|
|
Post by Alined on Jan 30, 2018 22:38:05 GMT
This is like saying that if you break an agreement, the other person can't break the agreement. I don't see why SWT would be compelled to send the funds the same turn the compulsion to send them was removed. They could refuse to send the funds at any time if it wasn't a treaty breach--all it takes is them neglecting to take a specific free action. If the treaty is breached by the other party that's the perfect a time to neglect the free action.
Though you could argue they should have specified in their turn order that they'd only grant the funds if they were still obligated.
|
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Jan 30, 2018 22:49:52 GMT
Yup. Deal was made T2, took effect T3. Funds were transferred in P&H 3.
Deal is broken T17, takes effect T18.
Either: No payment should have been made T3 or no payment should be made T18.
---
Had it been a deal between SWT & NSE, no problem, I'd continue paying. However, it was a deal between SWT, NSE & Nemeth. And Nemeth said: "will no longer [] be affiliated with their guild".
So really, Nemeth shouldn't be transferring 2GB to NSE either. Alternatively, I'll gladly transfer the 1GB and then Nemeth can look a bit foolish for still being affiliated with SWT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Jan 30, 2018 22:53:33 GMT
Also, SWT outgoing grants should be 1.5GB (to ToG only), unless Nemeth's decree failed. Incorrect. Turn 18 P&H reflect money sent and collected turn 17. The treaty was in effect turn 17. Action was taken in turn 17 to end effect of treaty from turn 18 onward. Look at your turn 2 do where you explicitly sent 0GB to NSE as the payment would be subtracted from turn 3 P&H Had you paid in your turn 2 DO, then you would be correct that the negative income to SWT, but not the positive income to NSE should have been removed. So: Grants are correctly reflected. |
|
|
|
Post by Turn Processing Assistant on Jan 30, 2018 22:57:46 GMT
Fix SWT holdings in Gawant please  Done It seems Venicii's 'underlying prosperity' should have gone from 1 to -2. -1, -1, -2, and -3 in negative modifiers (including taxes and the 'underlying' penalty), only -2 the -6 negated by law control, leaving -4. Which is why the CSF was told not to attempt Agitation this season, since it was virtually futile. Even if we're not using the 'underlying prosperity' rule anymore, that only removes -1 of the penalty (though it'd make applying temporary modifiers to low prosperity provinces much more useful.) As a newly invested province Venicii got a prosperity reset based on the actions taken by Alined, and Alined's associates. In this case to Poor, there was 4 penalties (occupation, culture, tax) and 4 bonus (full law, agitate +2) with a temp +1 from the bless. I can put it to an underlying rebellious like I did with Caerleon in Robogdii if you'd prefer  The color change for provinces with events, did you remember to remove it for resolved events? I did, but many provinces have ongoing events that will take time to fully resolve, and some provinces had resolved events, and then new ones where generated. On the grant action, I'll wait for Linde (x-GM) to rule. New P&H: PH Albion Turn 18 v1.2.xlsx (255.15 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Jan 30, 2018 23:05:03 GMT
ruling in above post
|
|
|
|
Post by Aethor of Helna (ST) on Jan 30, 2018 23:39:48 GMT
Also, SWT outgoing grants should be 1.5GB (to ToG only), unless Nemeth's decree failed. Incorrect. Turn 18 P&H reflect money sent and collected turn 17. The treaty was in effect turn 17. Action was taken in turn 17 to end effect of treaty from turn 18 onward. Look at your turn 2 do where you explicitly sent 0GB to NSE as the payment would be subtracted from turn 3 P&H Had you paid in your turn 2 DO, then you would be correct that the negative income to SWT, but not the positive income to NSE should have been removed. So: Grants are correctly reflected. The treaty was not in effect T17, see T17 decree from Nemeth. If it's in effect T17, then it should be a T18 decree. The treaty was in effect T2, because of the T2 diplomacy action. |
|
|
|
Post by Turn Processing Assistant on Jan 30, 2018 23:44:42 GMT
Incorrect. Turn 18 P&H reflect money sent and collected turn 17. The treaty was in effect turn 17. Action was taken in turn 17 to end effect of treaty from turn 18 onward. Look at your turn 2 do where you explicitly sent 0GB to NSE as the payment would be subtracted from turn 3 P&H Had you paid in your turn 2 DO, then you would be correct that the negative income to SWT, but not the positive income to NSE should have been removed. So: Grants are correctly reflected. The treaty was not in effect T17, see T17 decree from Nemeth. If it's in effect T17, then it should be a T18 decree. The treaty was in effect T2, because of the T2 diplomacy action. Actions are processed at end of turn. So the decree was made in T17, promulgates during the turn but does not have any real effect until T18 (meaning Nemeth is still expected to uphold it's obligations through T17). |
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Jan 30, 2018 23:45:09 GMT
The decree was issued in T17, which means it takes effect T18. Cause and effect.
