WW1 Interactive

[Hepcat]

OK, the Hepster has returned from the beach and is ready to rejoin his comerades on our crusade to liberate the European continent from Entente opression.

[Prince Cobra]

Er... Warlsuter, I think you missed the other two.

Warluster, my main army was against Constantinople. Why not a singlle word was mentioned about them???

Warluster, how the USA could conquer something from Japan??? After all no more than 2 months have passed since their joining in the war. And if we look at the WW2 the Japans were fighting very well and the offensive was slow.

I think the Ottoman army is almost defeated: so the frontier in Egypt did not exist now. Probably also the one in Turkey.

[Marshal Murat]

As a final act from Britain, we are giving command of all armed forces to France, so they may be able to carry out this war to the fullest extend..

Stephen Asen, if you feel compelled, please post my PM to you about Quitting.

[Motep]

As a final act from Britain, we are giving command of all armed forces to France, so they may be able to carry out this war to the fullest extend..

Stephen Asen, if you feel compelled, please post my PM to you about Quitting.

Your trust is in good hands. Can you Pm me your current troop positions and strenghts?

[Prince Cobra]

I just don't like it. I don't like how Warluster has allowed such radical actions.
There is a difference in 17th Century Interactive and WW1.
In 17th Century, there are no breech-loading rifles, no tanks, no ironclads. In WW1, we are already getting tanks into the field, probably a year before they were supposed to have been thought of. We have airplanes, and a bunch of other stuff that takes away from the game.

Everyone is trying to go against historical accuracy so badly that it's not about countries personal wants or needs, it's about 'Bash the F%&$ Allies and re-write history!'
I don't see how getting Argentina or Chile, or Denmark or Norway is really a problem. If Warluster thought it was historically inaccurate, then he shouldn't have made them my Allies!

I'm dropping out because the game has become a sour taste in my mouth. I say you 'invent' an atomic bomb, smuggle it into Berlin and blow the place to smithereens. Or even better, build fighter planes of the 21st Century, or build a MOAB.

I'll tell you this, give it up and get everyone pissed off about not having a conflict, leave, or put up with it.
Your choice.
I'm gone.

The will of my friend and Ally is done.
I find it very sad MM will not partcipate in the Interactive. Bye, MM!

[Csargo]

I just don't like it. I don't like how Warluster has allowed such radical actions.
There is a difference in 17th Century Interactive and WW1.
In 17th Century, there are no breech-loading rifles, no tanks, no ironclads. In WW1, we are already getting tanks into the field, probably a year before they were supposed to have been thought of. We have airplanes, and a bunch of other stuff that takes away from the game.

Everyone is trying to go against historical accuracy so badly that it's not about countries personal wants or needs, it's about 'Bash the F%&$ Allies and re-write history!'
I don't see how getting Argentina or Chile, or Denmark or Norway is really a problem. If Warluster thought it was historically inaccurate, then he shouldn't have made them my Allies!

I'm dropping out because the game has become a sour taste in my mouth. I say you 'invent' an atomic bomb, smuggle it into Berlin and blow the place to smithereens. Or even better, build fighter planes of the 21st Century, or build a MOAB.

I'll tell you this, give it up and get everyone pissed off about not having a conflict, leave, or put up with it.
Your choice.
I'm gone.

The will of my friend and Ally is done.
I find it very sad MM will not partcipate in the Interactive. Bye, MM!

MM has many good points that I've been saying for the entire game. Something needs to change here.

[Warluster]

*sigh*
Well thats two players out, I think it may be time to finish up this interactive, who agrees?