481
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Fire Emblem on Forums (FEF), IC/Game Thread
« on: March 29, 2013, 08:12:04 pm »
Daniel will hold is position at the entrance of the windmill
Bay 12 Games Forum
- April 21, 2024, 11:24:33 pm
- Welcome, Guest
News:
March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
482
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Fire Emblem on Forums (FEF), OOC Thread.
« on: March 29, 2013, 08:08:47 pm »
HERE gonna read latest turn + moves then post
483
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 29, 2013, 11:30:14 am »
Wait, I thought I used my influence making Yul like me more.
If I really still have influence, I put it all into Trilania to make them like me more
If I really still have influence, I put it all into Trilania to make them like me more
484
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 03:22:22 pm »
Yuppers
Edit: Well, any other player and their allies.
Unallied NPC nations are fair game obviously.
Edit Edit:
Oh, and mercing out units for offensive purposes is also a no-no
Edit: Well, any other player and their allies.
Unallied NPC nations are fair game obviously.
Edit Edit:
Oh, and mercing out units for offensive purposes is also a no-no
485
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 03:02:43 pm »
I'm not going to attack if this deal is accepted:
I will pull back my troops and retract my offer to Trilania.
Neither Ardas nor I will send troops on offensive actions except to take back conquered Inf to their original owner.
This deal is Null and Voided if Ardas or I am attacked by any other party.
Granted this is only the current version of the deal, I might alter it based on feedback.
I will pull back my troops and retract my offer to Trilania.
Neither Ardas nor I will send troops on offensive actions except to take back conquered Inf to their original owner.
This deal is Null and Voided if Ardas or I am attacked by any other party.
Granted this is only the current version of the deal, I might alter it based on feedback.
486
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 02:56:43 pm »
My proposed deal is not retroactive.
The neutrality starts when the deal is accepted, preferably before the next actionset.
Gonna be away for a bit though, playing some new stuff I got.
But very well, Is the deal better if I say it's only for offensive actions?
Ardas can defend Ghaz as much as he wants and even take back conquered inf.
But nothing beyond that.
Is that better?
The neutrality starts when the deal is accepted, preferably before the next actionset.
Gonna be away for a bit though, playing some new stuff I got.
But very well, Is the deal better if I say it's only for offensive actions?
Ardas can defend Ghaz as much as he wants and even take back conquered inf.
But nothing beyond that.
Is that better?
487
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 01:59:42 pm »
How's this for a deal:
I won't send in those 2 troops in this turn and cancel my offer to Trilania.
I won't send any troops against EITHER side of this war for any purpose as long as Ardas does the same.
If me or Ardas is attacked this agreement is nulled.
In other words I will stay completely neutral in this conflict as long as Ardas does too.
Is this agreeable?
I won't send in those 2 troops in this turn and cancel my offer to Trilania.
I won't send any troops against EITHER side of this war for any purpose as long as Ardas does the same.
If me or Ardas is attacked this agreement is nulled.
In other words I will stay completely neutral in this conflict as long as Ardas does too.
Is this agreeable?
488
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 01:48:31 pm »
I will not say whether or not I will retreat unless the GM says I will get the PC back from it.
If I don't get the PC back I am not in a position where I CAN retreat; I either need to gain some econ inf, lose some might, or both.
If I don't get the PC back I am not in a position where I CAN retreat; I either need to gain some econ inf, lose some might, or both.
489
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 01:36:59 pm »
This was a situation where not getting involved is a bad outcome for me.
Here's the way I thought of it:
Action 1: I don't get involved.
Outcome 1: I lose a ton of cash due to upkeep and have to attack someone RIGHT THEN or else, possibly getting screwed over by event.
Action 2: I attack with the 2 guys right then and lose them.
Outcome 2: I lose less cash next turn and there's someone who isn't defended next door.
Action 3: I attack with the 2 guys and I get through.
Outcome 3: I gain enough money to last the next turn.
With those actions and outcomes, what reason would I have NOT to attack?
This isn't even mentioning the diplomatic effects that it had.
Here's the way I thought of it:
Action 1: I don't get involved.
Outcome 1: I lose a ton of cash due to upkeep and have to attack someone RIGHT THEN or else, possibly getting screwed over by event.
Action 2: I attack with the 2 guys right then and lose them.
Outcome 2: I lose less cash next turn and there's someone who isn't defended next door.
Action 3: I attack with the 2 guys and I get through.
Outcome 3: I gain enough money to last the next turn.
With those actions and outcomes, what reason would I have NOT to attack?
This isn't even mentioning the diplomatic effects that it had.
490
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 01:18:48 pm »
Thing is, even if I lose those two Might without gaining anything, I still win as I don't have to pay their upkeep and I still beat my quest. No matter what I win and don't lose in this situation.
491
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 12:44:48 pm »
You don't have the PC to retreat the regiment.
Also with my allies you guys just don't have enough defenders.
Also with my allies you guys just don't have enough defenders.
492
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 28, 2013, 12:25:03 pm »
These have been hectic days for the land of Albion. The ruthless Jarls have disrupted the previous order and now the continent lies at war. Diplomats from the two sides have been trying to convince the Duke of Phantoni to join their side and this is the day he makes his decision.
I will use 2 PC to send 2 units to Finster.
I will also offer Trilania 3 gold and the right to loot or take as much of Finster's military infrastructure as they want if they send in 3-4 might as well.
I will use 2 PC to send 2 units to Finster.
I will also offer Trilania 3 gold and the right to loot or take as much of Finster's military infrastructure as they want if they send in 3-4 might as well.
493
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Mutual Assured Destruction - The Game
« on: March 28, 2013, 12:05:04 pm »
Eh whatever fine.
494
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Clout: Round One - The Land of Albion
« on: March 27, 2013, 10:12:17 pm »
In that case, I will use the 4 influence to make Yul like me more.
495
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Mutual Assured Destruction - The Game
« on: March 27, 2013, 12:27:27 pm »
Try #3
Code: [Select]
Great Socialist Republic of Texas 7 Econ 1 Money 8 Mili 1 Nuke 3 Spy
Trenchcoat Monarchy of Panspacia 7 Econ 2 Money 6 Mili 0 Nuke 3 Spy
Socialist States of Southern Slavia 8 Econ 1 Money 4 Mili 1 Nuke 2 Spy
Eurocorp 8 Econ 1 Money 4 Mili 1 Nuke 2 Spy