The diplomacy was turn 2. Payments started turn 2 with a free grant action. Payments showed up in turn 3 PH.
|
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Jan 30, 2018 23:50:24 GMT
The treaty was not in effect T17, see T17 decree from Nemeth. If it's in effect T17, then it should be a T18 decree. The treaty was in effect T2, because of the T2 diplomacy action. Actions are processed at end of turn. So the decree was made in T17, promulgates during the turn but does not have any real effect until T18 (meaning Nemeth is still expected to uphold it's obligations through T17). Oh look, it's Aethor back from the dead That's not how any other decrees have worked, and I see no reason why this one should work any different. |
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Jan 30, 2018 23:51:18 GMT
There was no free grant action. Ever. It was added to the p&h, making it impossible to make it an if action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Jan 30, 2018 23:53:46 GMT
Incorrect. Turn 18 P&H reflect money sent and collected turn 17. The treaty was in effect turn 17. Action was taken in turn 17 to end effect of treaty from turn 18 onward. Look at your turn 2 do where you explicitly sent 0GB to NSE as the payment would be subtracted from turn 3 P&H Had you paid in your turn 2 DO, then you would be correct that the negative income to SWT, but not the positive income to NSE should have been removed. So: Grants are correctly reflected. The treaty was not in effect T17, see T17 decree from Nemeth. If it's in effect T17, then it should be a T18 decree. The treaty was in effect T2, because of the T2 diplomacy action. I think you are confused. Actions are conducted simultaneously, and effects are calculated afterwards. Example: DO's are delivered and they have amongst others the following actions: Action: Free turn 17 from SWT: Grant 1GB to NSE to be subtracted from turn 18P&H (Not written as this is a permanent grant) Action: Decree turn 17 from Nemeth: Cancel treaty with SWT. Actions are conducted and effects are calculated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think the confusion arise from you thinking that Nemeth could act against your treaty with him turn 17 without taking penalties for breaching his treaty because of his decree... That is a false assumption as the treaty is not voided until effects are calculated after actions are made. |
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Jan 30, 2018 23:58:06 GMT
Then there's a whole slew of people who need to be punished for not issuing proper declarations of war.
|
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Jan 31, 2018 0:06:11 GMT
Also, SWT outgoing grants should be 1.5GB (to ToG only), unless Nemeth's decree failed. Incorrect. Turn 18 P&H reflect money sent and collected turn 17. The treaty was in effect turn 17. Action was taken in turn 17 to end effect of treaty from turn 18 onward. Look at your turn 2 do where you explicitly sent 0GB to NSE as the payment would be subtracted from turn 3 P&H Had you paid in your turn 2 DO, then you would be correct that the negative income to SWT, but not the positive income to NSE should have been removed. So: Grants are correctly reflected. Also, using that thought process:
Diplomacy T2. Supposedly takes effect T3.
Free grant action T3. Ergo, no grant in P&H 3.
But that's not how we've been playing it. So the diplomacy T2 means the treaty is in effect from T2 onwards, not from T3 onwards.
And that means the decree voiding the treaty in T17 means the treaty is no longer in effect from T17 onwards, not from T18 onwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Jan 31, 2018 0:16:03 GMT
Incorrect. Turn 18 P&H reflect money sent and collected turn 17. The treaty was in effect turn 17. Action was taken in turn 17 to end effect of treaty from turn 18 onward. Look at your turn 2 do where you explicitly sent 0GB to NSE as the payment would be subtracted from turn 3 P&H Had you paid in your turn 2 DO, then you would be correct that the negative income to SWT, but not the positive income to NSE should have been removed. So: Grants are correctly reflected. Also, using that thought process:
Diplomacy T2. Supposedly takes effect T3.
Free grant action T3. Ergo, no grant in P&H 3.
But that's not how we've been playing it. So the diplomacy T2 means the treaty is in effect from T2 onwards, not from T3 onwards.
And that means the decree voiding the treaty in T17 means the treaty is no longer in effect from T17 onwards, not from T18 onwards.
Reference to Current rules: birthrightalbion.freeforums.net/thread/25/dynamics-domain-turnReference to last change to initiative rules: birthrightalbion.freeforums.net/thread/1099/changes-turn-13-onwardsPerhaps you're forgetting this? |
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Jan 31, 2018 0:20:13 GMT
I was forgetting that actually, but that doesn't resolve it I think. But thank you!
To avoid penalties T13 onwards, a realm must declare war on Turn X, and then wage war Turn X+1?
For the purposes of diplomacy T13 onwards, a realm must use diplomacy action on Turn X, and then free grant Turn X+1?
|
|
