”XV century AD – Mediterranean Campaign”

[stockwellpete]

I really like the new rules. Two questions . . .

i) what happens if a faction runs out of money and a random event says they have to pay for something?

1) If a nation hasn't got money the event will have no effect

Her-hum! Why am I minus 40 ducats when the logic of your earlier reply to me suggests zero ducats is the lowest that you can go? Careful how you reply cos I might tell the Pope!

[batesmotel]

2nd Castilian action when trade quarter is complete today:

Castile sends a diplomat to Milan proposing a trade agreement. The queen has learned of the Italian delicacy called "pizza" and wishes to be able to enjoy it. In return she proposes to introduce the Milanese to the joys of Paella and pico de gallo.

Chris

[stockwellpete]

2nd Castilian action when trade quarter is complete today:

Castile sends a diplomat to Milan proposing a trade agreement. The queen has learned of the Italian delicacy called "pizza" and wishes to be able to enjoy it. In return she proposes to introduce the Milanese to the joys of Paella and pico de gallo.

Chris

Yes, we will gladly swap our pizza for some of your paella and the other thing (what is it, please? ).

[batesmotel]

From wikipedia:

In Mexican cuisine, pico de gallo (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈpiko ðe ˈɣaʎo], literally rooster's beak), also called salsa fresca or salsa mexicana (in Mexico) is a fresh, uncooked condiment made from chopped tomato, white onion, and chilis (typically jalapeños or serranos). Other ingredients may also be added, such as lime juice or apple cider vinegar, fresh cilantro (coriander leaf), cucumber, radish or firm fruit such as mango.

[stockwellpete]

Luverly. Let's sign the agreement after we have had our dinner, shall we?

[Lysimachos]

I really like the new rules. Two questions . . .

i) what happens if a faction runs out of money and a random event says they have to pay for something?

1) If a nation hasn't got money the event will have no effect

Her-hum! Why am I minus 40 ducats when the logic of your earlier reply to me suggests zero ducats is the lowest that you can go? Careful how you reply cos I might tell the Pope!

OK then, Pete, I must admit your case has many winning arguments on the formal side but one strong against on the substantial one.

On the first hand, in fact, my prior reply was clear in his meaning and, to say the whole truth, I would also add to your considerations the fact that the rule about plunder says that "A tactical victory against a province owned by another nation earns the winner 40 ducats (or the lower sum actually present), that will be taken from his opponent treasury." Which clearly means that if a player has no ducats in his treasury his opponent won't gain money.
And this should seal the dispute in your favour.

On the other hand, however, stands the fact that the original rules were written by me when no means of making money during the campaign was foreseen and my concern was to avoid that a player bumped into a budget deficit should be relegated for the rest of the campaign in a position that would prevent him from restoring a more settled financial situation.
But afterwards the rules about Trade Agreement, Diplomatic Actions, Tax Increase and Plunder were added, enabling the players to gain money during the game, so that the aforementioned concern lost his reason.

Now I find myself in dire straits because its my fault of having not adjusted the rules to the new situation and, while on one side I cannot say you're wrong, on the other side it seems to me really unfair that TGM may not obtain what he has rightly gained.
So that, giving priority to good faith solutions, I see only two options left, that are:
- leaving the two players the chance of solving the problem gentlemanly,
- giving to TGM the well deserved 40 ducats without subtracting the corresponding sum from the Milanese treasury.

Anyway the problem will be solved from now on the rules regarding budget deficit are changed making it possible and tomorrow I'll make it clear with a new writing of them.
I hope everybody will forgive this uninterrupted changing of the rules understanding that they are being tested here for the first time and that flaws arises only playing and testing their sensibleness.
All this work should eventually conduct to a final setting of them that will enable us to have a definitive frame of rules to use in the future for every other campaign we'll like to organize.
In other words this is a work in motion that I hope won't lower the pleasure of playing.

[stockwellpete]

Now I find myself in dire straits because its my fault of having not adjusted the rules to the new situation and, while on one side I cannot say you're wrong, on the other side it seems to me really unfair that TGM may not obtain what he has rightly gained.
So that, giving priority to good faith solutions, I see only two options left, that are:
- leaving the two players the chance of solving the problem gentlemanly,
- giving to TGM the well deserved 40 ducats without subtracting the corresponding sum from the Milanese treasury.

