We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
omfg, i cant seem to be able to reply, my last three attempts got ruined when i click the forward line button and automatically searched for the next letter i typed grrr. I agree with all of the above, the issue is that i dont actually remember if the pagan i was fighting dowed me or if it was crusade bait.
omfg, i cant seem to be able to reply, my last three attempts got ruined when i click the forward line button and automatically searched for the next letter i typed grrr. I agree with all of the above, the issue is that i dont actually remember if the pagan i was fighting dowed me or if it was crusade bait.
Again, since it would be optional there's no reason to try and determine which bonus is the best. If we have a gold alternative though it could be increased as the game progress, say every century(1500G for the 1100's, 2500G for the 1200's etc.).
Re: GM-ship; I would accept the role as stand-in GM, if asked. However I just want to point out the possible pitfalls to have a powerful nation as GM, so I would like to have a "Harpy", to control me so that I do not do anything wrong or biased, for that Varyar would be quite good or even Sid.
The current problem would be that the 'real' head honcho, binTravkin, seems to have vanished from the surface of the earth and is therefore not able to simply name a new GM. I would suggest this: since both you and Sid doesn't mind being GM's, how about a GM Triumvirate? I would suggest you Lurken as head GM and me and Sid as 2nd GM's/harpys. That ought to ensure that there's always enough people to keep an eye on the game while not putting too much of a workload on anyone. How does that sound?
Maybe we can hash it out now, AFAIK, a pagan who dows you are fair game, AFAIK if your alliance partner calls on you versus a pagan it is fair game. Then some more...
- one is only allowed to bash heathens on the same continent* during (any) crusade. At the moment crusades ebb out you immediately send WP offer. If you are unable to send WP at that moment because of other pending peace, you do it when/if the pending offer is turned down. If the WP is turned down, player must announce it (and I will only believe it if it's realistic, not like Jatviags turning down Polish WP) and then it's fair game for all until the target realm is dead.
IIRC Sid/Vlad said that this rule was somehow modified so that you were allowed to finish a war against pagans even if Crusades end. I'm not familiar with such a change, or when it was supposed to have taken place. Does anyone else know?
IIRC Sid/Vlad said that this rule was somehow modified so that you were allowed to finish a war against pagans even if Crusades end. I'm not familiar with such a change, or when it was supposed to have taken place. Does anyone else know?
Well i don't remember if it was changed or not, but from the first seccion when i changed for a while to Sweden, i DoWed the estonians... months later the crusade was over and was still at war. I remember that i was authorized to conquer those pagans, can't remember who told me that though.
Again, since it would be optional there's no reason to try and determine which bonus is the best. If we have a gold alternative though it could be increased as the game progress, say every century(1500G for the 1100's, 2500G for the 1200's etc.).
The current problem would be that the 'real' head honcho, binTravkin, seems to have vanished from the surface of the earth and is therefore not able to simply name a new GM. I would suggest this: since both you and Sid doesn't mind being GM's, how about a GM Triumvirate? I would suggest you Lurken as head GM and me and Sid as 2nd GM's/harpys. That ought to ensure that there's always enough people to keep an eye on the game while not putting too much of a workload on anyone. How does that sound?
Well i don't remember if it was changed or not, but from the first seccion when i changed for a while to Sweden, i DoWed the estonians... months later the crusade was over and was still at war. I remember that i was authorized to conquer those pagans, can't remember who told me that though.
well, now that i think about it, most of the time, bin was the person with whom i spoke so probably he was the one who told me, it's not an acussation anyway.
About the AAR thing, i support the money option that varyar said
So far the list isn't big, I would like to have some pagans restored, due to possible but impossible to know whether it was a rulebreaking or not.
And they would probably just have fallen a little later during the second crusade.
At this point in time, the only certain edit is to remove the claim on county of Verona for Naples(Sander). By the weekend we will know if there shall be any AAR bonuses handed out.
well, now that i think about it, most of the time, bin was the person with whom i spoke so probably he was the one who told me, it's not an acussation anyway.
Well, let's assume we won't know who said exactly what. I guess the real question would be this: even if such a change to the rule in question has been authorized, shall we maintain that change or revert to the original rule, from the next session onwards?
Well, let's assume we won't know who said exactly what. I guess the real question would be this: even if such a change to the rule in question has been authorized, shall we maintain that change or revert to the original rule, from the next session onwards?
