19 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough I think morally the right thing to do would be not to subscribe for this game, we cannot stop people from playing the game as it is supposed to be played. I cannot see why anyone would have a problem with, as you said, forgoing subscription for this game, as it does give them an unfair advantage. I'm sure that the people playing are civilised enough to realise this, and I hope that Rwingett and bufallobill and anyone else considering subscribing for this go will decide not to, in order to make it a fairer and more even contest.
The point isn't my non-existent "fiscal woes"; the point is you invited people from RHP to play in the game. Most didn't know that paying would give them significant advantages over non-payers in actual game play. RHP doesn't give subscribers an extra Knight or say non-subscribers can only promote to a Bishop. The rules are unfair and if I had thought pe ...[text shortened]... should not be allowed to subscribe in this game and everybody plays on an equal footing.
19 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou will not determine the internal policies of the Golden Horde through some "vote." If I feel it may be in my best interests to place a royal crown upon my head, then I shall maintain that option. You can implore other realms to forgo that right if you wish, or organize an alliance against royals, or whatever other steps you wish to take, but the decision on whether the Golden Horde becomes a royal realm or not will reside solely with the great Khan.
The point isn't my non-existent "fiscal woes"; the point is you invited people from RHP to play in the game. Most didn't know that paying would give them significant advantages over non-payers in actual game play. RHP doesn't give subscribers an extra Knight or say non-subscribers can only promote to a Bishop. The rules are unfair and if I had thought pe ...[text shortened]... should not be allowed to subscribe in this game and everybody plays on an equal footing.
The great Khan has spoken. There will be no more discussion on this matter.
19 Jan 06
Originally posted by Freddie2006The Golden Horde has no interest in making things "fair" for weak and worthless realms.
Although I think morally the right thing to do would be not to subscribe for this game, we cannot stop people from playing the game as it is supposed to be played. I cannot see why anyone would have a problem with, as you said, forgoing subscription for this game, as it does give them an unfair advantage. I'm sure that the people playing are civilised en ...[text shortened]... subscribing for this go will decide not to, in order to make it a fairer and more even contest.
19 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettYou pulled a "bait and switch"; Emma would be ashamed of your scumbag ambition to be royalty. Maybe you should switch over to Scribbles' side.
You will not determine the internal policies of the Golden Horde through some "vote." If I feel it may be in my best interests to place a royal crown upon my head, then I shall maintain that option. You can implore other realms to forgo that right if you wish, or organize an alliance against royals, or whatever other steps you wish to take, but the decision ...[text shortened]... he great Khan.
The great Khan has spoken. There will be no more discussion on this matter.
EDIT Wingnut: To fully actualize one’s freedom requires equality, for freedom without equality is nothing but an empty and useless concept.
19 Jan 06
Some troubling (and interesting) things happened this turn.
1. Aragon, Morocco, France, Norway and Sicily failed to conquer any realms, but most, or all, of them made proclamations. So I know their orders went through. I can only assume that those realms did not understand how to move their troops and that their marching orders were invalid. Woe to them.
2. I am exasperated with the GMs. They put someone in as players for Denmark and Aquitaine, but not the players I requested. I don't know who these people are. Probably non-RHP players. I don't know if this can be undone or not. We may be stuck with those two.
3. I have updated the map for turn 2. I cannot guarantee it's 100% accurate, however. If anyone notices any errors, please bring them to my attention.
4. Congratulations to a few players for making some daring amphibious assaults. Especially the Hafsids, who invaded a non-adjacent province (Tarabulus).
19 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettMap errors:
Some troubling (and interesting) things happened this turn.
1. Aragon, Morocco, France, Norway and Sicily failed to conquer any realms, but most, or all, of them made proclamations. So I know their orders went through. I can only assume that those realms did not understand how to move their troops and that their marching orders were invalid. Woe to them amphibious assaults. Especially the Hafsids, who invaded a non-adjacent province (Tarabulus).
Two from my area of the map: 1. Venice has taken Friuli, just north of the capital;
2. Rome is shown on the map as controlled by Sicily, but it is still listed as locally controlled albeit with no troops. I can only assume Phlabby attacked, but Pope Ivanhoe the Paranoid's forces managed to wipe out the invaders while dying to the last man. How Masada-ish.
19 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI've fixed it. Rome is still independant. Phlabby failed in his exploits. Ivanhoe inspired his troops to fight to the death.
Map errors:
Two from my area of the map: 1. Venice has taken Friuli, just north of the capital;
2. Rome is shown on the map as controlled by Sicily, but it is still listed as locally controlled albeit with no troops. I can only assume Phlabby attacked, but Pope Ivanhoe the Paranoid's forces managed to wipe out the invaders while dying to the last man. How Masada-ish.
19 Jan 06
Originally posted by rwingettOops. Guess I was wrong. I tried to hire one on the first turn and the game didn't tell me I couldn't. It was a mild disappointment for me to find I couldn't recruit them after all! It would have been nice to know that before turn 1 was resolved. Oh well. I hope I wasn't charged for him.
Yes you do. From the rulebook:
[b]* Royalty players can have up to 5 commanders, while commoners may have none.[/b]
19 Jan 06
Originally posted by Freddie2006I don't know about the morality of it all, but I would support your suggestion. But we need 100% concensus.
Although I think morally the right thing to do would be not to subscribe for this game, we cannot stop people from playing the game as it is supposed to be played. I cannot see why anyone would have a problem with, as you said, forgoing subscription for this game, as it does give them an unfair advantage. I'm sure that the people playing are civilised en ...[text shortened]... subscribing for this go will decide not to, in order to make it a fairer and more even contest.