Agema Publications

A forum for the disscussion of the Play by Mail games from Agema Publications


The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Share
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Deacon on Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:20 am


I'm confused. I thought the spanish heir was a boy?

Either way, I think it remains a dangerous course for Spain. Infants need regents. Regents, by their nature, do not wield true power, but its proxy. They can, and were, replaced regularly.

This gives enemies of Spain a direct way to undercut them by attacking the regent.

But they've committed to the course, so that's where they are now...

Nexus06
Earl
Earl

Number of posts : 206
Age : 44
Location : Bologna, Italy
Reputation : 1
Registration date : 2015-04-14

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Nexus06 on Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:48 pm

Goldstar wrote:April 1704

Lord Palmerston once said only 3 people understood the Schleswig-Holstein Question. Prince Albert who was dead, a German Professor who had gone mad and he himself, but he had forgotten it.  In game 9 we have the Baden-Durlach question.

Ultra-Catholic Bavaria has agreed with Frederick VII Magnus of Zahringen, Margrave of Baden-Durlach, that the Protestant Margraveship will become part of the Electorate.  Protestant rights will be respected and the Margrave gains a seat on the Bavarian Privy council and 500,000 Talers a year, as well as a Dukedom and a further 500,000 Talers pension from the French.

A quick look at the map reveals that the tiny state is located west of the Rhine, directly across from the Austria enclave of Bresiach and would allow France access to it Fortress at Strassburg.

The Emperor has demanded that the agreement be put before the Reichskammergericht and Aulic Council, whilst hinting that Frederick VII Magnus of Zahringen must have converted to Catholicism in order to gain Bavarian and French Honours.  Effectively abdicating by the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia.

In order to force Bavaria's hand Austrian troops have occupied Baden-Durlach and the Margrave's son has met the Emperor in Vienna.  Bavaria has now withdrawn it troops from the Reicharmee and declared any attempt by Austrian or Reicharmee troops to enter Bavaria territory will be seen as an act of war.  France and Bavaria are of course allied.

On other matters the Spanish have allowed the French Army to enter Brussels, but the Dutch have declared the French must withdraw their troops to France or face war.  The Dutch are still entertaining King Charles XII of Sweden and his Army.

The English Fleet has returned to Brest to destroy it half built defences.

The French and Austrian Governments both appear to accept the baby Queen of Spain as the legitimate ruler, so the Succession still appears to be settled.

The Russians continue their war of words with the Dutch, whilst the Tsar bemoans the wests lack of respect for his modernising efforts.

Spain renounces it agreement with Venice demanding that all Spanish forces in Venetian service return to Spain.  The Doge denies there is any and states his intention to continue to honour the Concordia di Milano of 1700.

The Popes spokesman calls for an quick end to the Anglo-French war, but warns Catholic powers not to attack France, I wonder who he could mean?

The Mighty Lord Fong has remained strangely silent this month, no doubt plotting his next diabolical scheme.

As first thing Goldstar, thank you for the wrap up. I've found it usefull as always.

The Spanish succession is very interesting, and might bring elements for the further turns to be considered. I'm not able to understand the Baden durlach question, and the point to me is: "why is that an issue for the emperor if Baden Durlach get's controlled (not annexed) by Bavaria?"

thnaks

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1101
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:03 am

I was wondering if we can draw up a complete list of "Spanish Succession" results for the ten games played to date:

G1 - Players had multi positions to parts of the Spanish Empire like Duchy of Milan were run by player different to the player running Spain. As I understand it G1 was more of out and out war game with less empasis on using "Semi Historic" diplomacy and Historic set up. Spain may have been run by King Benedict at some stage.
G2 - Philip of Anjou .........King enforced claim to Portugal & its Empire at sword point, put one son on throne of France, another relative on throne of Ireland and made extensive other conquests in Italy and India. But gave Flanders away and lost Milan to the Ottomans.  A one armed War lord and not a nice man! He was noted for Burning foes for Heresy, Being disowned by his own Father the King of France and getting rid of Popes he did not like.
G3 -
G4 -
G5 - Philip of Anjou.......but Milan ceded to Austria.
G6 -Pedro of Portugal......but Flanders goes to France (leasehold)
G7 - Charles Von Hapsburg......a kind and deeply loved father of four, loyal son & ally and patron of the Arts. No great conquests but Spain has held its own and continued to expand in the America's.  Spanish Propaganda machine viewed as well developed.  
G8 - "Dodgy treaty"..........formerly unknown treaty and bribes result in King Pedro of Portugal taking throne of Spain and establishing the Twin Kingdoms.  Austrians bribed into agreement with Milan.  Why France accepted unknown.
G9 - "Miracle Baby" now understood to be a Girl which may lead to developments in future.
G10 - "Rodrigo de Abello" AKA "Rodrigo the questionable birth"........acceptance or otherwise by other heirs still awaited.

