Printable View
Obviously you can't play with two people who has a vote. I should expect that either you give your imagined guy up completely, or you can come up with a way to retire him from politics and still keep him (perhaps now as your avatar's representative in the Diet when he himself isn't present as others - including myself - have done).
That's what I meant, so I'll give it a little more thought and then either restrict myself to RPing in the IC thread with a non-elector character or create an elector who "retires" when I get an avatar ;)
Excellent. Start as soon as you're ready and remember: the Osterreich are scum and Lothar is a criminal. Brandenburg-Bohemia is where you will find honourable Men to befriend! :laugh4:
Lothar is the criminal...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Nah, that's the Pope. L does come close, though.
Hmm I'll think about it, but this might have been the wrong way to ensure my friendship since I am actually from Austria :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
EDIT: Also, since I have the german version of the game installed will that make problems with the mods I need to install?
Why don't you tell us what you really think? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Well, okay, let me refine my comment: the Osterreich's political leaders are scum. Does that make it better? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
I fart in your general direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
It's not true to say that it was impossible to stop Zirn from taking Milan. I hope I had made this clear earlier to both parties, but if one had been at war with the other than it would have been decided via PVP Battle.
There seems to be three issues of contention:
1. Lothar taking control of settlements that haven't been granted to him.
2. Lothar refusing to pay money to other electors that is legally required of him.
3. Tristan being able to take Milan largely because he was able to get the save first.
Nothing about this is the fault of any of the players. I take resonsibility for any discontent for not acting early and decisively enough to avoid this, as none of these issues crept up out of nowhere.
1. Lothar did have control over Genoa, a regretable oversight on my part. However, it's now part of the Kaiser's desmense as per the rules (It was listed as his in the last turn's report) and he must take it by force if it is to be returned to him. Although it shouldn't have been necessary, personally I do like the idea that the Kaiser must manually assert his right to newly conquered provinces. This is the best solution I have seen to the conflicting interets of having a stable, understable system for allocating provinces while allowing for a rebel to appear and succeed if the system lacks defenders. Still, that was obviously not the orginal intent of the language. I think that in order to make it easier to understand how provinces are assigned it would be best to eliminate the part in rule 6.11 where new provinces are automatically given to the Kaiser and reconcile it into rule 3.4, which was supposed to be the sole rule dealing with new provinces. Right now they're both equal law despite their contridictions.
2. Lothar refusing to hand over money means breaking a rule of the Diet, not a rule of the game. The money must first come into his posession before he can hand it over to the Reichmarshall fund. Although the law can make it mandatory for one Elector to give money to another, all electors have the option to simply not give up money that's in their posession to another Elector. If an Elector does this, and will not listen to reason, he must listen to force. This aspect of money is different from provinces and soldiers/agents/ships work because simply because money itself is different to those things. It also doesn't mean an Elector can avoid paying for recruitment and construction. Simply put, payment from one elector to another can be automatic, but never mandatory. This should be clearly stated in the rules, and currently it isn't, which is my fault.
3. Leopold couldn't stop Lothar because of a failure to provide a rule that eliminates the unfairness of who takes the save first, which is clearly an OOC issue. I was hesitant to do anthing about this because it would have made making up a new rule on the spot to resolve it, but in restrospect it might have been better to require a PVP fight. In anycase, the rules are definitely unfair in this regard and need to be fixed. Perhaps whoever is of the highest rank should get the right of first refusal, i.e. counts must respect Dukes unless they are willing to declare war.
I can appreciate the frustation over this, there are concepts I had in mind when creating V&V that clearly are not adequately expressed in the rules.
Now, regarding our imminent PVP battle. Frankly I did not anticipate a battle ever breaking out when both sides are in the city. I'm going to implement this via an event, as we currently still have the rules that require giving all participants their own, separate turns which takes way too long. Also, whether or not you declare war in the post you take the save or return the save is immaterial, there's not supposed to be a warm-up period anyway. The way phonicsmonkey did it is against the letter of the law but with the spirit, so that particular law should be changed as well in order to avoid tripping up future players.
