|
|
|
|
|
November 9th, 2004, 11:16 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 860
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
Thank you for your concern! I even reconsidered travelling to T'ien C'hi to keep Soapy company; It would do my arm no good to overtax it now! Or was it leg?
|
November 10th, 2004, 12:18 PM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 654
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
Server is down again this morning
|
November 10th, 2004, 02:20 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 860
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
Restarted!
(Due to limbo having some problems with his connection, I fill in... Bribes accepted, of course! Mmmm... or [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Martini.gif[/img] or perhaps even [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Woman3.gif[/img] and [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Woman4.gif[/img]...)
|
November 10th, 2004, 10:23 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 860
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
Quote:
Jurri said:
Is it even possible to get a sub without distributing the master-password around, assuming that Ulm is password protected?
|
Anyone? I don't have a clue...
I guess I'll post a sub-search anyway, what's to stop the sub from playing with the masterkey anyways?
|
November 11th, 2004, 07:01 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
I've got a possible replacement. It's an old friend, who is fairly new at Dominions. The fact that I know him shouldn't pose any problems as he usually does what he thinks best - not what I tell him.
If we agree to take him in as the new God og Ulm, I'll have him post here, and bring him up to speed on the game so far.
|
November 11th, 2004, 09:12 AM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 860
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
I say that's just perfect. Anyone have an objection, be quick about it.
I have set the game to quickhost only, so that he can have the time necessary to acclimate himself.
|
November 11th, 2004, 11:04 AM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
i boarder ulm and am a war with man (Knudsen)
it would be like i am fighting the same guy on both sides.
just let him go ai and be done with it.
it would be the fairest for those who boarder ulm.
|
November 11th, 2004, 11:36 AM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
amendment
on new ulm
if the new ulm would agree not to attack ermor and/or if "man" was fighting a two side war this would work.
but i vote AI.
|
November 11th, 2004, 12:06 PM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
i say, let knudsens friend fill in as ulm. ulm has enough problems with ai pangae and indys. and if ulm would be ai also, then it would be way to easy for ermor to conquer dem northern lands. can we make non-agression-agreedment between new-ulm and ermor for a 15 turns? would that be ok for rex_havok?
|
November 11th, 2004, 01:59 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 860
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Stalings et al.
I'd say let Ulm make decisions for himself... He is not Knudsen (right? ), so it is not a given that he'll be attacking Ermor or anyone else... Although he does have only two neighbors and a substantial amount of gold and gems that have accumulated with his stales
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|