bribed it, losing the units like I lost 3 units last turn.

The fort would have disappeared on his turn. But that why I told you in private that building more forts when you have already 2, is breaking the rule you wrote yourself.

[Pinkie Pie]

I am also sure i told you that as far as i am concerned it was not against the rules.

[invicta]

I am also sure i told you that as far as i am concerned it was not against the rules.

Yes, but I'm proving to you now how the way you apply it has holes like the one you see now.
You said that at the end of the turn he should have no more than 2 forts garrisoned...what if he still has 3 garrisoned (as likely it might happen?
If you applied it literally like I said, such situations wouldn't be possible.
That's the point I made, unless I'm not being clear enough.

But lets keep moving, it's obvious I'm going to take the unfair penalization nonetheless.

[Mithridate]

Maybe if you were not greedy and a better ally
Here the new save.

Invicta The insults have sneaked themselves into your post, get rid of them or at least add
"king joffrey"

Then explain me this pls:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The 2 forts under siege are the one which were not empty when i opened the turn.
The Joeffrey's fort that it's not under siege is the one were his defeated army retreated and it's the one that was not supposed to be there in this turn.
Now he has 3 forts occupied in Storm's end and he might not be able to change that during his turn
But the main problem is another one: if he hadn't the 3rd fort unoccupied, his armies might have retreated next to Brozengate (being 20 units they wouldn;t had retreated into the castle).
Next turn I could have attacked the army , again in the open (since he could't have been able to move it) defeating also the army in Brozengate.
Instead now, I won't be able to siege Brozengate directly next turn but I have to wait one more turn because Joeffrey had 3 forts at the same time.
So others people do not respect the rules and I get penalized.

This makes me outright angry at you invicta, man up. Feel free to explain to me via PM how on earth this is different from what you pulled with the army in port in Infamous vs me. By your own logic, his army there makes complete sense and would absolutely not violate the rules

But lets keep moving, it's obvious I'm going to take the unfair penalization nonetheless.

Mac barely even flinched from the huge hit caused by stannis being skipped when he could sub him yet you pull this?

[Pinkie Pie]

Ok, i tested a few things out.
Joffrey's army would never retreat to Bronzegate because he has 2 forts in the Bronzegate region with no units in (I took over the Storm's End fort then defeated the army only for it to retreat into one of them).

Now this means the only issue is that you can not attack Bronzegate directly next turn, however it is likely that joffrey would have built a fort stopping this anyway.