Knights-Honor-Forum
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
isn't that bad for the balancing? (1 viewing) (1) Guest
Go to bottom Post Reply Favoured: 0
TOPIC: isn't that bad for the balancing?
 
Dietrich den Uxi

Free
Posts: 0
graphgraph
User Offline Klicke hier, um diesem Benutzer eine private Nachricht zu schicken Klicke hier, um das Profil des Spielers zu sehen
Birthdate:


to the moderators

isn't that bad for the balancing?      03.07.2010 15:29:53 --- 1 Year, 10 Months ago  
There have been two changes of nations just recently.
Although there is no doubt it is a good chance for the East to have Croatia I am still wondering about the sense of the Swabian measure.
I can't see any result but an unfair advantage for Saxony. Within one moment they have gained knights and shires because another nation ceased to be. Ant this in an area just as big as others on the map that have two nations upon it.
I for myself wonder if anyone sees any need for such chances that do massivly influence the game-balance in a bad way. Nations must gain growth not get it for free.

That's just my opinion about this so feel free to comment. I also ask for a reasonable and fair discussion as I don't want to let those things get personal.
 
The topic has been locked.
      Topics Author Date
  Topic is locked thread link
isn't that bad for the balancing?
Dietrich den Uxi 2010/07/03 15:29
    thread link
thread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Smelgar 2010/07/03 16:06
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Gregory I 2010/07/03 19:50
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Sigurd Haakonsson 2010/07/04 02:33
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Gregory I 2010/07/04 05:30
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread linkthread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Sigurd Haakonsson 2010/07/04 11:48
    thread link
thread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Dietrich den Uxi 2010/07/03 16:08
    thread link
thread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Alrik vom Greifenstein 2010/07/03 16:43
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Smelgar 2010/07/03 16:58
    thread link
thread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Dietrich den Uxi 2010/07/03 19:05
    thread link
thread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Alrik vom Greifenstein 2010/07/03 19:23
    thread link
thread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Molly 2010/07/04 02:25
    thread link
thread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Alrik vom Greifenstein 2010/07/04 14:43
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Sigurd Haakonsson 2010/07/04 15:15
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Smelgar 2010/07/04 15:23
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Sigurd Haakonsson 2010/07/04 16:09
    thread link
thread linkthread linkthread linkthread linkthread linkthread link Re:isn't that bad for the balancing?
Smelgar 2010/07/04 17:03
Go to top Post Reply
Powered by FireBoardget the latest posts directly to your desktop
(+) memo:

Premium-Players only.


Board
Help
Imprint
ToU
Partner
registered: 22151
active:         744
online:         54
Tavern