Babylonian Statecraft
- Thread starter Tambien
- Start date
Et_Absoluti
First Citizen
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2014
- Messages
- 388
Sorry to nitpick, but how would that work in game? Purchasing units?
Et_Absoluti
First Citizen
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2014
- Messages
- 388
Ah I see we are learning from GaP 2?
Tambien
Theseus, Duke of Athens
I can't get the IGE to work in multiplayer, so it would either have to be getting a King to build a unit for you (interesting business, eh, kings?) or owning a retinue of personal guard types (not in-game).
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
There are two ways a person could gain control of a private in-game army I would think.
Firstly, a person in control of a city (be they legit king or otherwise) and its gold hoard could purchase an army for his or another's private use (pretty vague in the case of a King, presumably a private army in his case would constitute an army that is explicitly loyal to his "house" over his "Kingdom"), since for all intents and purposes the gold of a city is the private stash of whoever controls it. (each cities gold being calculated by assessing how much positive gold it produced each turn [gold produced - gold expended on maintenance and whatnot] I would presume. Negative gold in a city would likely mean increased influence for those who are subsidising that city with their wealth + problems for the ruler of that city in terms of his political position)
Secondly, a person could obtain control of a mercenary/feudal company acquired through a friendly (militarily inclined) city-state through a combination of influence/intrigue or whatever. How that would work would be contingent on player actions though since short of someone muddying the diplomatic waters a gift of levies would likely go straight to the Emperor or the King who fulfilled that city-states quest/bribe requirements.
-
PS: On a completely unrelated point, when we settle a second city I'm inclined to hold a vote of the "great men of Babylon" along the lines that put me in office to choose that cities King. This would follow historical precedent (for the kudos) and would spare me from having to pick between my various supporters a candidate for this lofty post
. Doing this generously gives an opportunity for those out of favour to edge into the political sphere as well I might add.
Firstly, a person in control of a city (be they legit king or otherwise) and its gold hoard could purchase an army for his or another's private use (pretty vague in the case of a King, presumably a private army in his case would constitute an army that is explicitly loyal to his "house" over his "Kingdom"), since for all intents and purposes the gold of a city is the private stash of whoever controls it. (each cities gold being calculated by assessing how much positive gold it produced each turn [gold produced - gold expended on maintenance and whatnot] I would presume. Negative gold in a city would likely mean increased influence for those who are subsidising that city with their wealth + problems for the ruler of that city in terms of his political position)
Secondly, a person could obtain control of a mercenary/feudal company acquired through a friendly (militarily inclined) city-state through a combination of influence/intrigue or whatever. How that would work would be contingent on player actions though since short of someone muddying the diplomatic waters a gift of levies would likely go straight to the Emperor or the King who fulfilled that city-states quest/bribe requirements.
-
PS: On a completely unrelated point, when we settle a second city I'm inclined to hold a vote of the "great men of Babylon" along the lines that put me in office to choose that cities King. This would follow historical precedent (for the kudos) and would spare me from having to pick between my various supporters a candidate for this lofty post
. Doing this generously gives an opportunity for those out of favour to edge into the political sphere as well I might add.
Et_Absoluti
First Citizen
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2014
- Messages
- 388
Tambien,sorry to bug you but I still haven't gotten my stats.
I believe we are struggling with semantics.
My idea of a mercanary is the same as an individual soldier within a private army. Which I believe individual citizens (ie non-kings) should not be able to amass. For fear of them being more powerful then kings themselves.
I of course support the idea of guards that serves at a family's discretion but the difference between a group of guards and an army can be defined by law.
I believe there is a misunderstanding on weaponry. Of course everyone should have a right to weaponry, but only under a King's grace. If he should define an individual as being a danger to the public order a King should have the right to remove that man's weapons.
Again it should be defined by a King's law. One king may find its his right to grant you access to weapons. Another may find it a universal right unimpeded by kings themselves. I believe it should be left to Kings to decide.
My idea of a mercanary is the same as an individual soldier within a private army. Which I believe individual citizens (ie non-kings) should not be able to amass. For fear of them being more powerful then kings themselves.
I of course support the idea of guards that serves at a family's discretion but the difference between a group of guards and an army can be defined by law.
I believe there is a misunderstanding on weaponry. Of course everyone should have a right to weaponry, but only under a King's grace. If he should define an individual as being a danger to the public order a King should have the right to remove that man's weapons.
Again it should be defined by a King's law. One king may find its his right to grant you access to weapons. Another may find it a universal right unimpeded by kings themselves. I believe it should be left to Kings to decide.
filli_noctus
Hmmn
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,221
Wording makes a huge difference in the intent of a law. For example:
"All men are at liberty to possess and bear weapons unless they are deemed a public threat through due process of law."
and
"No man may bear arms save with permission of his king."
Could both have the same groups allowed to bear arms. The difference is that the first is an implicit right whilst the other is an explicit privelege. It's essentially the same as the difference between the Second Amendment of the US constitution and the system of gun licensing common to most of the rest of the world.
"All men are at liberty to possess and bear weapons unless they are deemed a public threat through due process of law."
and
"No man may bear arms save with permission of his king."
Could both have the same groups allowed to bear arms. The difference is that the first is an implicit right whilst the other is an explicit privelege. It's essentially the same as the difference between the Second Amendment of the US constitution and the system of gun licensing common to most of the rest of the world.
Et_Absoluti
First Citizen
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2014
- Messages
- 388
The king would basically have anyone with arms loyal to him, you don't see a problem there?
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
Not to mention "no man may bear arms save with permission of his king" is simply not going to happen due to it being impossible to enforce. One cannot attempt to prevent people picking up knives or attaching them to the ends of sticks and at the same time be considered a sane and reasonable ruler.
Tambien
Theseus, Duke of Athens
Since discussion has died down, I'll get to writing the update and finishing the turn processing. At the absolute latest, it should be done and posted by Sunday. (My Saturday is gone because of a swim meet.)
@Et_Absoluti: Your stats will be sent out with the batch of orders updates.
@Et_Absoluti: Your stats will be sent out with the batch of orders updates.
Tambien
Theseus, Duke of Athens
Mid-Turnset Crisis
Note: This is not a full update, and as such order responses and updated stats have not yet been completed. I ran into a situation which has no instruction in the rules, and am looking for direction before completing the turnset and calculations.
Very little has changed since we last spoke, oh King. The scouts have continued North under the orders of their commander, though they have discovered little other than mountains and virgin terrain. Our thinkers have discovered the process behind bronze working, and already plans are being drawn up for the completion of a spearmen unit after we finish recruiting workers. The orders you gave us, however, include no instruction for what social policy we should promote after the adoption of Tradition. Thus I beg of you oh King, instruct us.
Note: This is not a full update, and as such order responses and updated stats have not yet been completed. I ran into a situation which has no instruction in the rules, and am looking for direction before completing the turnset and calculations.
Very little has changed since we last spoke, oh King. The scouts have continued North under the orders of their commander, though they have discovered little other than mountains and virgin terrain. Our thinkers have discovered the process behind bronze working, and already plans are being drawn up for the completion of a spearmen unit after we finish recruiting workers. The orders you gave us, however, include no instruction for what social policy we should promote after the adoption of Tradition. Thus I beg of you oh King, instruct us.
Spoiler :
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
The actual concern appears to be that nothing in the rules really compels the leadership to make plans covering the 10 year period. Some numbers can be projected. Sometimes this involves nonlinear equations. Some things can't be predicted, like picking up a ruin.
If your planning requirement is to make the state transitions tractable for you, you can require more complete planning each phase until there is no issue for you. If the planning requirement is meant to be part of the gameplay of foresight and working with indirection in Command Control, then this has to be augmented with an additional rule.
If your planning requirement is to make the state transitions tractable for you, you can require more complete planning each phase until there is no issue for you. If the planning requirement is meant to be part of the gameplay of foresight and working with indirection in Command Control, then this has to be augmented with an additional rule.
Tambien
Theseus, Duke of Athens
Unless the plans specifically state or imply that I can make executive decisions when I run into something that requires player intervention (e.g. "scout at GM's discretion in this general direction" or "scout north") I will post a "Crisis" update to ask for a player decision. This or something very similar has been the policy of most past GaP or GaP inspired games.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
After contemplating the situation, we have concluded that aristocracy is the best social policy to enshrine in our continuing program of emphasising the long and august traditions of our people. It is our opinion that such a policy will improve our peoples efficiency in the production of grand projects and increase their contentment in the long run.
Saying that, we believe that this necessary social reform must be implanted in the foundations of our nation, and hence it is perhaps expedient that the previously proposed constitutional reforms be discussed in council at this present time if the the Lords of Babylon be willing to do so. In this way the implementation of aristocracy can be formalised in a way that is acceptable to the consensus. Naturally of course we support the support the proposition we have brought forward, but in such a major matter following the precedent of our own election as King, a unilateral decision would be improper.
Finally on an unrelated matter, we order that our warriors upon the completion of our spearmen explore the unexplored lands that are nearby to Babylon. We cannot remain ignorant of our near abroad and since the scout leader has travelled far afield against my own preference it appears local military forces will be required to fulfil this necessary task.
~ King Beltashazzar.
-
ooc: of course that was totally planned....
. Oh and yes I am calling on you to vote yea or nay on my constitutional proposal since the circumstances are concordant with the nature of what is being proposed and it suits my sense of the games narrative. If players decide to vote no in the majority, in the absence of an alternative we will just have to remain in a state of benevolent despotism until an alternative constitution can be agreed upon (presumably a new council in this circumstance would be mandatory when we hit population 5)
Warriors upon completion of spearmen to explore the areas close to Babylon (so a systematic unveiling of the lands close to us, for the purposes of perceiving a suitable settlement site for city number two at GM's discretion, ruins being prioritised as usual). Spearmen shall become garrison of Babylon.
Obviously voting yea for the Code of Beltashazzar constitution.
Saying that, we believe that this necessary social reform must be implanted in the foundations of our nation, and hence it is perhaps expedient that the previously proposed constitutional reforms be discussed in council at this present time if the the Lords of Babylon be willing to do so. In this way the implementation of aristocracy can be formalised in a way that is acceptable to the consensus. Naturally of course we support the support the proposition we have brought forward, but in such a major matter following the precedent of our own election as King, a unilateral decision would be improper.
Finally on an unrelated matter, we order that our warriors upon the completion of our spearmen explore the unexplored lands that are nearby to Babylon. We cannot remain ignorant of our near abroad and since the scout leader has travelled far afield against my own preference it appears local military forces will be required to fulfil this necessary task.
~ King Beltashazzar.
-
ooc: of course that was totally planned....
. Oh and yes I am calling on you to vote yea or nay on my constitutional proposal since the circumstances are concordant with the nature of what is being proposed and it suits my sense of the games narrative. If players decide to vote no in the majority, in the absence of an alternative we will just have to remain in a state of benevolent despotism until an alternative constitution can be agreed upon (presumably a new council in this circumstance would be mandatory when we hit population 5) Warriors upon completion of spearmen to explore the areas close to Babylon (so a systematic unveiling of the lands close to us, for the purposes of perceiving a suitable settlement site for city number two at GM's discretion, ruins being prioritised as usual). Spearmen shall become garrison of Babylon.
Obviously voting yea for the Code of Beltashazzar constitution.
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
I am struggling severely with deriving Bulludhu's behaviour in this situation in some way that does not take the form of him prescribing the scientific method or having very anachronistic thoughts about metaphysics or reflection. I just don't know how to fit the personality I thought I knew into the head of someone who would have none of writing, philosophy, or even meditation.
Having a single psychotechnology would be nice. I should have saved this personality for after Writing, at least. I'm really wondering how I'm going to rp his heir.
I'm going to edit this post with what follows that preamble. Or post, if someone intervenes.
"Having been instructed in matters agreed upon in prior days, I withdraw my comment about wartime provisions in our constitution.
With red cheeks.
"But with more time to study, I have found what I think is another peculiarity and of course, great kings of Babylon, I must draw it out for thorough examination until this slow mind of mine can be taught sense.
With red cheeks.
"But with more time to study, I have found what I think is another peculiarity and of course, great kings of Babylon, I must draw it out for thorough examination until this slow mind of mine can be taught sense.
Having a single psychotechnology would be nice. I should have saved this personality for after Writing, at least. I'm really wondering how I'm going to rp his heir.
I'm going to edit this post with what follows that preamble. Or post, if someone intervenes.
filli_noctus
Hmmn
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 2,221
I also vote yea.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
With the King having a vote equal to half the number of the other Lords of Babylon, on current known numbers of voting lords only two more votes yea are necessary for the Constitution of Beltashazzar to be certainly approved in accordance with tradition and precedent, and in full accordance with the ancient law. (excluding Et Absoluti we have eleven players, Kings vote then equals 5 which leads to a current affirmative vote of 7 to the 8 votes of those who haven't voted. If we include Et Absoluti early we'd need three more affirmative votes yea)
~ The Faceless Numbers Man
~ The Faceless Numbers Man