Finally, welcome aboard to mini and TheLastDays! To answer your question regarding made-up characters, you can do anything you want with them once you get avatars, but you will have only one vote and it will be in your avatar's name, not your previous character
Charming! I suppose it's too late to ask for Harold Merode back?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Yes it is. Harold likes the climate of Prussia better.
That's right. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Hey no worries Cecil, we can work it all out now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
Actually on point 3 I would say rather that my issue is that he was able to take Milan without having to go through me, despite the fact that IC I made it clear to him that I would stand in his way. On top of that he was able to waltz right back out again wtih 9k florins in loot which the Prinz had his eye on (the purpose for besieging Milan in the first place! I believe I should have been able to force him to show his hand by declaring war on me before he entered the city. The onus should have been on him to fight his way in.
However I'm happy to let this slide now if I get a chance to fight him for that cash now (as per my below comment).
6.11 came out of the Kaiser's re-assertion of control after the civil war. IC he was able to assert more power and control over the process of distributing settlements because he had all-but vanquished his enemies. So I think 3.4 should give way to 6.11 and the Kaiser should have automatic right of decision over all new settlements, until such a time as we might pass a Diet vote to amend the rule. Not sure if that's what you meant...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I'm happy for the rules to be clarified in this way and it makes sense IC that a rebel can decide not to hand over income. However, I think that if a rebel decides to hold on to a settlement in defiance of the Kaiser or refuse to pay income he should be automatically viewed as having declared war on the Reich unless there are IC negotiations to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
It's an interesting philosophical question about temporal precedence. Do all the actions that take place during one turn happen simultaneously, or in the order that the players take the save? If the latter there is unfairness as to who grabs it first. If the former we need some kind of decision-making process to handle such things as competition for precedence at sieges etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I like your idea of first refusal according to rank - but what if two Dukes are in a stand-off with each other? Does it become influence-based? And then if equal perhaps the influence of their combined House members? Or maybe the Kaiser is a tie-breaker?
And I think that if IC a rebel decides to ignore the rule then that should place him in an automatic state of war with the Reich and the other player should have the option of giving battle before the rebel enters the city.
According to your first point above Lothar should not have had control of Genoa anyway, so maybe the best thing is to say that the Prinz' army caught him outside the city and gave battle, before he entered?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
A separate question is where is Lothar's treasury if not in Genoa? And if I kill him do I get access to that cash?
Because if not I'm going to have to go back to my complaint about not being able to stop him getting in (and out of!) Milan to seize all that loot in the first place. It's the money I'm really worried about.
That all seems fair.
2. I find a bit confusing. I can get the idea that a Diet rule rather than game rule is being broken, but it's not always easy to tell the difference. The rule on handing money over is in the same section as rules on things like being barred from the Diet and who can move agents. People could come up with IC reasons for breaking any of these rules. For instance someone could say "I may be officially barred from the Diet, but I'm speaking there anyway and someone will have to try and stop me". But it's an rp thread and players could easily post at each other "The guards kick you out", "a flood of my supporters come in and beat up the guards" and so forth. Even easier in the latter case I could merge an army with a diplomat and say I intimidate or bribe him, causing him to make an unauthorized deal with a rival nation.
I doubt these would be allowed but there's quite a bit of grey area between what's a game and what's a Diet rule. Ask every player and a couple of the new guys that posted recently which is which and they'd all probably disagree on at least a couple of them.
I do like the idea of failing to follow certain Diet rules resulting in an automatic declaration of war...
3. I only really had two issues with this. The first is that Zirn was able to take advantage of regular elector status to be able to just take the save first but then ignoring multiple other rules claiming "special" status as a rebel. It seems like it should be one or the other. With the ruling on Genoa this has been negated. I'm perfectly fine with any of the alternate methods of deciding who assaults first or just using the old "whoever gets the save first" way these games have been done.
The other thing was that there was a rule dispute, you stated that if Phonics wanted to stop him he'd have to declare war, then it seemed as if Phonics didn't get a chance to do so. I would have liked to see him get more time to respond since it's quite likely he only didn't declare war sooner because he didn't know that's the only way he could stop someone entering the city. With the upcoming pvp battle this is less of an issue as well, but I wanted to make my concerns clear in case of future instances...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
A little bit ;) - that certainly works on modern day political leaders as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Well interesting times here...
I agree about the refusal of money... that's like the tax that a vassal pays. The rules clearly state that it might be IC-mandatory, but it doesn't just happen, the vassal has to take a deliberate action to hand over these taxes, so I'm guessing it would be the same for the moeny an elector gets from sacking a city.
On proposal #3. I'd say that it makes more sense that the right of first refusal concerning a siege should lie with the avatar who first laid the siege as it makes the most sense IC... His army is camped around the town so if anyone else wants to enter (or leave) - be it army or just a regiment of cavalry - he has to go through him. So... I agree it could be an IC thing that higher ranks have the right to take a city first, even if it is already besieged, by a count for example, but the Duke would then have to "enforce" his right IC, or just demand entrance to the city. The besieging player would then have to either give way to the demands or declare war, stating that, should the duke try to attack the city he'd have to go through him first... - I know that might slow down progress a bit, because these IC "negotiations" would have to be done before either of them could take the save but it would, imho, make the most sense IC and probably give way to some interesting situations... Also a little more IC discussions and tensions never hurt a game like this ;)
EDIT: Oh, about my question from above: Any experience with LTC on other-than-english installs of the game?
Don't mind him TheLastDays. He's just jealous that the Austrians have been so prolific. :clown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
All your base are belong to us, Zerg!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
TheLastDays, don't listen to him. The real political situation in the Reich is thus. We have our mighty and illustrious Emperor, about whom rumors of madness are highly exagerated. The criminal Zirn and his band of Frenchmen. The noble House of Austria, home of the Prinz (its head), as well as the current Marshall and Spymaster.
Of, and there's some place called Brandenburg-Bohemia, which I believe is run by some sort of traveling jester or fool. ~;p
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Or you might choose to join Provence to attach yourself to a charming and devilish rogue for a life of piracy, adventure and fun...
They say that madness is inheritable, and the Osterreich is run by the Krazy Kaiser's son. It's only a matter of time before he cracks too... if he hasn't cracked already.
It is true though that living with a "charming and devilish rogue" can seem very appealing. After all, who wouldn't want to be Han Solo's Chewbacca? I for one wouldn't. Imagine that both of them stepped into a bar. How many chicks do you think would choose to go for Chewbacca? Think about it.
And so you see, by process of elimination, there is only one option: Brandenburg-Bohemia. Become a part of the legendary Prussian military machine.
See what I mean? Obviously some court fool recently escaped from some minor monarch's retinue, now entertaining us with his nonsense sentences. :clown:
Oh well, I think I am able to form my own opinion on the political situation... :P
I like charming rogues... although I hated french in school that could be a problem ^^
EDIT: And just to keep the tradition of forgetting something in all my posts, which I have to edit in afterwards: What's keeping us from going any further in the game?
you might want to delay your decision until it is known which of Zirn or the Prinz will survive the upcoming battle...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
Oh that with the upcoming battle might also explain my second question...
Who said I was going to decide for a side right away? It could be a while before I get an avatar anyways, so no need to hurry ;)
More seriously, there is a tradition of new avatars joining the House of their character's "parent" (most current family members came up via adoptions). However, I'm not sure there's any rule requiring or even suggesting it has to happen, and Austria has been getting rather big.
Right now I'm not sure Lothar Zirn has any official status, except as owner of Marseilles. If he wins this upcoming battle and the Emperor is in a mood to parley that could chance. You have a rather large (mostly in avatars, not in land) Austria in the southeast. Note the Turks have a human player so that's a dangerous region. In the north the Margrave and his heir (the latter an Austrian transplant). I suspect by the next Diet or so there will be a third duchy, maybe based around Lothar if he wins, or someone else otherwise. The emperor has expressed the desire to bring back Bavaria.
Although the game can't continue until the pvp battle is resolved (and the gm is setting up an event for it) there's nothing really stopping us from continuing to roleplay. I think we've just been waiting to see what happens.
I see... but Lothar doesn't really have a great chance in the upcoming battle, right?
Is it allowed to take the save just to have a look at the current situation?
Yeah, you can do that.
So, am I correct that right now Lothar is kind of "besieged" by the Prince? I mean he is locked in the city, just before the prince attacking him right?
