[Discuss] players that like orders :)

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 3 Mar 2008 at 19:27, fodder wrote:

> psymann wrote:
> 
> > Also, what role does the Army Sponsor have in all this?  As far as I'm 
> > aware, they have the powers of electing marshals in their army?  In 
> > which case, they're able to set themselves as marshals, give out orders, 
> > and then put the normal marshal back in place.  Is this also a boltable 
> > offence?
> > 
> > psymann
> 
> there's a simple solution to that bit.. lower the organisation when 
> switching marshals.
> 
> if it's not in already. of course.. I don't know how quickly 
> organisation is raised. but something along those lines will discourage 
> that kind of flipping around. Afterall, it's the sponsor's army.. they 
> can do whatever they want with it. if they can live with some IC penalties.

Marshals are intentionally a fluid position. That is why both marshals and 
seconds can be appointed and removed at will. To keep with the desired 
fluidity, you should not be penalized for appointing new marshals, so long as it 
is not on a frequent, short-term basis. i.e. if you only change once a turn, there 
shouldn't be any penalties applied.


-- 
Rob

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein