130 Ad

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

They sounds like a very good plan. Who edited Panzer32's original post so that it would be a good plan?

[Panzer32]

[Aggie]

Ya'll two agreeing. Impossible. . I know ghengis and Panzer can't just of written what I see above. If this is true, it must be a sign of the apocalypse.
Aggie

[Panzer32]

Minister of Hot Places orders

(a self-appointed position)

-Throw CrazyGhengis into the lake of fire
-Trow worker "Trip" there too to make sure KrAZiE gHeyNGySS stays down there

[Panzer32]

oh... change the name of "Sir Agent of Chaos" to "IIIrd Sir Agent of Chaos". I forgot to put the IIIrd in there when naming the unit initially.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Wait a minute.....

I am COW now,

Take ALL Numbers from in front of the units names.
Yeehaw! I can finally fix that!

CoW orders will be issued when we get the save. Its simply logic, I will not know how many units or what the strategic view of the battlefield is until our enemies have had their turns. Therefore I can not give optimum orders until I see our postion.

[Aggie]

Will do Ghengis. The main purpose of the numbers was to mislead RP about our numbers by making them think we had more "corp". At this point they serve no purpose. Though I have toyed with the idea of making sentences out of the troops if they line up. For example when we have the 10 units up north later we can put them on the coast with taunting message toward GS. One could be called "you suck" and the next one could be called "GS chickens". So the sentence is "you suck, GS chickens". Or we could called units near RP "Go, home, give up. Your wife is with MWIA". In my actually games I almost never name the units but internally. But I figured we could have some fun with our dear oponents. FYI I also told ND to give us a status report for the front when they get the save. That won't help with all our forces but will do for some. I also always waited until I had the current save also, to make actual orders.
Aggie

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

The numbers were used to make a military history like the US has, every unit's regimental designation has a history behind it, the most illustrious ones are last ones disbanded and they are always grouped with the units they have traditionally fought with. For example, after WWII and Patton's blitz of Europe Third Army had the most illustrious history. Hence Third Army was the one left active. The Pentegon, and all the Commands are units of Third Army.

Unfortunately, this plan was derailed by my being reactivated in RL so its kinda gone out the window now.

[Aggie]

Ok, I didn't realize the numbers went that far back in the game. Right before the RP attack I had suggested Naming such as I(1/10) and II(3/10) to imply that we had more than 1 group. Obviosuly this was never done(shows how rarely I actually look at the names). But your idea still has merit. Since these units have fought more or less together it is easy to have a designation for them. The Rider force down there could be the 1st and the 10 heading down in the future could have the 2nd designation. Or we could designate the northern defensive units the 1st and label these other something else. Just an idea. Or instead of numbers we could use names or area of intial assigment(#'s are more natural for me).
Aggie

[Panzer32]

I want a XXXII (32) in front of my units

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Panzer32
I want a XXXII (32) in front of my units

Then build 32 of them and the 32nd one will be the XXXII.

[Aggie]

We have a problem with cutting the iron. We have 14 turns left on the deal, and other than war there is no reasonable way to cut it. We have a harbor so cutting the road make no sense. If they pillage that source it would cut theirs not ours. We could build and upgrade them in the south is another option. This 156 after leo's and is plausable, except that we can't build horsemen until horse are connected but once horse are connect they will have iron, so that is out too. Both me and Darekill belive that using war for this purpose is an exploit and one we shouldn't use. An idea I have is this, we pillage both irons and then reroad them. Please suggest ideas.
Aggie

[Hot_Enamel]

Name of new rider from the Hill

Sir Rendah

[Hot_Enamel]

I think we discussed this before.
War was the only way to stop an trade.

It was the only method available to overcome the stupid Civ programming of only allowing 20 turns trades.

We can declare war... then offer peace on the same turn.
Its not an exploit... no more than pillaging iron to break the 20 turn rule.

Regs

[Panzer32]

I don't think a quick war would be an exploit at all. All we have to do is for ND to cancel peace (making war) then offer it accepted again. Then on our turn we accept and were at peace but the deal is canceled.

Now, if we really wanted an exploit, we would declare war on each other every 5 turns to gain the benefit of negative war weariness!