Dont be so sure - the forces are not that unequal and Tristan is as wily as ReynardQuote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
Turkish comment:Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
I'm afraid to attack the Reich because Tristan controls at least one unit. Even Jalal the Unstoppable doesn't want to touch that with a thousand foot minaret.
Yeah my last question was kinda for roleplay reasons more ;) but good to know...
and the turks should really stay out of this as long as there is a unit of worn out levies in the Reich, even uncontrolled by anyone :P
23 turns later... :evil:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
That sucks... I needed to do some last minute changes but was awaiting an answer from Cecil before that... I thought the turn was still onQuote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I kind of thought we still had the battle/event this turn as well. And I know Nightbringer was waiting on info before taking the save.
The only difference is that instead of interacting with the game directly, you do it by sending orders through me so I can resolve them simultaneously. This eliminates unfair advantages from someone taking the save first, without prolonging the turn any further like the normal rules. Though I could allow construction and recruitment in settlements to take place as normal, if that makes things easier. Also I've updated the save in the Saves Thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
but if we're going to battle immediately there's no time for construction and recruitment right? I mean when I entered Genoa I declared war and intended to immediately attack Lothar. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something.
EDIT: I don't mean to come across like I'm picking holes in everything, but I'm just really confused about what is supposed to be happening...effectively 18 months have now passed since I entered Genoa and we haven't had a battle yet? It's a bit weird...also he has been able to spend some of the money I don't think he should have been able to get in the first place!
Anyway, Happy Easter, hope you're having a nice long weekend.
I apologize for the inconvenience, but I really wanted to try out these new rules. I think we can all agree that the initial Civil War dragged on for far too long, and as it stands those rules are still in place. No one will be able to recruit any new units before the battle starts. As for the 18 months... That's so heavily abstracted in this game that I don't think it can count for anything. The characters aged six months in those eighteen, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
Map is posted, along with an updated word document with smaller unit cards sized for the map.
Where did the ships come from then? This whole scenario is predicated on there being some 'hesitancy' which allows him to 'slip away' yet again and hire merc ships. I don't agree at all, there was no hesitation - I marched into Genoa and immediately declared war on him fully intending there to be an immediate battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I don't think there should be any chance of escape onto ships. We should fight, straight up, winner takes all.
EDIT: also, I got to Genoa second, so if anything he should have to fight his way through me to get out. (Like he should have had to do at Milan, after he should have had to fight his way through me to get in).
Seeing all the resentment my behaviour seems to bring, let's just declare that upon Leopold's entry into Genoa, Lothar surrenders unconditionnally and be done with it...
Why is there a problem? The way I understood Cecil's post and battle-thread, Lothar has to fight to get out, right? So what's the deal?
No, please, lets not. The ships might need an explanation/justification, but I don't think that we should let OOC issues influence IC decisions. If you still wish to surrender, then you should do it because that makes the most sense to Lothar, and not to appease someone OOC.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
In truth, it makes sense both IC and OOC... So let's not bother with this...
I'm sorry Cecil had to go through so much work but I don't think this could work out... If ever Lothar managed (through luck or skill) to escape the Genoan trap, it would leave Phonics (and others as well, perhaps) with a sour taste...
I'll try and have an IC post up to explain the surrender...
Aw, I was looking forward to the battle. Perhaps I will have to rebel after all! :laugh4:
I don't want to spoil anyone's fun here. I'll just shut up and we'll fight the battle as Cecil has laid it out.
Neither was it my will to ruin yours, Phonics... Which I think I did nonetheless... Of this, I'm sorry but for now, I'll just roll over and submit...
To be honest I think I'd feel worse if you surrendered than if we fought and your character escaped. So let's go ahead and fight the battle, it will be more fun that way for everyone.
I feel I should apologize to everyone (particularly Cecil) for my moaning behaviour. Whatever the rights and wrongs there comes a point where you have to let something go and I passed that point without realising it.
In my defence I'm tired and working too hard (this is my third city in as many days and I leave again tonight), taking things too seriously and I should have slept before posting.
I've been contacted by PM by Cecil and explained my PoV to him... I don't hold any grudge and completely understand why you may have felt "cheated" by my taking of Milan under your nose (To be true, I was sure you'd take it before me but felt I had to make a point and lay siege nonetheless...)...
