Page 7 of 79 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 32 57 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 1561

Thread: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

  1. #121

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I got 143 turns in with 2.03a as the romans. One thing I can notice is after 143 turns spain hadn't changed since turn 80, 2 provinces for lusot, 1 for aur, and 3 for carthage with 2 rebel provinces. Other than that everything really started popping around turn 80-100 with factions actually going to war with one another.

  2. #122
    Darkan's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Searching...
    Posts
    1,328

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I was thinking, if at one point in the future Recruitable Generals will be in the main mod, would there be possible to have different bodyguard units for them?
    [DLV 6.2 AAR] - The Danish House of Hen - updated 20/08/18 - on hold
    [King of Dragon Pass AAR] - The Drakkar Saga - updated 14/04/18 - on hold
    Participate in the TotW!!! PARTICIPATE!!!
    DuckDuckGo

  3. #123
    b0Gia de Bodemloze's Avatar Europa Barbarorum Dev
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Makedonia, Greece
    Posts
    1,811

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkan View Post
    I was thinking, if at one point in the future Recruitable Generals will be in the main mod, would there be possible to have different bodyguard units for them?
    The only problem is that bodyguard units are using a unit slot. So we are using now 20 unit slots and if we add a second bodyguard unit (late for example or foot) we need minimum other 20 units as a result 40 unit slots. Well on the other hand the unit pool we have now is 500 units instead of RTW 255.
    Under the Patronage of Veteraan.
    Proud member of Europa Barbarorum 2 team, developer of EBNOM, developer of EB 1.21, developer of Diadochi Total War, developer of Hegemonia City States and creator of one modpack for Megas Alexandros.


  4. #124
    b0Gia de Bodemloze's Avatar Europa Barbarorum Dev
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Makedonia, Greece
    Posts
    1,811

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ribtickler View Post
    Any chance you could replace the teutonic family system for the normal family tree.I find it takes some of the gameplay away.
    I think you can change it easily. Hmm i will investigate it and i will post the results.
    Under the Patronage of Veteraan.
    Proud member of Europa Barbarorum 2 team, developer of EBNOM, developer of EB 1.21, developer of Diadochi Total War, developer of Hegemonia City States and creator of one modpack for Megas Alexandros.


  5. #125
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,879

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I am pretty sure that was on purpose so that it could simulate the voting system.
    Contributor in The AI Workshop
    AI/Game Mechanics Developer for Europa Barbaroum II
    Developer of The Northern Crusades
    Retired Lead Developer for Classical Age Total War
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance/MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  6. #126

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I was thinking about something, would it be possible to have an option of having one of the voices for each command be in English? When soldiers or armies respond to me in their language it's great, but if one of the responses was an English translation of that it would assist me in learning the language

  7. #127

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I'm wondering if there could be any sort of mechanism to weaken the spawned horde of a nation that forms a horde repeatedly in a certain window of time. In my current game the Nabataeans were evicted by the Seleukids, and then invaded upper egypt. They've been bouncing back and forth between two cities there, the egyptians are strong enough to retake their lost city, but have not yet managed to prevent the new horde from taking the other city (or recapturing the previous one). This has happened four or so times and is draining the egyptian military while not seemingly being problematic for the nabataeans. Weakening repeated hordes or some other method to prevent the horde feature from overwhelming superior but not quite superior enough forces through endlessly regenerating numbers seems like it would be good.

  8. #128

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    As I understand it, after playing for a brief period of time, confidence has replaced the Chivalry/Dread bar from the vanilla game, with dread and the population growth bonus removed, and influence has replaced piety. Does confidence increase happiness in settlements like the original chivalry did? And does influence now behave as it did in the vanilla game where it increased conversion to the faction's religion/culture, and is it like acumen from the original RTW?

