Originally posted by buffalobillThe GM, in my experience, rarely gives replacement players hopeless positions. Yours wasn't, but sort of is now. On the up-side, less and less of your lands are now controlled by a bot.
I'm back. Reading through the thread, am I right in assuming that Saxony has been a bot since I left? This is disappointing, since I gave the GM a week's notice.
Landless and clueless.
And by back, do you mean back in the game? I've never heard of that happening, but it would be better than bots-a-go-go. I played one game where there were 15 realms left and only seven of them actually being played. Sad.
Welcome back, in any case.
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobillWelcome back, buffalobill...Your departure came as something of a shock. What were you expecting the GM to do?
I'm back. Reading through the thread, am I right in assuming that Saxony has been a bot since I left? This is disappointing, since I gave the GM a week's notice.
Have you been receiving turnfiles? Saxony's position is unenviable, but sure to improve with its leader at the helm.
Originally posted by StarrmanKhan, do you understand NOW why I offered to forego a spot in the winning coalition? I can't speak for anyone else, but Aquitaine will not sign a victory coalition until Castile says there's been enough fighting. If that means the complete destruction of the Horde, I will understand, given the abuse you have heaped upon him.
Whilst I may not have taken provinces, I have endlessly conveyed troops to the battlefields where my allies chosen to fight. I have supported their every endeavour with total commitment. My lack of gold does not match my involvement in the game.
Originally posted by GottschalkNah, back from being away. The GM said he would find replacement players for both my MD and NE games. I guess he didn't.
The GM, in my experience, rarely gives replacement players hopeless positions. Yours wasn't, but sort of is now. On the up-side, less and less of your lands are now controlled by a bot.