My choice of surrendering is not only OOC but IC as well. I explained it to Cecil and I'm ready to explain it to you as well.
I think the whole thing could be resolved through a good write-up between the three of us and I'm looking forward to it :2thumbsup:
I think we can get a cracking story out of all this. When I next get some proper downtime I'll start to write something and send it to you so we can collaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
No battle? That's it, TheFlax's character, I declare war. You can have half the units in the stack I'm in, or if their rightful owners protest, our bodyguards can just run at eachother. :clown:
That's the spirit! Come on, guys, chant it with me: We want blood!
We want blood!
We want blood!
We want blood!
You might still get some if only by the tankard rather than the tun-load...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Btw, co-op story in under way and off to a good start
Yes, stand by for a series of stories which will tell the epic tale of the Prinz and the Provencal.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Tristan_
As a quick note, Cecil requested this Emergency Session to address issues that have stemmed from recent events that I'm sure you can guess. Since I was going to call one anyway to be Kaiser-y and annoy you with my interpretations of the rules, this fit in well with my plans.
I've been avoiding V&V for a week-ish due to a particularly nasty set of finals, but those are for the most part behind me and I will return to my previous level of activity.
Sorry guys, finals grabbed ahold of me in a way I didn't expect. It's late where I am, and even though it's too late I'm going to post my proposed rule changes tomorrow so we can get a discussion going. Normal gameplay will resume soon.
All right, here are the rules I'd like to change/ add. Everyone, please let me know what you think.
1. Any time when two players are besieging a province with seperate armies, there is a clear hierarchy over who gets priority in assualting the settlement and claiming the spoils of war. First, the player with the high ranks gets higher priority, as follows: Kaiser, Prinz, Duke, Member of the Kaiser's Court, Count. If this is not sufficient, the tiebraker will be he whose army has the higher upkeep.
2. The last sentence of clause C in Rule 6.11 will be removed. In Rule 3.4, the following sentences will be removed:
In it's place, the following will be added:Quote:
The session after a province is conquered, the Diet will automatically vote on granting the conqueror, which is defined as the General leading the army which first entered the settlement, the province as a fief to be held by him and his successors in perpetuity. This vote requires a two-thirds majority to pass, and should it not pass than the province passes to the King who may grant it as a fief to any avatar as soon as he sees fit.
3. Rule 7.3 will be replaced in it's entirety with the following:Quote:
The conquering general initially assumes ownership. However, the Kaiser can either verify the general's claim or take the province for himself as his Imperial perogative.
4. An elector cannot be forced to use his property for anything, except that money for recruitment, upkeep etc. must be deducted from the treasury. When the Diet passes such laws that force Electors to use thier money, soldiers, etc for some common purpose, violation of such laws is violating the Will of the Diet, not the rules of the game.Quote:
Players who are at war no longer take the save as normal. Instead, those at war must PM the GM with their orders each turn, including recruitment, construction, movement etc. The GM will implement the orders simultaneously at the end of the turn, and PM the partcipants the results.
Well, I think that the first to rules emphasize the OOC too much and make no sense IC...
For the first one I would still suggest, that the character that first arrives gets first priority to take the besieged settlement... We would need to work out a way to enforce "IC priorities" of course... but IC it just doesn't make sense, that someone could just "march" through an already besieging army and take a settlement himself...
TO number 2 I would suggest to add something like, that the character has to accept the Kaisers claims IC and if he doesnt it would automatically put him to war with the Kaiser (and the Reich), but IC it would certainly be possible... after all it's his army that's stationed in the town
3 and 4 seem fine to me...
"I am the Kaiser, so step aside, for I shall take this province, you lousy little Count". Sounds okay to me IC; just having whoever besieges first takes it would just benefit the guy who was lucky enough to take the save before the other guy. If the first doesn't make sense IC, then that is just IC lunacy. Of course, there is the middle ground, where the ranking is only used if they besiege the settlement the same turn, but I don't know how you'd justify that IC.
Rule 2 I agree with you on, TLD, except for it being an automatic DoW. The Kaiser might be too weak to enforce that, or not willing to accept a new enemy in his situation or whatever.