    At first I didn't quite understand what the point of confidence was when command existed, but on reflection, it makes perfect sense that a General could be a tactical genius but has a reputation for dishonourable or duplicitous behaivour so does not inspire confidence in his troops, or on the other side of the coin, a general could be young and inexperienced but at the same time brash and full of vim and vigour.

    Now to get to my main point: I understand that the role of vanilla priests has been discussed endlessly here, but please indulge me when I make a suggestion in how they could be used.

    As I understand it, there were 3 main ways that one culture imposed itself upon another: Trade, Law and Settlement. The last is already represented in game with settler colonies etc, whereas the other two less so. I have no idea whether this is possible in the engine, but my proposal would be to separate the role of priests into two different agents: Trade Delegations who have their influence capped at say 3, to represent the limited effect trade could have, and Magistrates, who would be made immobile, but did not have an influence cap, to represent the role of those who imposed and enforced new laws upon conquered peoples.

    I don't know whether this conflicts with the goals or the verisimilitude of the mod, and I can't claim to be any sort of authority on the time period, but it seems plausible to me that these two roles would be used to ease a transition into the new culture.

  9. #129

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    This is a truly amazing mod, but I cant express how bad to gameplay the teutonic system is.To suggest I ignore all the factions that uses it makes me wonder why you put it in the mod in the first place!

  10. #130

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ribtickler View Post
    This is a truly amazing mod, but I cant express how bad to gameplay the teutonic system is.To suggest I ignore all the factions that uses it makes me wonder why you put it in the mod in the first place!
    Although I'm neither a history expert nor a member of the team that's easily explained - historical accuracy reasons. The factions using the teutonic system were not ruled in a dynastic way. Simple as that. I'd like to hear what annoys you so much about the teutonic system as I consider it a nice feature that makes playing certain factions rather unique and therefore adds to gameplay in my opinion.

  11. #131
    alin's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    1,714

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowwalker View Post
    Although I'm neither a history expert nor a member of the team that's easily explained - historical accuracy reasons. The factions using the teutonic system were not ruled in a dynastic way. Simple as that. I'd like to hear what annoys you so much about the teutonic system as I consider it a nice feature that makes playing certain factions rather unique and therefore adds to gameplay in my opinion.
    Yes, it's because of historical reasons and gameplay too.
    For example, in the germanic tribes leadership wasn't passed on only because of lineage, but it was earned and individual reputation(warrior skills, influence, etc.) is what mattered.
    And the teutonic systems allows us to portray that to some extend, the warlord with the most command points will be the new ruler.

    And apart from the missing family tree I don't see how it influences the gameplay to make it bad.
    It actually makes role-playing fun as you have to choose your next candidate carefully, make him successful on the battlefield, to have the biggest chance to be the new ruler when it's someone else's turn.
    Last edited by alin; June 20, 2015 at 07:04 AM.

  12. #132
    Cohors_Evocata's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    On the crossroads
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Ribtickler View Post
    This is a truly amazing mod, but I cant express how bad to gameplay the teutonic system is.To suggest I ignore all the factions that uses it makes me wonder why you put it in the mod in the first place!
    In addition to the example of the Germanic tribes given above, here's another one taken from the EB II export_buildings file. It concerns the text from the highest government level the Pritanoi have access to (the only monarchical government, which requires a reform to be unlocked) and gives some interesting information on the matter (and kudos to the guys and gals who wrote this, this clearly took a lot of time and effort).

    Warning: very long text incoming!


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Kingdom

    Risen from the ranks of the other men, resplendent atop his steed, he grips the reins of his mount as he grips the reins of the state. All hail the rixs! No longer will our people be held together in acts of building mounds and shifting soil about the dunum. Now the people, the state, the land all are focused upon the one, true king. His flanks protected by ever loyal horsemen he rides through his realm, handing out coins of gold and silver upon which he has stamped his sacred name and that of his ancestors. Not only to the health of our crops and harvest do we offer sacrifice, but now we offer them to the king also. For he, descended from heavenly heroes who walked upon earth, has constructed temples and sanctuaries to house the spirits of his ancestors. Now, at the head of his ever growing armies he expands our lands, bringing foreign folk beneath our yoke. The dreams, hopes and designs of our people now rest in the mind of one. All rests upon his dreams and wishes. All hail the rixs!

