|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 20, 2021 22:41:10 GMT
That's game June, not 2022, obviously! Because the new rules work out the estate income by season it makes sense to put them in that turn. Having looked at it a bit, I actually was thinking that the relevant people have had title rolls recently enough that it probably does make sense if I just work out the new system from May. (So an extra month!) Let me know if there's any concerns/unclear parts etc. Titles.pdf (6.2 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jul 30, 2021 22:56:56 GMT
That's game June, not 2022, obviously! Because the new rules work out the estate income by season it makes sense to put them in that turn. Having looked at it a bit, I actually was thinking that the relevant people have had title rolls recently enough that it probably does make sense if I just work out the new system from May. (So an extra month!) Let me know if there's any concerns/unclear parts etc. View AttachmentThis PDF appears empty to me when trying to open it... |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 30, 2021 22:58:34 GMT
Try this one. Titles.pdf (79.55 KB) (It's also in the living rulebook now). |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jul 30, 2021 23:08:34 GMT
Yes,it works now, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Jul 30, 2021 23:28:14 GMT
Didn’t you finally apply coltreadhead’s suggestion about making the Admin roll be the 1-6 multiplier (I guess again 7-result) and the +2/-2 provinicial effect at random, instead of vice versa?
In fact this seems more the initial document (published in May 3rd) than the revised one (published in July 8th)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 30, 2021 23:35:44 GMT
I've had a few technical issues (which is why it's been done, but not put up before now).
Try looking at it in the living rulebook directly and see if that's the right one?
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Aug 12, 2021 11:31:09 GMT
16.5 (table) against 16.12/16.14:
I see you reduced the base provincial income (more than compensated by the provincial DM becoming a multiplier, not complaining about it), but you forgot t oapply it in the example given in 16.12, where the minimum cost for a Marquisate in gascony should read 500 x 4 c 2 c 5, so 20000, and in the example in 16.14, where the price for this state in Gascony to be nearly sure to be sold should be 3000, not 4500.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Aug 12, 2021 15:22:24 GMT
Ah, thank you. This does allow for feedback on the new rules. Several of you have gained MRIs from Parisian activities. My view is that worked as intended the first month! Do people think the revised estate income is right or is it still a bit too high? (I will throw things at anyone suggesting it isn't high enough.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Aug 12, 2021 15:28:20 GMT
Oh, the other question I have (possibly from people that know history better than me!) is how to handle titles and names.
Should JBO now be known as Comte Jacques de Chevreus?
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Aug 12, 2021 17:12:48 GMT
Several of you have gained MRIs from Parisian activities. My view is that worked as intended the first month! I guess you mean MRL (mentions on Royal Lists).... Do people think the revised estate income is right or is it still a bit too high? (I will throw things at anyone suggesting it isn't high enough. ) I would not say too high, but sure higher than I expected. This makes more logical the money that a noble's son has from his family in CharGen, though (as before, a 1st don of a very wealthy chevalier received 137 livres a month, while his father received no income from his state. Now we can assume his father owns a size 2 state plus, being very wealthy, some more gentleman's ones. though if he inherites those gentlems nstates would go to his brothers, to keep with the rules). Oh, the other question I have (possibly from people that know history better than me!) is how to handle titles and names. Should JBO now be known as Comte Jacques de Chevreus? AFAIK (I'm not a nexpert in protocol) this was the proper way to adress him, Title - christian name . fief, as would be "princess Louise de Bretagne" or "Grand Duc Maximilian de valois". OTOH, if they are in the military, for formal military adressment, would keep as Rank - Faamily name.
e.g.:
- Comte Jaques de Chevreuse would be adressed as Captain Bougiedure in military situations
- Comte Huillaume de Déols would be adressed as Commander Lagarde on military situations
- Viscomte Renald de Dammartinn ,being no longer in the military, will always be called so
Chevaliers, having no such fiefs (thou gh they have states), would be adressed as Sieur - full name, or by their military ranks e.g.: Sieur Arnold d'Blancheur or Brigadier d'Blancheur |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Aug 12, 2021 23:18:15 GMT
My research has yielded a slightly different result. For the nobility, Christian names were connected by the preposition 'de' to either the family name or the place name of their birth. I should have styled JBO as Jacques de Bougiedure or Jacques du Dampierre. The family name/place name did not change upon award of a title. Hence JBO's full name and title should be Jacques de Bougiedure, Comte de Chevreuse. Some historical examples to support this:
Armand Jean du Plessis, Duke of Richelieu
Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier
Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, Viscount of Turenne
Charles de Lorraine, Duke of Guise
Non-nobles had a Christian names and a Surname although the surname could include the 'de' preposition.
Garrett
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Aug 13, 2021 10:14:48 GMT
Although to make this one more complicated, Armand Jean du Plessis, Duke of Richelieu was obviously known as Cardinal Richelieu. No idea how common that was though.
This does bring up an interesting question of whether it's actually wrong that clergy are currently prohibited from titles. Thoughts?
|
|
)