1 
the kid
on: 27 Dec 2010 [21:40]
Translate»
I think giving up cities or huts should be added to treaties. It can really save us reputation points. If the treaty is dissolved then the city or hut is not returned, just as if it was gold.
 1 
clayton92
on: 28 Dec 2010 [02:08]
(:s11:)
shadowdog1
on: 28 Dec 2010 [08:41]
I'm on the fence about this. What do others think?
konnormcleod
on: 08 Jan 2011 [13:53]
yes great idea but one problem people rarrly have city control points free. (:demolish:)(:rob:)(:attack:)
jkljosiah
on: 08 Jan 2011 [15:51]
I think this is stupid. Big players would just force small dudes to give them there cities.
konnormcleod
on: 08 Jan 2011 [16:26]
ya but if you don't have the city control points you cant have them give you there city
Artemis Cahill
on: 08 Jan 2011 [20:18]
I like the idea, makes the game more "real"
konnormcleod
on: 08 Jan 2011 [21:23]
agread
edbenedict77
on: 09 Jan 2011 [11:48]
(:s11:)
Klara2
on: 27 Jan 2011 [08:14]
This scenario would work fine if we weren't limited to the city control points because what's the point of being able to get a city from somebody when you cannot have it due to the lack of city control points?

On the other hand, had the city control point system been eliminated, then, as jkljosiah rightly pointed out, stronger players would be beating weaker ones out of their towns - to be honest, and not to make too much of myself, I'd be among the first to do this (:s7:)

Then again, there's little difference between beating someone out of his/her towns and beating someone's towns into porks.(:s17:)
Urathear
on: 27 Jan 2011 [10:34]
How about Resource Trade Treaties? It'd give a different aspect to the game besides just war you can build trade alliances and what not.
 1