    Historically, for much of the Iron Age it seems that, with the exception of a few areas such as the Arras culture of Yorkshire, most communities in Britain had been largely egalitarian. In the final two centuries of the pre-Roman Iron Age Britain (c.100-AD43), however, this changed. In several areas of Britain, namely south central and south eastern areas, but also areas of the north, several kingdoms emerged. It is possible that kingdoms or other aristocratically controlled groups emerged before but it is only in the Late Iron Age that we have textual, epigraphic and archaeological evidence to support the idea that kingdoms truly existed.

    The exact reason behind the development of these kingdoms is still much debated, however, among the southern kingdoms at least, there are some recurring features which appear to have played a key part in this transformation. Late Iron Age Britain was subject to a variety of cultural, material and political influences which it had previously not been exposed to or at least exposed to on a much lower level prior. One of these was reinvigorated contact with the continent. At sites such as Hengistubry Head, Dorset extensive evidence for trade with the continent has been discovered. At first this trade was not on a particularly large scale and so is unlikely to have been as major a contributor to social and political transformation as previously theorised. By the 1st century AD, however, trade with the continent had certainly become a means by which the newly established elites were emphasising their power. In the south east of Britain, in the territory of the historical Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes, a new burial rite, the Aylesford-Swarling culture (after the two British towns where it was first excavated) developed. This cremation rite at times incorporated large amounts of continental material, such as at the impressive Lexden tumulus, where Italian bronzes, Gallo-Belgic ceramics and Mediterranean amphorae were added to the burial.

    One influence which likely had a highly destabilising force upon the Middle Iron Age British societies, and probably enabled the establishment of the new kingdoms, was the introduction of coinage in the second century BC. This gold coinage was likely introduced by Belgae, possibly as diplomatic payments, and soon found currency in many parts of southern Britain. Gold had been unknown in Britain since the end of the Bronze Age and its sudden reappearance would probably have had a major impact on the societies it was adopted by. The use of coinage as a means of reinforcing kingship appears to have been most prevalent in in the southern and eastern kingdoms of the Atrebates and Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes and to a lesser degree the smaller polities of the Kantiakoi and Regnoi. Elsewhere coinage appears to have been less important. In the Ikenoi kingdom, for example, although there existed coinage bearing the name of the Romani client ruler Prasutagos, it appears that massive gold torques were more important in affirming royal power, whilst in the northern kingdom of the Brigantes, home of the Romani allied queen Kartimandua, coinage was not used at all. Instead older means of display appear to have been employed.

    We know that coinage was integral to the creation of the new, Late Iron Age kingdoms in the southern regions as, after c.50BC, coinage began to be minted bearing the names of rulers, such as the Belgic fugitive ruler Kommios, in which the named individuals identified themselves as REX. We also know from this coinage that kingship was dynastic. Several coins, such as those of Karatakos of the Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes, or Tinkomaros, of the Atrebates, are marked with the name of the previous ruler, Kunobleinos and Kommios, respectively, and the letter F (for filius), indicating that the new king claimed to be the son of the previous king. In some of these cases it seems doubtful that the new ruler was in fact the son of the old, but it was clearly important to legitimise one's claim to the throne by claiming to be the son of the former ruler. At the end of the 1st century BC and start of the 1st century AD, the rulers of the Atrebates and Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes abandoned the old La Tène patterns and symbols which had existed on the earlier Belgic coinage and instead began to adopt Romani motifs and symbols. The first ruler to do this was the Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes king Taskiouanos. There is still debate as to why the British kings did this but it is possible they were receiving a Romani education as oboles (hostages) in Roma or sought to identify with the new, impressive power of Augustus. It is still unclear whether or not the coins were minted under the direct control of the kings or if the craftsmen who produced coinage were able to offer their services to multiple rulers at once. The distribution of coinage, however, has traditionally been interpreted as indicating the extent of individual ruler's power.

