Tweet
So what happens to the end-of-game score rankings in Warlords? Who will take the place currently held by Augustus?
-
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF -
Nothing,
... WHO could be greater? They won't change that as it will go under their radar. If that's who you are in the game and you don't measure up, you'll just go down in mediocrity. Extra incentive, there. -
Marcus Aurelius
What I really want to know is that who used to above Augustus. In Sulla's gameplay example preview based on a pre-release version, he mentioned that acheived a rank of Augustus Caesar at the end of the game but mentions in passing that there are some higher!
Mystery!http://monkspider.blogspot.com/Comment
-
The highest rank should be Canaan Banana.THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTFComment
-
I can't remember: is Otto von Bismark on the list?Comment
-
Naw, not Conan (that barbarian). How about Groo (that other barbarian)?
I can't remember: is Otto von Bismark on the list?
You can't do that! He's already a civ LEADER!Comment
-
If you score really really high you can attain DrSpike ranking.
Comment
-
I don't think so, but Churchill is, who is also being introduced in Warlords.Originally posted by Prussia
I can't remember: is Otto von Bismark on the list?Comment
-
The top rank is going to be George W. Bush - that's why he wasn't included as a playable leader in Warlords, despite being an obvious choice.Comment
-
No GWB is reserved for players who somehow manage to get a negative score.Comment
-
LOL!Originally posted by Badtz Maru
The top rank is going to be George W. Bush - that's why he wasn't included as a playable leader in Warlords, despite being an obvious choice.
Lord help us. Which is exactly what I said back in 2000 . . . when he was, uhum, "elected."One of these days I'll make 501 posts, and you won't have to look at my silly little diplomat anymore.
"Oh my God, what a fabulous room. Are all these your guitars?"Comment
-
Obviously, GWB is not going to be included at all! It would be as divisive as giving religions different characteristics.Comment
-
Wrong. It would be far, far more divisive.Originally posted by Jaybe
Obviously, GWB is not going to be included at all! It would be as divisive as giving religions different characteristics.
"The human race would have perished long ago if its preservation had depended only on the reasoning of its members." - Rousseau
"Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer!" - Erich Honecker
"If one has good arms, one will always have good friends." - MachiavelliComment
-
I'm not so sure I agree. At this point the vast majority of people have come to a consensus on Bush. I don't think it would be divisive, for that reason. Four years ago? Even two? You bet. But with Nixonian approval ratings, how divisive would it really be?Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
Wrong. It would be far, far more divisive.
One of these days I'll make 501 posts, and you won't have to look at my silly little diplomat anymore.
"Oh my God, what a fabulous room. Are all these your guitars?"Comment
-
Well, what about next year? The point is that you don't mess with anything current or where the cement hasn't dried yet.Originally posted by rjwoer
I'm not so sure I agree. At this point the vast majority of people have come to a consensus on Bush. I don't think it would be divisive, for that reason. Four years ago? Even two? You bet. But with Nixonian approval ratings, how divisive would it really be?
Large groups of right-leaning, evangelical christians still support him, and in the media they are almost(?) as bad in their oh-so-holy self-righteousness as radical muslims (though not as violent).Comment
Comment