But he gratuitously invaded us when we meant no harm and then, because he had not won a strategic victory, he interfered with some of my goats on his way home. So there is no chance of a gentlemanly agreement with the Pottymans. And he sunk my fleet too!!

But I like your second idea though.

[batesmotel]

A query. The rules state,

"A player cannot have more than 3 Diplomatic Agreements running at the same time."

So if a player has an Alliance with another player how many agreements is this as an alliance incorporates a Peace Treaty and a Mutual defense Agreement? If the same two powers then agree a trade agreement to go along with their alliance does that mean they have used up all their diplomatic agreements? Thanks.

Of course, no!
An Alliance is only 1 diplomatic agreement (the fact it its content incorporates those of a Peace Treaty and a Mutual Defence Agreement doesn't alter its homogeneous nature).
Consequently the player bound with an Alliance to another has two more diplomatic slot still free to use.

Would a trade agreement between the two allied players use a second diplomatic slot? Or is the restriction to three diplomatic agreements really a limit of having active diplomatic agreements with 3 separate nations/players?

Chris

[Lysimachos]

Would a trade agreement between the two allied players use a second diplomatic slot? Or is the restriction to three diplomatic agreements really a limit of having active diplomatic agreements with 3 separate nations/players?

Chris

Yes, it uses an autonomous diplomacy slot because, unlike Peace Treaties and Mutual Defence Agreement, a Trade Agreement isn't incorporated in an Alliance.

[Lysimachos]

But I like your second idea though.

That said the 2nd of my proposal,
which doesn't harm any of the two players involved in the dispute,
has been put into effect and the 40 ducats have given back to the Milanese treasury while the Ottomans will retain theirs.

[stockwellpete]

New Milanese action - fortify Samos please.

[stockwellpete]

3. A Potted History of the Hafsid kingdom of North Africa

A Masmuda (mass murder? )-Berber dynasty (also known as the Banu-Hafs), originating around 1230, they were conquered twice by the Merinids of Morocco in the middle of the 14th century. Their territories were also devastated by plague at this time. This mosque is 13thC . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tunis ... Kasbah.JPG

A recovery began under Abd al-Aziz II, who ruled between 1394 and 1434. Unfortunately I could not find a picture so we are not sure what hidde looks like. Trade with Europe increased and many new buildings resulted from this new wealth. Arts and culture also flourished. But Abd-al Aziz’s use of pirates in the Mediterranean prompted both Venice and Aragon to launch punitive raids along the north African coastline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hafsid1400.png

The reign of Uthman between 1436 and 1488 saw the fortunes of the Hafsids reach their highest point. Caravan routes were established through the Sahara and extensive trading networks were established with Venice and Aragon.

However, things started to deteriorate when the southern Arab tribes of the kingdom began a revolt and eventually Hafsid control was reduced to just the two cities of Tunis and Constantine, the other cities having declared their independence along with the Bedouin.

In the 16th century the Ottomans conquered the Hafsids in 1534 and 1569 and eventually the Hafsids became vassals of the Spanish Crown.

Siege of Tunis 1534

http://en.tunisientunisie.com/wp-conten ... s-1535.jpg

Finally, the Hafsid royal family was exiled to Tenerife in 1574 after further Ottoman attacks.


Next week: 4. A potted history of the Pottymans

[TheGrayMouser]

New Milanese action - fortify Samos please.

Wait a minute, Im slightly confused here

Wasnt the big hubbub that Milan had NO Ducats to be debited after I plundered his province?? and that there was no rule in place for having a NEGATIVE treasury?

If that was the case how can he now have $ to build a fort which costs 50 ??

I would expect better accounting systems in place by the Italian faction

[stockwellpete]

New Milanese action - fortify Samos please.

Wait a minute, Im slightly confused here

Wasnt the big hubbub that Milan had NO Ducats to be debited after I plundered his province?? and that there was no rule in place for having a NEGATIVE treasury?

If that was the case how can he now have $ to build a fort which costs 50 ??

I would expect better accounting systems in place by the Italian faction

There was no "big hubbub", but straight after I forced you back off my island I then signed a trade agreement with the Castilians, which gives me 100 ducats to spend. So now I am fortifying Samos (and building a goat sanctuary there too!).

[TheGrayMouser]

New Milanese action - fortify Samos please.

Wait a minute, Im slightly confused here

Wasnt the big hubbub that Milan had NO Ducats to be debited after I plundered his province?? and that there was no rule in place for having a NEGATIVE treasury?

If that was the case how can he now have $ to build a fort which costs 50 ??

I would expect better accounting systems in place by the Italian faction

There was no "big hubbub", but straight after I forced you back off my island I then signed a trade agreement with the Castilians, which gives me 100 ducats to spend. So now I am fortifying Samos (and building a goat sanctuary there too!).

Ah that makes sence, you have dedts you do not honour then you fall into $ and maintain you are broke...

I'd invade again but to be frank I dont really get what will happen nor see the point as no doudt my three fleets will have to patiently wait while your two fleets are built back up to three, then if I manage to land based on a lottery draw your army then will apprently be building a fort with one hand and fighting my amy w the other ..... If I somehow manage a strat victory I then wait on a lucky draw to resolve a siege. Too much luck involved to make it worthwhile.
I guess ill need to start playing this like CIv 5 and just build stuff....

[stockwellpete]

Ah that makes sence, you have dedts you do not honour then you fall into $ and maintain you are broke...

I was broke at the time our battle ended. My Treasury had 0 ducats.

I'd invade again but to be frank I dont really get what will happen nor see the point as no doudt my three fleets will have to patiently wait while your two fleets are built back up to three, then if I manage to land based on a lottery draw your army then will apprently be building a fort with one hand and fighting my amy w the other ..... If I somehow manage a strat victory I then wait on a lucky draw to resolve a siege. Too much luck involved to make it worthwhile.
I guess ill need to start playing this like CIv 5 and just build stuff....

If you invade again, I have two days to say whether my fleet will be mobilised against you. My third fleet will become ready during that 48 hour slot so there will need to be another sea battle as I will respond to you shortly before the deadline expires. By the time that is resolved (by lottery) my fortifications on Samos will either be done or will be nearly done and they certainly will be done by the time our second battle is completed. So even if you do win a strategic victory this time I will be able to go into my fortifications and you will need a siege train to attack me in there. Otherwise Samos remains Milanese.

Yes, you should think about building stuff. I have built a Merchant's Quarter so that I can arrange lucrative trade agreements. Seeing that my army is so weak it is the only way that I can hope to survive in the game.

[TheGrayMouser]

Yes, your army is so "weak" it can lose battles and yet end up with no consequences

Sigh, I really dont want to build stuff nor attack indies....

Thus:
Action:
I will invade you again and let the Posiedon decide


also Lysimachos: Are you going to accept that challenge I set up Friday or not!!, the Serbs are patiently awaiting you to fight ! ( and your tying up one of my action slots!!!)

Enough talk, someone call the 'whaaambulance"

[stockwellpete]

One query on the rules - the "re-attack" rule concerning provinces owned by players in the game, how long does the player who underwent the first attack have to decide if he is going to counter-attack.

I am not bothered in relation to TGM's new attack but the rule does not stipulate a time period (maybe it should say 48 hours?).

[Lysimachos]

One query on the rules - the "re-attack" rule concerning provinces owned by players in the game, how long does the player who underwent the first attack have to decide if he is going to counter-attack.

I am not bothered in relation to TGM's new attack but the rule does not stipulate a time period (maybe it should say 48 hours?).

The rules say:
"An attack against a province owned by another nation repulsed due to a draw or a defeat in battle may not be immediately reiterated by the attacking player, having the winning defender the right to counterattack from his province the starting point of the previous attack."

No time period is indicated because you just can't use your next action to reiterate the attack but have to wait your second successive action.
Anyway this doesn't apply to TGM because the prohibition regards a prior attack repulsed or ended in a draw, while he has won a tactical victory and may carry on a fresh attack!

[Lysimachos]

also Lysimachos: Are you going to accept that challenge I set up Friday or not!!, the Serbs are patiently awaiting you to fight ! ( and your tying up one of my action slots!!!)

Dear TGM
(but does it really means TroubleGreatMakers as my greek interpreter says? )
the challenge was accepted early this morning, before you posted the message, and I'm ready to confront the Serbs!

Alas, as I suspected at the beginning of the campaign, at the moment I'm loosing quite all my spare time in writing abbreviations, settling disputes between you and Pete and trying to amend some flawed rules in the fairest possible way, so that my fighting time is shrinking always more and more ..
(Not to say that I'm involved in the Companions Cup and the last Knockout Tournament of Pete - a real nightmare, something like a job)!