Fairly sure G1 was another Philip of Anjou, G5 or G6 was also Philip of Anjou with Milan going to Austria and is the "Twin Kingdoms" G9 or G6?


Last edited by Stuart Bailey on Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:53 pm; edited 3 times in total
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Deacon on Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:12 am


Miracle baby is game 9, isn't it?
Game 10 is random spaniard is now king. For the moment anyway.

In Game 8, a secret treaty, part of the settlement of the portuguese war of independence, noted that if either house died without issue, the nation would reunite under the remaining monarch. Treaty confirmed as genuine by the spanish chancellor. Milan went to Austria.

I am sure there was at least one other game where portugal and spain were united in the spanish succession.

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1101
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:45 am

Deacon wrote:
Miracle baby is game 9, isn't it?
Game 10 is random spaniard is now king. For the moment anyway.

In Game 8, a secret treaty, part of the settlement of the portuguese war of independence, noted that if either house died without issue, the nation would reunite under the remaining monarch. Treaty confirmed as genuine by the spanish chancellor.  Milan went to Austria.

I am sure there was at least one other game where portugal and spain were united in the spanish succession.

List undated Very Happy

"Recovery" of Portugal and a unified Iberia is both a historic and in game ambition of the Spainish Crown......bit like English/Scots unity and Russia wanting a beach on the Baltic. Its probably been attempted in several games.

G8 and the "James I" solution to the Spanish sucession is probably the most interesting take on this ambition. I remain shocked that the true heirs allowed Portugal to carry it off. Must go down as one of the most daring and successful coup's in any game run by Agema.

Think I will be even more shocked if the G10 solution works since its a bit like the "miracle baby" and "miracle treaty" solutions but with added insult and humiliation on top for the true heirs.
avatar
The Real Louis
Duke
Duke

Number of posts : 380
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2008-08-03

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by The Real Louis on Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:52 pm

Deacon wrote:

I am sure there was at least one other game where portugal and spain were united in the spanish succession.

Yes indeed, there was a King Pedro of the Twin-Kingdoms in Game 6. The arrangements that produced that result all happened before I joined the game, and the T-K eventually collapsed (were resigned) after a sequence of apparently bizarre economic reverses.

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1101
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:40 pm

The Real Louis wrote:
Deacon wrote:

I am sure there was at least one other game where portugal and spain were united in the spanish succession.

Yes indeed, there was a King Pedro of the Twin-Kingdoms in Game 6.  The arrangements that produced that result all happened before I joined the game, and the T-K eventually collapsed (were resigned) after a sequence of apparently bizarre economic reverses.


Thanks for the update.......have now amended list and decided that G5 must have been the one in which Austria got Milan and Philip of Anjou got the rest if G6 was another Twin-Kingdom solution.

What I find odd across the games is that Milan & Portugal seems to have been a big issue in a lot of games but not Flanders. When historically it was the other way round and most of the emphasis was on Flanders. Probably because Louis XIV had spent the last thirty years trying to take the place and everyone else but esp the Dutch & English as much time trying to stop him.


avatar
The Real Louis
Duke
Duke

Number of posts : 380
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2008-08-03

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by The Real Louis on Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:54 am

Stuart Bailey wrote: What I find odd across the games is that Milan & Portugal seems to have been a big issue in a lot of games but not Flanders.  When historically it was the other way round and most of the emphasis was on  Flanders.  Probably because Louis XIV had spent the last thirty years trying to take the place and everyone else but esp the Dutch & English as much time trying to stop him.

Hmm, well, there's an idea for Game 8... (actually, in 6, France leased Flanders from the Twin Kingdoms, so got to rule it without fighting a shot).

Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1101
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:23 am

The Real Louis wrote:
Stuart Bailey wrote: What I find odd across the games is that Milan & Portugal seems to have been a big issue in a lot of games but not Flanders.  When historically it was the other way round and most of the emphasis was on  Flanders.  Probably because Louis XIV had spent the last thirty years trying to take the place and everyone else but esp the Dutch & English as much time trying to stop him.

Hmm, well, there's an idea for Game 8...  (actually, in 6, France leased Flanders from the Twin Kingdoms, so got to rule it without fighting a shot).

G6 and G1 updated...........just need to sort out what happened in G3 & G4 plus LAK. LAK is annoying because I played in it! My only defence is that that Shah of Persia was busy trying to take over India and corner the World Market in saltpetre.

LAK may have ended with Carlos II still on throne????? Can anyone confirm? Ditto positions with G3 & G4?

Worrying as the Spanish Hapsburg player in G7.......Good King Charles seems a less popular option with Agema players than Philip of Anjou, Pedro of Portugal and invented relatives.

Ok so from Paintings he is not the most handsome of men and as Emperor he was a bit boring and pompus. And it probably has to be admitted that Philip of Anjou was the better soldier, married the much better looking and interesting girls and when not nuts (manic depressive or bi-polar is the modern view) be was a lot brighter than Charles. But I ask you does that make up for the fact that he is FRENCH! and only happy and engaged if he had a war going on or was slughtering huge numbers of animals.

Goldstar
Lord
Lord

Number of posts : 80
Reputation : 2
Registration date : 2010-09-13

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Goldstar on Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:26 pm

1. After 4 years of being the kindly French Uncle who tolerates Protestants, frees Serfs and loves peace, King Louis parades the might of France. Over 100,000 men are paraded in Paris, clearly less than 1/3 of France's true strength, bow before the might of the Sun King.
2. The French Fleet chases off an English Sqn threatening Quebec, whilst England seizes a fishing port from France.
3. In the matter of Baden-Durlach the Reich court rules that the Margrave remains the ultimate authority in the state no matter what agreement Bavaria makes with the current ruler.
4. The Holy Roman Emperor and the Elector of Bavaria state their option on the Baden-Durlach Question. Popular opinion seems to favour the Emperors view.
5. Bavarian troops arrive in Northern Germany to support the French.
6. The Tsar welcomes the Ottoman Ambassador, whilst threatening to crush the Crimean Tartars.
7. Lord Fong once more leaves his foot bound concubines and opium pipe to castigate the the western barbarians. Although the current Spanish Government meets the approval of the Middle Kingdom.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1520
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Jason on Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:58 pm

I see also Bavaria has insulted Lord Fong...well, I hope they find their punishment amusing

Nexus06
Earl
Earl

Number of posts : 206
Age : 44
Location : Bologna, Italy
Reputation : 1
Registration date : 2015-04-14

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Nexus06 on Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:49 am

Might I say that the habit of a couple of players here to write in the turn letters personal statements (with an annoyed and offensive mood) to justify being assholes is quite annoying?
I can understand life is hard, I can understand you believe to be playing a real time literally war game, and could be annoying to wait four or five months for a treaty or an agreement to be settled, but:
1) start a letter with the sentence "I' m a busy man and I can dedicate only few minutes to those turn therefore be quick to answers and apply"
2) write in Caps lock to sign a treaty quickly.

Not only doesn't work, but also (in my personal opinion) ruins the atmosphere of a game I'm personally putting money and time to enjoy (and I believe I'm not the only one to do so.

Am I the only one here to have this opinion?

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by J Flower on Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:38 am

Nexus, I am fully with you on this one, the old phrase "Manners cost nothing" is probably the best way forward . I guess one of the advantages of not having to automatically answer letters but actually having a couple of weeks before a deadline, should give players enough time to take a deep breath & think through what they intend to write.

Personally always try to stay on reasonable terms with fellow players, even when in the game may be at war with other player. Let's be honest if we were playing this game seated at a table across from one another, we would probably not stand up & curse the opponent, or question his parenthood.

Yes there are times when the real world interferes with getting letters sent, but it isn't other players faults, maybe starting a letter with "sorry this letter is going to be a bit short, will try & write more next month" would go down a lot better with fellow players than other opening sentences.

We all invest a lot of time & money into the games we all play, part of the enjoyment is the interaction with other players, this is something that should be cherished.

