Reverting the miltia change

[Trot]

The old militia call up system

Levy

AI Lords will build their Levy as 75% Light Infantry and 25% Archers.

Militia

Elite units cannot be included as part of a Militia.

It can be assumed AI Lords will build buildings/enact edicts to create a Militia worth 50% of their Levy Points value. For example, if an AI Lord has 5,000 Points of Levy and you want to call up his Militia, you may assume he can send 2,500 Points of Militia.

AI Lords will build their Militia as follows:

40% Polearms
20% Archers
20% Heavy Infantry
10% Light Cavalry
10% Heavy Cavalry

Except Ironborn Militias, which are built as follows:

20% Polearms
40% Archers
30% Heavy Infantry
10% Heavy Cavalry

This is to better reflect the Iron Islands generally not using cavalry or polearm-equipped troops, opting instead for more swordsman-based formations that can fit in ships and conduct raids more effectively.

Professional Troops

AI Lords will never purchase professional troops. They also cannot be assumed to supply 50 Household Knights to your armies: those free retainers are for Players only.

It was always assumed the AI answering the call would give full militia Strength

Under the new system the AI answering the call would subject it to a second d-20 roll as follows

Mobilising numbers: 20%+D20*4% (This applies only to AI Militia, your own militia will always muster at 100% strength)

I contend that this change greatly destroys the balance of the regions and greatly benefits regions full of players. As it is a player region can already greatly outpace a region with lacking in player between professional troops and militia edicts available to it. Now the Lord of a region with a low player count relies on good rolls to even be able to field his strength. As such if this is reverted the AI will automatically give 100% of their militia if they answer the call to arms.

[Pontifex Maximus]

COnfused by the wording of the choices. I'm voting for no change, whatever that is. We don't need further complication in the rules. If anything we need fewer rules at this point.

[Poach]

I don't agree to this at all and it's just you wanting to change rules you didn't even bother following in the first place after the fact. After inventing your own system, ignoring the modifiers in the rules, and creating a set of rolls where a Lord Paramount had only a 35% chance that his own vassals would listen to him and a 20% chance they'd rebel. After the game nearly fell apart over how stupid it was that a compromise had to be reached where I put up with these idiotic rolls while other players that had already thrown in with Tyrell got retconned out of it to stop several people quitting the game, and now you're tearing even that compromise up as well.

I've had enough, I've been ed about enough. If this passes I want the Reach back.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I looked it over and those rolls were done in accordance to the rules. I don't even like the AI reaction rolls but I have to admit the rolls done to determine who takes side was done completely in accordance to the rules. it can't be helped if the rolls were bad.

[Poach]

Were they . It was replaced by the rules Trot is now trying to get ditched. He even used the calculator for the new rules​.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Looking at the AI reaction rolls as they currently stand in the rules, they were done correctly. I don't even have a copy of the updated calculator so I don't know anything about an AI reaction roll portion in the calculator? I don't see them in my copy

[Poach]

They were changed and only meant to be used for civil wars. You think Lords Paramount having 35% chance of their own vassals answering them is correct? No. It was a complete mess and should never have stood. It only stood because Brew said he'd quit if they didn't and LD said he'd quit if they did (and it was thought Sky would probably quit to). So we compromised, and now that compromise is being thrown out.

I'm not conceding on both. Either the compromise is kept or I get the Reach back.

[Pontifex Maximus]

How was what happened in the Reach not a civil war?

[Poach]

Tyrell rebelled against the Crown. He wasn't attacking Tarly, Tarly was working on behalf of the Crown.

[Pontifex Maximus]

...that's a civil war.

[Poach]

Civil war mechanics exist for fights inside an individual Kingdom (eg the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion) and were designed to stop the LP just calling up all their bannermen and crushing the rebel house with sheer weight of numbers. It was never designed for use when LPs fight other LPs or the King. It was misused in the extreme: having an LP have only a 35% chance that their own bannermen will listen to them isn't even close to the lore. The Reach situation was disastrously handled and the compromise that stopped the game falling apart (because of Trot) is now being torn up (because of Trot).

[Pontifex Maximus]

I disagree. Tarly was going to rebel over the affair with the tourney anyway, they were from the start. You'd have to at least admit that this was a hybrid situation. Your attacking of trot has also gone too far, with this much bad feeling between moderators I don't see how the game can continue in a meaningful way.

The mood here has become so corrosive lately though I highly doubt the game will be able to move forward. We've decided OOC bickering and temper tantrums are a better use of time than playing or RPing. If I was solely responsible for the game I might be able to correct this, but sadly that's not possible at this stage. Nobody trusts anyone any more and these games are always built on trust first.

[Poach]

Tyrell rebelled against the King because he forced a peasant judge on the Reach and then sent the Master of Laws to arrest him. The Master of Laws being a Reach Lord isn't relevant, the situation would be the exact same if the Master of Laws was a Northern Lord or a Dornish Lord. Being a Reach Lord doesn't give him any special abilities or considerations.

When an LP rises against the King, as we did with the Baratheon rebellion game, we do not use civil war rules. Even when we use civil war rules, we do not make up our own modifiers that the LP over so heavily that they only get a 35% chance that their own vassals will come to them. We don't then use the old rules to decide who comes, and then the new rules to decide how many troops show up: we use one or the other.

We'd got past all this. We'd agreed to compromise. Then Trot makes this thread wanting yet more changes to rules he didn't even follow in the first place.

I want one of two things:

1. I want the agreement that kept the game together to stand.
2. If we're getting rid of that agreement, I want the Reach situation (that the agreement rectified) rectified in another way: I want it back.

[Gandalfus]

I didn't realise the compromise keeping the game together barred a change to the rules? That has nothing to do with the IC situation.

[Poach]

He's just changing the rules to fit what he rolled. Are we going to have every LP forced to run a 35% chance that their vassals will back them up if they rebel against the King? The King wins the game under those conditions: rebellion is impossible.

[Gandalfus]

I don't see that... Isn't Trot's proposal just to remove this?

Mobilising numbers: 20%+D20*4% (This applies only to AI Militia, your own militia will always muster at 100% strength)

[Poach]

That's what replaced the old system. Rather than having AI Lords either send everything or nothing (and have players attack any AI Lord that sent nothing as a traitor), that was put in so AI Lords now send varying amounts of militia depending on the roll (which things like charisma and other modifiers were meant to push up or down). That's how the Reach should've been rolled, Trot instead decided to use old civil war rules, and is now wanting changes to bring the rules back in line with that by making it a roll on whether AI Lords even show up or not. Granted he still made a complete arse of the actual modifiers, but he's demanding the rules align with how he rolled the Reach here.

[Gandalfus]

Well, he's making a proposal to be voted on, don't really see what is wrong with it. But if you're going to hold the game over a barrel, then I suppose it really isn't worth the trouble.

[Oznerol]

I think it's a sensible and well-thought proposal. I voted yes, change it back, I think Trot is right.

[Poach]

I'm holding the game over a barrel? All I want is for trot to respect the agreement that kept the game together or, if he won't, then I want the Reach affair fixed another way.

I took a really bad deal to stop several people quitting the game. I'm not going to keep to that deal if all trot is going to do is try to legitimise the rolls that nearly crashed the game.

Do you think those rolls were fair? Do you think an LP having only 35% chance their vassals will obey them is reasonable? Am I seriously the only one that sees how badky out of step with the lore that is?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk