Here's how banishments work...Bear in mind that if you ask them to leave they can still arrange a secession and rebellion, and even if you ban them outright they don't go rogue for three turns. If you can't ban someone you can try exiling them, but here are some problems with exile, including the big one that you can't ban someone who's been exiled. Here are all the ways someone can prevent themselves from being banished. Be aware that banning someone popular can prove dangerous because of a protest backlash.
And that is not basic strategy. The complexities of multiple different judicial options and the interplay between them is not basic.
Foundation, I apologize that I have come across that way. I'm abrasive. Never gonna change. There's a reason I have my description as "Stodgy Old Man in Training." However, I have not intentionally harped on any minor points. I have addressed what I see to be the primary points, and I see most people repeating the same idea over and over: that teaching people the game is bad. I disagree. I think teaching people the game is good. In any way, through any means, it is an unmitigated good.
However, if someone could tell me
exactly where my article "crossed the line," that could be helpful. How is driving up the price for food specially complex? Are there dukes who don't realize they can change their price? Well, yes, and that's a cryin' shame. We should fix that. Does someone object to my pointing out that dukes can gain power through serving as liaisons between lords and foreigners? What's wrong with saying that? Or is it just that it was in an article called "Advanced Mentoring"? If we called it, "Vellos' Advice" you'd be fine with it, maybe? That seems silly to me. Does someone object to my discussion of feudal premiums? All I did was explain in mechanics terms how you could manage two different prices for food at the same time, and give reasons why that might be useful. I explained mechanics.
Perhaps people object to the section about withholding for lords. What part? Why? What about giving that advice is so bad? If I see someone being silent, I would prefer it if that was a strategy they chose. If they respond, I would prefer it if that was a strategy they chose: not just what they thought the only option was because they haven't played the game long enough to realize there are advantages to silence. Perhaps someone objects to my note for judges: that note was primarily mechanics-based. Does someone object to the undercutting section? That's primarily a discussion of mechanics concerning regional productivity, and then a fairly simple scenario arising from that as an example (in fact, an extremely simple scenario that could never really work IG). Or perhaps inverse bribes? Someone objects to reminding lords that they can exercise a price control?
Seriously, which part was it that people are objecting to?