    Along with minting coinage and control of imported goods, religion also seems to have played an important role in the creation of dynastic kingships, at least in the case of the Atrebates and Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes. At sites such like Hayling Island, Hampshire, sanctuaries were established which likely served as foci for some form of dynastic cult worship. Structures which have been interpreted as sanctuaries existed in the Middle Iron Age, such as those excavated in the confines of the major hill-forts in Wessex, but the new examples of the Late Iron Age appear to have followed continental layouts and been of a distinctly different character. It also appears that, in addition to supporting kingship claims with coinage, imported goods and a cult, the new rulers employed military might to some degree. Both Julius Caesar and Tacitus mention the existence of groups of retainer horsemen who were led by Gallic and German leaders, including the aforementioned Tacitus, in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. These horsemen, known in Latin as comitatus, were oath sworn to their rulers and apparently very loyal. There is slight evidence in some parts of Britain to support the idea that such cavalrymen existed in the Late Iron Age. Some sites, such as Bury Hill II in Hampshire, or Gussage All Saints in Dorset, show evidence for an increase in horse remains or chariot fittings, respectively, whilst Caesar states that during his invasion of Britain he was confronted with 4,000 chariots of the British leader Kassiuellaunos.

    It must be stressed that kingship was not a natural evolution for the Iron Age Britons. Some peoples, such as the Durotriges, Dumnonoi and Korieltauoi who bordered these late Iron Age kingdoms and were subject to the same influences and stimuli as the kingdoms, to a lesser degree, did not develop into kingdoms but instead continued to organise themselves in the same way they had done in previous centuries. In fact the majority of Late Iron Age British communities do not appear to have developed into kingdoms and thus kingship was actually an exception not the rule for Late Iron Age Britain.

    Based on the numismatic evidence, assuming the distribution of coinage reflects the borders of the different kingdoms at different times, and the accounts of Romani authors, it does not appear that these Late Iron Age kingdoms were particularly stable. The key to stability in these kingdoms appears to have been strength and willpower of the individual ruler, rather than the inherent design of the state. The numismatic evidence suggests that the borders between the Atrebates and Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes shifted repeatedly, whilst smaller groups such as the Kantiakoi were often subjected by larger polities. Several British kings are recorded as having fled to the Romani seeking aid. The earliest, Mandubrakios of the Trinouantes, fled to Caesar during the latter's second invasion of Britain. Later Tinkomaros of the Atrebates also fled to Roma after the powerful Katuuellaunoi-Trinouantes ruler Kunobleinos (who even went so far as to style himself king of Britain) dethroned him. The flight of one late Atrebates king, Uerika, was to have fateful consequences for the Britons. In need of a quick military victory to sure up his position as emperor, Claudius welcomed Uerika with open arms and promptly announced a conquest of Britain, claiming in part that he was helping the deposed Briton regain his throne.

    Even with the Romani in control of Britain the various British kingdoms were not entirely stable. Some, such as the Atrebates under their new ruler Kogidubnos, did remain loyal Romani allies. Others, such as the Ikenoi were stable for a while, but then heavy handed Romani treatment caused them to rise up under Boudikka. In the north the sprawling realm of the Brigantes, despite being ruled by a Romani ally, Kartimandua, became so temperamental that the Romani had to evacuate their ally from the clutches of her former subjects. If anything the emergence of kingdoms in Britain served to provide the Romani with a useful figurehead whom they could control and, if necessary, replace with a local magistrate. Only in the north, where the population was too small and the social and political structure too fractious to support Romani government, did the Iron Age Britons continue to be free.

    Strategy

    This is the highest level factional government. Once the pre-requisites are fulfilled it can be quickly established throughout British Isles to reflect the rapid transformation of Late Iron Age Britain. Because there is an elite now, one can recruit the best Pritanoi units. On the other hand it has a major disadvantage. Like the historical Late Iron Age kingdoms, it a far more unstable than the hill-forts. A very influential leader, or larger garrisons, is needed to keep settlements under direct rule of the "Riks" in line. So be careful and decide wisely!


    For a tl;dr version: basically, it seems that the kingdom as a form of society / government was likely mostly non-existent among the British tribes until the last two centuries of the Pre-Roman Iron age and even after its coming into existence remained less numerous than non-monarchical forms of societal order.
    I tend to edit my posts once or several times after writing and uploading them. Please keep this in mind when reading a recent post of mine. Also, should someone, for some unimaginable reason, wish to rep me, please add your username in the process, so I can at least know whom to be grateful towards.

    My thanks in advance.

  13. #133
    Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Germany ,NRW
    Posts
    1,178

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    .I remember in Eb1 one that certain provinces were limited in recruitment,some couldn't produce cavalry or ships is that going to be the same in late versions?
    In Eb1 it was also simliar with ports some provinces needed to build an expensive "building" so that they could be upgraded to a large port while others had natural habors suited for it.
    Elder Scrolls Online :Messing up the Lore since 2007...

    Well overhand or underhand: 3:50 Onwards...

  14. #134

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowwalker View Post
    Although I'm neither a history expert nor a member of the team that's easily explained - historical accuracy reasons. The factions using the teutonic system were not ruled in a dynastic way. Simple as that. I'd like to hear what annoys you so much about the teutonic system as I consider it a nice feature that makes playing certain factions rather unique and therefore adds to gameplay in my opinion.
    It doesn't make any sense. You can role play a new strongman on the rise by making him your heir. How realistic is it , to not know how old or how many children you have. Conquering provinces, while wondering if you`ll ever get a new FM pop up and so govern the said conquered province(s).Having no choice, but to send out armies with no FM,s. Not being able to plan long term because of a lack of knowledge concerning how many children are going to mature into FM,s,etc.
    Throw assassins into the pot and possible treachery and your at a disadvantage right from the start, compaired with a family tree using faction.
    I`d like to know if it`s just me who feels let down by this `teutonic` system.
    If I come across as disliking this mod , I apologise as that is far from the truth.

  15. #135
    Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Germany ,NRW
    Posts
    1,178

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    to not know how old or how many children you have.
    The children are not important.

    .Having no choice, but to send out armies with no FM,s.
    Really because I never had a shortage of FM's.
    Elder Scrolls Online :Messing up the Lore since 2007...

    Well overhand or underhand: 3:50 Onwards...

  16. #136

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Well here theres a lot of factions without familly tree. Not only teutonic system but basically all those who werent ruled by a dinastic familly. It makes sense but I agree its a bit of a pain not having a familly tree as you have no idea when you are getting new generals/FM.

    About shortage, tell me your secret because I have shortage every playthrough. Once I start conquering half the cities cant have a governor.

  17. #137
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Naples, Italy
    Posts
    532

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Just a suggestion - more a sudden idea, perhaps.

    I was wondering whether a generic "large/small town" battle map could be tied to those PSFs. I seem to remember you guys already told us we could as well roleplay those battles as fought outside small towns, yet if addressed this could greatly enhance the gameplay - at least in my opinion, and slow things down a bit, since you could conquer a region's main settlement, but not the minor ones, and viceversa. Occupying a territory would require more planning and resources. I know you guys are working hard on units and scripts - thank you! - and there's not much time/manpower to do so, but would it be feasible - at least as much as to be done in a even much later release?

