Slitherine

hidde wrote: Another picture as a result from the search was this one:


Two seperate branches of the family tree?!

Maybe the favourite between your many wifes?

Lysimachos,

Does amending the agreement to strike the specific event require a separate 4 day action or can this be done within the current embassy action? My take would be that any clause in an agreement that does not fit the standard treaty format should be null and void in terms of being enforceable by the referee but I don't think it should be a reason to negate the entire diplomatic mission.

As a separate question, is it possible to transfer money between players without have a specific diplomatic mission to do so?

Chris

Lysimachos wrote:

hidde wrote:After the peace treaty with the Kingdom of Castile were signed Hafsid emissaries have been busy sailing between the Pillars of Hercules.
Talks have been made and reports of progress have reached the Hafsid king.
The final propostion are as follow:
Upgrading the peace treaty to alliance. 50 ducats in payment to cover expenses. If a joint amphibious action is made and no Hafsid land army is present, should a Hafsid fleet be lost, 25 ducats shall be paid in recompense.

Abd hidde-al-Aziz III

Sorry Abd hidde-al-Aziz III
but under the new rules all the diplomatic agreements have a standard format that cannot be changed.
This means that the Alliance may foresee the payment of a determined amount of money but not linking it to specific event, like the loss of a fleet.
So the proposal must be amended in order to take care of this feature.

batesmotel wrote:Lysimachos,

Does amending the agreement to strike the specific event require a separate 4 day action or can this be done within the current embassy action? My take would be that any clause in an agreement that does not fit the standard treaty format should be null and void in terms of being enforceable by the referee but I don't think it should be a reason to negate the entire diplomatic mission.

As a separate question, is it possible to transfer money between players without have a specific diplomatic mission to do so?

Chris

The aforementioned amendament doesn't require any new action.
I only wanted to make it clear that the part of the agreement regarding the payment of the 25 ducats wasn't enforceable in order to give you and Anders the chance of clarifying if the modified agreement was still of your liking or, otherwise, to modify it in a way better suited to your purposes (for example envisaging an immediate transfer of a different sum of money, 75 ducasts instead of 50).
Just let me know which is your definitive decision.

Regarding the separate question it is obvious, under the new rules, that no transfer of money is possible outside a proper agreement.
I understand that in this way the freedom of diplomatic action is greatly limited but it helps in keeping a format record of every agreement.
Probably in the next campaign I will try to give some more space of maneuvre while retaining only some basic diplomatic actions.

By the way, this is my coat of arms:



Really impressive, isn't it!

Abd Hidde-Al -Aziz has left many Aghablabids in the olive groves and on the beaches of Sicily.
The integrity of the Regnum Aragonum has once again been preserved and the magnanimity of his most Catholic and serene majesty Alfonso the Magnanimous proven by his willingness to allow the Aghalabid curs to leave our shores unmolested and without further chastisement.


Aghablids 72/72
Aragon 43/57

Next Byzantine action :Constantine announces a much deserved
Tax Exemption to get the favour of his peasant subjects.
Ta
Ian

stockwellpete wrote:The Milanese will launch their fleets to confront the perfidious goat-botherers again.

Sorry for the delay but I didn't remember to have a close look at the naval encounter.
Given the fact that the Milanese launched their fleet on Thursday the 13th of September the sea battle has been decided in accordande with the lottery draw of the same evening which stated:
Bari (2nd number/attacker) 9
Cagliari (2nd number / defender) 57

This means that having both players the same number of fleets the victory goes to the Milanese, whit the Ottomans loosing a fleet!

Triarius wrote:Abd Hidde-Al -Aziz has left many Aghablabids in the olive groves and on the beaches of Sicily.
The integrity of the Regnum Aragonum has once again been preserved and the magnanimity of his most Catholic and serene majesty Alfonso the Magnanimous proven by his willingness to allow the Aghalabid curs to leave our shores unmolested and without further chastisement.


Aghablids 72/72
Aragon 43/57

Mike, you are using the wrong list. It should be the middle one without any pikes!
Now, I belive I wouldn't have won regardless (certainly no strategic victory) so I'm willing to let bygones be bygones
Lysimachos will have the last word on this but I think we should just continue as is.

Sorry Lysimachos, forgot to tell you I'll go through with the alliance. Just skip the 25 ducats.

hidde wrote:

Triarius wrote:Abd Hidde-Al -Aziz has left many Aghablabids in the olive groves and on the beaches of Sicily.
The integrity of the Regnum Aragonum has once again been preserved and the magnanimity of his most Catholic and serene majesty Alfonso the Magnanimous proven by his willingness to allow the Aghalabid curs to leave our shores unmolested and without further chastisement.


Aghablids 72/72
Aragon 43/57

Mike, you are using the wrong list. It should be the middle one without any pikes!
Now, I belive I wouldn't have won regardless (certainly no strategic victory) so I'm willing to let bygones be bygones
Lysimachos will have the last word on this but I think we should just continue as is.

Well, if this is the case, I don't think possible to consider the Hafsids as looser and the Aragonese as winner.
The only solution apt to put again the players in the initial situation is to replay the match and, in order to avoid an undue penalty for the Hafsids - that in this way would spend double time in making only one action - giving them a bonus action enabling once to have 3 actions running at the same time.
Otherwise we simply shouldn't take care of the result of the action, while giving the Hafsids a 3rd action bonus to replace it.
Please Anders and Mike let me know which solution is preferred.

I'd also like to know from Chris and Anders which are the final terms of their Alliance agreement.
Thanks!

Lysimachos wrote:I'd also like to know from Chris and Anders which are the final terms of their Alliance agreement.
Thanks!

After consulting with Anders, the original agreement for alliance minus the illegal clause is mutually accceptable.

Chris

Lysimachos wrote:I'd also like to know from Chris and Anders which are the final terms of their Alliance agreement.
Thanks!

Only that Castile pay 50 ducats.

Sicily:
Ok, if I get an action for free I can give it another try. Should we stay with 750p or can that be changed?

hidde wrote:

Lysimachos wrote:I'd also like to know from Chris and Anders which are the final terms of their Alliance agreement.
Thanks!

Only that Castile pay 50 ducats.

Sicily:
Ok, if I get an action for free I can give it another try. Should we stay with 750p or can that be changed?

Let go as you please, is just another action.

Since the Queen now desires to enjoy the comfort of Merino wool and the Venetian delicacy known as "worms", a Castilian diplomat has been dispatched to Venice to negotiate a Trade Agreement. In return for sampling these fine delicatcies the Queen looks forward to sharing the joys of Iberian cuisine with paella, cevicihe and pico de gallo

Chris I
His Most Catholic Majesty

Lysimachos wrote: This means that having both players the same number of fleets the victory goes to the Milanese, whit the Ottomans loosing a fleet!

Yippee!!

Next Milanese action

Allied attack

Kastmon to Karesi

White Sheep Turcomans v Pottymans

750pts DM, FOW on.

password "samosgoatsruleok".

Lysimachos wrote:

hidde wrote:

Triarius wrote:Abd Hidde-Al -Aziz has left many Aghablabids in the olive groves and on the beaches of Sicily.
The integrity of the Regnum Aragonum has once again been preserved and the magnanimity of his most Catholic and serene majesty Alfonso the Magnanimous proven by his willingness to allow the Aghalabid curs to leave our shores unmolested and without further chastisement.


Aghablids 72/72
Aragon 43/57

Mike, you are using the wrong list. It should be the middle one without any pikes!
Now, I belive I wouldn't have won regardless (certainly no strategic victory) so I'm willing to let bygones be bygones
Lysimachos will have the last word on this but I think we should just continue as is.

Well, if this is the case, I don't think possible to consider the Hafsids as looser and the Aragonese as winner.
The only solution apt to put again the players in the initial situation is to replay the match and, in order to avoid an undue penalty for the Hafsids - that in this way would spend double time in making only one action - giving them a bonus action enabling once to have 3 actions running at the same time.
Otherwise we simply shouldn't take care of the result of the action, while giving the Hafsids a 3rd action bonus to replace it.
Please Anders and Mike let me know which solution is preferred.

And I have also apparently now used the wrong list against Chris in defending Languedoc.
It was also Aragon(late).
Chris told me about 4 moves in but we agreed to play on.

It has just finished at 60/61 Aragon - 69/69 Castille.
Is this also to be played again

I have however taken out the two challenges for the invasions Iset up for Aragon (late) and will use the Aragon list from now on.

I never looked any further than the date for the army list late was first half of the XVth Century so apologies for that.

I would say that the pikes could not have performed worse against hidde anyway and armoured offensive spears the alternative to the pikes and the only difference would have had an armour PoA.

It is the Duke of Visconti's view that if the "Arrogant-Knees" had built an Academy beforehand then they might have avoided this bureaucratic/logistical calamity.

Triarius wrote: ...
And I have also apparently now used the wrong list against Chris in defending Languedoc.
It was also Aragon(late).
Chris told me about 4 moves in but we agreed to play on.

It has just finished at 60/61 Aragon - 69/69 Castille.
Is this also to be played again

I have however taken out the two challenges for the invasions Iset up for Aragon (late) and will use the Aragon list from now on.

I never looked any further than the date for the army list late was first half of the XVth Century so apologies for that.

I would say that the pikes could not have performed worse against hidde anyway and armoured offensive spears the alternative to the pikes and the only difference would have had an armour PoA.

The pikes have a PoA advantage in impact and are essentially the same in melee as the armoured offensive spear, so are overall slightly better in combat. Also, you can get 9 average pikemen versus 6 average, armoured offensive spear.

Chris