It could well be that a player you are currently an opponent of will in the future actually be someone you will look upon as an ally, so not being to blunt or rude to them may actually in the long run improve your & their overall enjoyment of the game.


Stuart Bailey
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1101
Age : 54
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 31
Registration date : 2012-01-29

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Stuart Bailey on Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:58 pm

Since one of my characters has just been called a intoxicated French puppet set on drinking, stealing and whoreing his way across Europe. I am pleased to see that at least one player has taken my advise: that I you are are going to be rude and insulting in game make sure its so over the top that no one can take it personally. Very Happy

But how am I going to do all this and get across Europe on a Ship?

J Flower
King
King

Number of posts : 703
Age : 46
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 10
Registration date : 2012-02-16

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by J Flower on Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:14 pm

Not sure but maybe the difference lies in being insulted in the press, where it is there for all to see, & receiving a letter which is much more of a private matter between players.
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1520
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Jason on Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:33 pm

I can only think of one letter I had that I found personally rude (more for its abruptness than anything else); only had that one letter and never heard from them again though I think they are still active in that game.

For myself, if I have not replied to a letter promptly I usually do start with an apology and a brief explanation to explain-my reasoning being I want to make sure the other player doesn't think I've been rude and been ignoring them Smile

I do try and be polite in my characters, basically because (I think) I am polite in real life. The exception is Lord Fong, I am polite in letters (again, I think) but  I do go for a few insults in his public statements though I feel that reflects the Chinese attitude at the time to foreigners Smile

Goldstar
Lord
Lord

Number of posts : 80
Reputation : 2
Registration date : 2010-09-13

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Goldstar on Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:52 am

We would all be suspicious if Lord Fong was ever anything but condescending to the uncultured Western Barbarians.
I think I know who Nexus06 is talking about, there is really no excuse for being rude to other players.
Unfortunately some players seem to use it as a means of trying to force enemies players out of the Game. I seem to remember a certain French player in game 7 who was active a few years ago was very free with his insults. Venice at the start of game 9 could also be quite cutting.

Thelittleemperor
Lord
Lord

Number of posts : 41
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2017-01-28

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Thelittleemperor on Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:21 pm

Insults in letters are all part of the game . If my character has missed letters I will try to explain it by saying he was busy overseeing the construction of the greatest fortress known to man or the building of a library or a belly ache .
If your character doesn't reply I get all paranoid thinking perhaps he doesn't like mine , perhaps we have been left out , perhaps there is a great conspiracy against mine and his three battalions of foot and squadron of dragoons .
If you are playing a super dee duper power and send an ultimatum in big bold letters it might well get the result you expect or my charcter might pass it on and ask for help from another nicer character ...or mine might obligingly smile and sign the confounded demand and plot forever against yours ..or he might ignore it and every one sent in capital letters and use an ambassador to explain that His Majesty ,Holiness ,Grace is unsure of the tone of the Letter
If my character is trying to be peaceable he will certainly note the trouble makers ...all the fun of the fair I say .

Nexus06
Earl
Earl

Number of posts : 206
Age : 44
Location : Bologna, Italy
Reputation : 1
Registration date : 2015-04-14

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Nexus06 on Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:56 pm

To be cristal clear, i have no issue in game characters insulting each others, if it helpful for the game. I have no issues in characters insulting each others in the paper.
As far as i've intended it, one of the game goal is to recreate the atmosphere od the XVIII century, therefore war of words and defending honors conseguences are widely allowed.

I do not like when elements of our real life are putted forward in game letters between players (If you are busy and have no time, i'm sorry for it but it's your problem. I'm a busy person too but i do not use it to force you to take particular actions in the game). I don't like it as a tactic, i don't like it 'cause it kinda ruin the athmosphere of the game.

I do not like when you refer directly to game mechanics in letters. Would anybody ever give the order, in the order sheet, that his character "take a speech adeguate to increase honor point of one point or more"? You do not because Richard would not be nice and take action against this behave. Therefore, in my point of view, doing it with another player is a lack of respect.

that's all
avatar
Deacon
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1382
Age : 53
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 38
Registration date : 2010-04-13

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Deacon on Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:19 pm

I have had some accusatory letters, but I can't recall any I'd say were outright rude.

I can see, and have been at times, being sharp in the paper. The public play of words is period (then and now!).