    I seem to remember that in SS they changed PSFs models with others from Kingdoms campaign - could it be possible to change their model with what you already modelled for Large/small towns? According to what I see ingame, forts actually belong to one's culture - as they're named differently according to the owner, e.g polichne for Seleucids, deme for Koinon Hellenon...if this is tied to culture, well, battle models - I guess - would change as well, and therefore there shouldn0t even be strange bugs such as Parthian - held Roman cities. If that's true, we could even give the Nomads their own models, based on their camps/villages...therefore not breaking immersion.

    What do you guys think? I'd like to know if it's feasible, as it suddenly came to my mind. I apologise if it feels too ambitious and rather selfish on my behalf to ask you so Eagerly awaiting the Summer release, keep up the amazing work!

  18. #138
    b0Gia de Bodemloze's Avatar Europa Barbarorum Dev
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Makedonia, Greece
    Posts
    1,811

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by Roman Heritage View Post
    Just a suggestion - more a sudden idea, perhaps.

    I was wondering whether a generic "large/small town" battle map could be tied to those PSFs. I seem to remember you guys already told us we could as well roleplay those battles as fought outside small towns, yet if addressed this could greatly enhance the gameplay - at least in my opinion, and slow things down a bit, since you could conquer a region's main settlement, but not the minor ones, and viceversa. Occupying a territory would require more planning and resources. I know you guys are working hard on units and scripts - thank you! - and there's not much time/manpower to do so, but would it be feasible - at least as much as to be done in a even much later release?

    I seem to remember that in SS they changed PSFs models with others from Kingdoms campaign - could it be possible to change their model with what you already modelled for Large/small towns? According to what I see ingame, forts actually belong to one's culture - as they're named differently according to the owner, e.g polichne for Seleucids, deme for Koinon Hellenon...if this is tied to culture, well, battle models - I guess - would change as well, and therefore there shouldn0t even be strange bugs such as Parthian - held Roman cities. If that's true, we could even give the Nomads their own models, based on their camps/villages...therefore not breaking immersion.

    What do you guys think? I'd like to know if it's feasible, as it suddenly came to my mind. I apologise if it feels too ambitious and rather selfish on my behalf to ask you so Eagerly awaiting the Summer release, keep up the amazing work!
    If i understand correctly that you are describing is possible. For example in my modpack i change the model of watchtower for the village one.
    Under the Patronage of Veteraan.
    Proud member of Europa Barbarorum 2 team, developer of EBNOM, developer of EB 1.21, developer of Diadochi Total War, developer of Hegemonia City States and creator of one modpack for Megas Alexandros.


  19. #139

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    I like Roman Heritage's idea. That is if the battles really take place outside the town. There's more than enough town centre grindfests. By the way is it possible to remove the objective area from minor settlement fights? I bet my hairy that its hardcoded, but it never hurts to ask.

  20. #140
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Naples, Italy
    Posts
    532

    Default Re: Fans suggestion thread for future releases

    Quote Originally Posted by b0Gia View Post
    If i understand correctly that you are describing is possible. For example in my modpack i change the model of watchtower for the village one.
    Well, this would however imply changing the appearance of PSFs on the battle map, not just on the campaign map. Basically, there would be much more settlements to besiege...this would enhance the gameplay in my opinion. Would this be actually possible?

    Also, I think it should not have such a deleterious effect on AI, since it already thinks those as forts/settlements and normally besieges them in campaign phase. The issue it currently gets is on battle map, as it doesn't know how to handle those invisible borders - and the town square in open field issue is a big problem for balance. By making thse battles small sieges, it could perhaps even get beneficial for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samson224 View Post
    I like Roman Heritage's idea. That is if the battles really take place outside the town. There's more than enough town centre grindfests. By the way is it possible to remove the objective area from minor settlement fights? I bet my hairy that its hardcoded, but it never hurts to ask.
    However, if people already think there's enough sieges, it could be dealt with in another way Just thought there was some potential still to be exploited.

Page 7 of 79 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 32 57 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •