Still? I thought I fixed that. Doing it now.

EDIT: Oh god, how do I delete all of these? The site went down when I posted.

Still? I thought I fixed that. Doing it now.

Still? I thought I fixed that. Doing it now.

Still? I thought I fixed that. Doing it now.

Now you have something else to fix :)

Noted your suggestions.

And naw, Fiendish, that's just something he needs to fix.

Would anyone object to finding their own vassal's receipt [same as yours, but for their land]? I don't mind doing it myself, as that was the original plan, but the help would be appreciated, as I'm going to be at work a lot this week, and would like to focus on finishing up the rules and first IC post, so we can get this baby going.

Wouldn't mind at all.

So Boerd said
Wouldn't mind at all.

Thankies. Rules are coming along alright. Just need to finish the rules for trade and actions like building 'n such.

Void, don't forget to lower income by 4000 as you lowered total pop by 4000

I already edited my income to reflect the taxes my vassals get. I can do the rest as well.

Do we need to change our original receipts to adjust to vassal territories, then?

Yes.

Currently very busy with studying for finals. My last one is tomorrow, so I'll edit my sheet then (which will include fixing any lingering issues due to including my town pop).

I'll get to it saturday

Is it too late to join? I got time and summer break began on June 1st for me and it ends on Aug 12.

Rare said
Is it too late to join? I got time and summer break began on June 1st for me and it ends on Aug 12.

Have at it. There's no limits for now, but once the map's made, no more players will be taken.

Unless someone wants to grant them a fief, or some shiz.

Neverthing mind, just read the rules. When will the map be posted?

Flooby Badoop said
That's actually pretty clever. You eliminate the minimum troop number, but still keep true to only being able to get half the pop. number's wealth.That said, it would be odd, since if a fief can only be raided once, all anyone would have to do to protect their own fiefs would be to 'pillage' with one soldier.I think your idea is a good, but there should also be a minimum of 100 soldiers.EDIT: Perhaps whatever is looted is simply reduced from that annum's tax, instead of the pop. not being able to pay taxes that year?

So, just a lurky comment, but if you only have to pay upkeep on soldiers that are actively engaged in combat, and each soldier can only take a maximum of two bullis per pillage per season it would actually make pillaging cost you money. For instance, say my one hundred basic spearmen with an upkeep of three bullis each pillage So Boerd's lands for a season. I've now spent three hundred bullis to make two hundred (not including the fact that I may possibly be losing out on crop production depending on the season, and could actually lose soldiers in the attempt presumably, soldiers who require manpower and bullis to replace). I'd suggest you instead allow soldiers to pillage up to twice the expense of their upkeep per season, giving people a reason to risk losing soldiers over taking from their neighbors, and giving, say, knights (who possess a horse, barding, plate armor, and multiple melee weapons) and other similarly armed units more reason than being heavily outfitted for flavor text and a possible advantage in combat with another player to actually pay for their extravagant equipment. I mean, even if you allowed up to two bullis to be taken per season and threw in the price of the pillaging unit's upkeep for free it would still give one hundred spearmen a distinct advantage when pillaging over one hundred knights. It would actually take more than eight times as many pillages for a knight to pay for himself than it would take a spearman, meaning in the time a knight could effectively pay for another knight to be purchased with his earnings a spearman would have paid for eight himself, the first he paid for would have paid for seven, the third for six, and so on eventually coming out to thirty seven spearmen if I'm not mistaken, obviously assuming none of them died in the doing.

EDIT:

Also, what's with the lack of extended family options in the Royal Family section? Every Lord an orphaned only child in this game? ^^ I mean, of course extended family in the context of royalty carries with it a degree of danger (nothing like getting murdered by your cousin for your title or locked away in a tower by your vizer uncle) so it'd make perfect sense to make uncles and nieces and such cost less than legitimate children, but they're still more useful then courtiers by simple merit of being able to inherit your title. Plus I've never heard of someone making a marriage alliance with another Lord by marrying off their commoner advisors.

And, super props to Fiendish Fox over there for actually having scrublands and infertile fiefdoms in a part of the country which I think I've lurked around enough to know is actually supposed to be a wasteland bordering a frozen desert which, presumably, has little in the way of, "Fair," farmland. <3

Yes, but you're not only making money, but you're also disrupting the enemy's cash flow and crop production. Not to mention that infrastructure, or whatever you're attacking will become damaged and go down a level of development. So, to me, raids are meant to be a means to just wreck havoc on an enemy's economy and development rather than a way to make money.

Well, no, "you're not only making money," doesn't fit if your losing money, but I digress. Destroying infrastructure certainly has it's place in the context of a raid, but you're really telling me the Vikings went out pillaging to destroy people's infrastructure? If it wasn't profitable no one would do it. Raids throughout history have been to make money. Sure, hampering your neighbor's ability to field armies and feed their people is an essential secondary function, but the money is always the primary purpose, and it still doesn't fix the underlying problem you've presented by forcing a cap of two bullis on each soldier each raid; no one will use knights (at least, they'd be wise not to) if they cost eight times as much as a spearman to do the same damn thing.

EDIT:

In fact, are you not endangering your own production by raiding in the first place? Cut crop production, paying out the wazoo for upkeep on soldiers, etc. If you fielded your own one thousand three hundred soldiers over a year you'd actually lose 34,500b, and approximately 10,920 crops (at infertile production rate, would have to know the fiefdom the soldiers specifically belong to in order to be more exact) to make 5,200b and destroy some infrastructure which I seriously doubt is actually worth 29,300b to begin with. I mean, the fiefdom would have to be pretty rich to be worth that much, wouldn't it? How much crop displacement you cause would have to be factored in, true, a variable I don't have access to, but your wealthiest fiefdom doesn't make that much.