But why be rude in a letter? The only reason to write a letter at all is to achieve something, and how are you going to achieve anything with another player who is now extra annoyed with you? If your only goal is to insult, you might as well just put in the paper. By being rude in a letter, you just reduce your odds of getting the outcome you want.

If you're trying to work something out, even if you're making a demand, you can be business-like without being rude. Perhaps you think it is just in-character, in which case it might be wiser to have another character write your letters. In Game 8, Pedro himself writes only to a few, in most cases the letters are written by his foreign minister.

I have at times apologized out of character in my letters because real life has made me a poor correspondent, but I've always thought that was something you apologized for, not demanded something from somebody for! We're all playing and paying for this game. If I can't commit the time because of something, that's on me and a bit of a disservice to my fellow players.

I also try to stay in-character, but occasionally you really need to address a point of game mechanics on how things work with another player. I always make a point when I'm dropping out of character and try to minimize that. If it can be talked about in character, I will.

An example is a discussion regarding an NPC position. The fact that there is no player there changes some of the fundamental dynamics of interactions and that might need be addressed in a letter.


Last edited by Deacon on Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typos)

Thelittleemperor
Lord
Lord

Number of posts : 41
Reputation : 0
Registration date : 2017-01-28

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Thelittleemperor on Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:46 pm

Hi Nexus , I agree with all that you are saying ..I much prefer in game reasons for things .If I'm struggling for game mechanics I usually get ministers to do it ."The Foreign Ministry should see that this treaty has everything necessary to be legal " for example .I didn't realise how much I didn't know until I started reading this forum !!
avatar
Rozwi_Game10
Duke
Duke

Number of posts : 349
Location : North Yorkshire
Reputation : 3
Registration date : 2015-08-15

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Rozwi_Game10 on Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:09 pm

Sometimes there's no choice but to break character in a letter, I've found, when explaining something that will be impacted through a game mechanic.

I've apologised for doing so, if memory serves me correct, but to try and explain a point using period language, or my character's 'Native' vocabulary would be nearly impossible to understand and make the letter inconceivable to the reader.

I've also had the experience of writing a letter in-character, but had to finish it off with a Treaty which has been written in clear to understand English. When read as a whole, the in-character letter goes along the lines of what an African Tribal king would say, to turning into a formally written agreement  that sounds like it has been written by a lawyer from Europe or such like. Nothing that can be done about it, as the treaty had to be written such as stated in the rules. But in a way I had to break character to comply with the rules.

Yes, I also agree that there should be some level of etiquette when writing to other players - From memory, in another game, a player did contact me through an in-character letter, explaining that they were not able to continue a joint discussion (or such) that month, but would be able to send me a longer letter the turn after, if I would be so kind as to wait. I had no problem with doing so. Maybe some would argue that what they did wasn't correct. But I appreciated a quick letter, written in-character, from the player, explaining not to worry and they'd talk to me the month after. If nothing else it helped keep relations between us good, and made me want to have dealings with the player again in the game as they came across as decent sort of person.


Last edited by Rozwi_Game10 on Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1520
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Jason on Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:10 pm

Goldstar wrote:We would all be suspicious if Lord Fong was ever anything but condescending to the uncultured Western Barbarians.

Well if the barbarian nations insist in turning down Lord Fong's most generous offers to help civilise them, then he must continue to remind them what pitiful wretches they remain Wink

Must admit, my Lord Fong in G9 is more restrained than he was in G2...now there was a game where I could get carried away, used to cut bits off foreigners on a regular basis
avatar
Rozwi_Game10
Duke
Duke

Number of posts : 349
Location : North Yorkshire
Reputation : 3
Registration date : 2015-08-15

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Rozwi_Game10 on Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:14 pm

Jason wrote:used to cut bits off foreigners on a regular basis

Cool. So somebody has already set the precedent, have they.

Now nobody can complain when Scotsman stew is served on the Rozwi menu Wink
avatar
Jason
Emperor
Emperor

Number of posts : 1520
Age : 47
Location : Gourdon, Aberdeenshire
Reputation : 16
Registration date : 2008-08-27

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Jason on Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:18 pm

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:
Jason wrote:used to cut bits off foreigners on a regular basis

Cool. So somebody has already set the precedent, have they.

Now nobody can complain when Scotsman stew is served on the Rozwi menu Wink

I'll send a gunboat!

Assuming I have one Wink

Sponsored content

Re: The Age of Enlightenment. Game 9.

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:14 pm