3 & 4 also have my support.
Edit: I checked out the save, and I see that a unit of spear militia has been added to the recruitment roster in Prague. I suspect Nightbringer did this for the Reichmarschall position, as he had asked; the problem is that I never gave him permission to do this, so it's a breach of the rules. However, I had intended to disband one unit of town militia in Prague and raise a spear militia in their place, but I forgot to do this when I took the save. So, Cecil, could you before you continue the turn disband one town militia in Prague, and put the spear militia on my tab instead of the R.marsch.?
Well you're right, so I'd say if someone lays siege and no one else lays siege during the same turn, we can assume that he has sieged first, even if someone sieges the next turn or later, so I would say in this case the one who was there first has first right, while the higher ranking character that comes and pays siege the next turn can still IC enforce his "right" to take the city, but of course the one who arrived first could disagree and they'd have to fight for it... or the higher ranking character lets it go away...
And to rule number 2, after thinkinga bout it, I agree, it shouldn't be automatic. When the Kaiser says "I'll take that." the character can either say "here you go" or "No way" and then the Kaiser can of course decide to enforce his claim if the subordinate refuses ;)
Sorry for the delay guys, but I've run into a problem with a CTD that's prevent the turn from moving forward. I've checked and it's not caused by a settlement revolting, and it seems if we go back to turn 32 it doesn't occur. The only thing I can think of is to ask around and see what would cause a Hotseat CTD in Lands to Conquer, but since there's no certainty of success I'm thinking it's best if we just revert to the end of Turn 32, and redo Turn 33. Are there any objections to that?
as long as we just replicate what already happened I'm fine with it
I'm fine with that
No problem here
No, I'd rather not be able to play at all. :clown:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The story of the Prinz and the Provencal is complete.
New save has been posted. In order to minimize confusion, let's not worry about people repeating their moves exactly and just have everyone act as they see fit. The exception is Lothar, where the militia has returned to Marseilles and begun construction of Wooden Walls.
Speaking of which, congrats to phonicsmonkey and _Tristan_ for for the coop story, it was very good!
It was a great story. :yes:
Before taking the save, wasn't there going to be an emergency Diet session, or did Zirn's "capture" mean it's no longer needed.
Also, I note again that I should be getting money from Innsbruck and hired some dismounted knights. ~;p Also, I think I should have gotten money from Zagreb last turn, at least if I understand things right (it's mine until and unless the Emperor stakes his claim).
There already was an emergency session.
At some point, the save reverting to a previous one where the CTD was present, and as a result the saves were invalidated. Rather than ask people to redo their moves for a third time, I decided to move the game along as is, doing what recruitment I could. Because Zagreb required a battle, it remains in Hungarian hands and as a result there was not the money to hire the dismounted knights.
Finally, the idea of requiring the Emperor to stake his claim was an idea I had, but it was not put into law and is not in effect.
Wasn't that the reasoning? for money from Genoa going to Zirn for those turns? It was even put into that OOC rule you proposed that we never got to vote on.
I've still been missing Income from Innsbruck for multiple turns, despite bringing it up from time to time.
Well, I guess soon it will be time for the Battle of Zagreb, Mark III... At least I wasn't attacked by that wandering Hungarian army nearby.
The issue with Lothar and Genoa was simple ignorance on my part. I added to the OOC rule because I really did like the idea. I apologize for taking so long to remember to correctly add Innsbruck's income, but I prefer not to retroactively alter finances lest someone in the future the game is bogged down with attempts to nickel and dime things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
Glad you guys liked it! I hope it was some compensation for us robbing you guys of your bloodsport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I'm back from my vacation now and will take the save at some stage before the deadline.
Welcome back Phonics! ~:cheers:
Story to follow recent events within a couple days.
When will a new avatar emerge? :(
Pretty soon if Zim keeps killing them! :laugh4:
Seems that whoever I play in this game is destined to die during their first battle. :clown:
It is the game punishing you for betraying me, I'm sure. ~;)
When did that happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
At the very start of the game, during the civil war event. I was with the rebels, but betrayed TCV and joined you lot. Then I died right after a few months of inactivity. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey
I remember now. Hold a grudge much TCV? :laugh4:
"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names". ~;p