TRAFALGAR [12.4.2012] QUENCHED (V65)

by **the.killing.44** on Sun May 10, 2009 8:01 pm

Ooh, yes, nice. Maybe for uniformity's sake put the circles on all of the little ships in the key? And I'm wondering how putting the "Bow" and "Stern" over the circles looks? c u

.44

by **cairnswk** on Mon May 11, 2009 3:34 am

Current Version 33.

Click image to enlarge.

by **yeti_c** on Mon May 11, 2009 3:48 am

Alternatively you could have ship and captain...

i.e. Victory and Nelson? Nelson (/commanders) could have a hat over the army number.

Then you would need to change the wording to "Hold commander and his vessel"...

You could then offer bonuses for holding a commander captive?! (i.e. if you hold the ship and adjacent commander and someone else owns the commander) -> but that might be a step too far!

C.

by **Incandenza** on Mon May 11, 2009 3:57 am

Glad to see this back in the foundry, cairns!

That being said, of course I have comments...
1. I like what you've done legend-wise with the Bow and Stern concepts, tho it seems like there needs to be one more line describing how the commander ships are essentially one terit when it comes to their interactions with surrounding ships. As it stands, people might think that Victory Bow operates one cannon, Victory Stern another. I confess I have no idea how to phrase this, tho don't think I haven't been bending the odd brain cell to try and figure it out. Graphically this'll potentially help, you can put the cannon (along with attack lines) amidships so every capital ship doesn't have to bristle with cannon pointing at the same target.
EDIT: fastposted by yeti, whose idea I kinda like, tho the captive commander sounds like a bit much to explain
2. speaking of cannon, there are a few that could be oriented a bit more clearly, but that's a smaller concern (tho one of the cannon on Principe Bow looks like it could bombard French Achille, which doesn't seem to make sense)
3. having run some bonus concepts thru MrB's new drop bonus calculator, you'll want to give strong consideration to adding one to the terit required for every bonus save british windward (I know, I know, I've been harping on about this for some time, but eipi's calculator painted a grim picture, and MrB's is, if anything, a bit grimmer).
4. with two neutrals on every flagship (seems like you'd be able to do better with neutral 3's or better yet 2's), 1v1s will start with 18 terits apiece, which is a less than ideal outcome. One option would be to have only one terit of each flagship start neutral, which of course makes the 1v1 bonus drop odds even woolier, so it's not exactly a silver bullet
5. "Bucentaure" seems to have undergone a name change

An open-ended question: is there a better way to assign bonuses here than build-a-bonus? Look, I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench in things, and if build-a-bonus works best, that's fine, I'm just wondering if an alternative can be found. I will confess that I'm beginning to think that build-a-bonus might not be as awesome a bonus system as it's made out to be.

by **cairnswk** on Mon May 11, 2009 4:16 am

yeti_c wrote:Alternatively you could have ship and captain...

i.e. Victory and Nelson? Nelson (/commanders) could have a hat over the army number.

Then you would need to change the wording to "Hold commander and his vessel"...

You could then offer bonuses for holding a commander captive?! (i.e. if you hold the ship and adjacent commander and someone else owns the commander) -> but that might be a step too far!

C.

Mmmmm. i lkie the idea of the captain with hat, but don't you think that will add further to an already full piece of real estate.
Holding the commander would go outside of the gameplay. Most of these battles would tell that captain usually went down with their ships rather than being held by the enemy. A step too far, yes i think.

by **yeti_c** on Mon May 11, 2009 4:20 am

cairnswk wrote:Mmmmm. i lkie the idea of the captain with hat, but don't you think that will add further to an already full piece of real estate.

Quite possibly - but it would be good to get the commanders names on the map - if just for the history buffs.

Off-topic:

cairnswk wrote:Holding the commander would go outside of the gameplay. Most of these battles would tell that captain usually went down with their ships rather than being held by the enemy. A step too far, yes i think.

Depends if the ship was sunk or captured generally... usually they tried to capture ships - because then they have a new ship for their navy - and they got bounties for capturing stuff... of course sometimes that wasn't an option!!

Agreed that leaving it out is a good idea - it was a bit of my imagination running off!!

C.

by **cairnswk** on Mon May 11, 2009 4:22 am

Incandenza wrote:Glad to see this back in the foundry, cairns!

That being said, of course I have comments...
1. I like what you've done legend-wise with the Bow and Stern concepts, tho it seems like there needs to be one more line describing how the commander ships are essentially one terit when it comes to their interactions with surrounding ships. As it stands, people might think that Victory Bow operates one cannon, Victory Stern another. I confess I have no idea how to phrase this, tho don't think I haven't been bending the odd brain cell to try and figure it out. Graphically this'll potentially help, you can put the cannon (along with attack lines) amidships so every capital ship doesn't have to bristle with cannon pointing at the same target.
EDIT: fastposted by yeti, whose idea I kinda like, tho the captive commander sounds like a bit much to explain
2. speaking of cannon, there are a few that could be oriented a bit more clearly, but that's a smaller concern (tho one of the cannon on Principe Bow looks like it could bombard French Achille, which doesn't seem to make sense)
3. having run some bonus concepts thru MrB's new drop bonus calculator, you'll want to give strong consideration to adding one to the terit required for every bonus save british windward (I know, I know, I've been harping on about this for some time, but eipi's calculator painted a grim picture, and MrB's is, if anything, a bit grimmer).
4. with two neutrals on every flagship (seems like you'd be able to do better with neutral 3's or better yet 2's), 1v1s will start with 18 terits apiece, which is a less than ideal outcome. One option would be to have only one terit of each flagship start neutral, which of course makes the 1v1 bonus drop odds even woolier, so it's not exactly a silver bullet
5. "Bucentaure" seems to have undergone a name change

An open-ended question: is there a better way to assign bonuses here than build-a-bonus? Look, I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench in things, and if build-a-bonus works best, that's fine, I'm just wondering if an alternative can be found. I will confess that I'm beginning to think that build-a-bonus might not be as awesome a bonus system as it's made out to be.

Oh shit. No offence but I hate it when there's full moon on (Sat my b'day) and people can't make up their minds because Mercury is retrograding and changing everyone's thinking process to re-examine things. LOL! :lol:

Can we get something decided here and stick to it!?
I'll return after i've got my head around what you've proposed.

by **cairnswk** on Mon May 11, 2009 4:24 am

yeti_c wrote:.....
Agreed that leaving it out is a good idea - it was a bit of my imagination running off!!
C.

That''s OK. Inca just did exactly that LOL!
At least C. you're a positive suggestive contribution, and i appreciate that.
What we have to come up with is something that's going to be challenging enough for those who enjoy that, but mild enough that's not going to blow younger minds apart screaming "Too Hard"

by **Incandenza** on Mon May 11, 2009 4:07 pm

I know, I know, I'm Mr. No Fun. But we were in the midst of discussing bonuses when this map went on vacation, so it's not like I'm coming out of left field with all this. Everything I commented on had to do with either the long-standing bonus discussion or the relatively new addition of double commander terits. The map, while I like it a great deal, wasn't 100% ready for a gameplay stamp when it went on holiday, and it still isn't now (but it's really close).

by **cairnswk** on Mon May 11, 2009 6:11 pm

Incandenza wrote:I know, I know, I'm Mr. No Fun. But we were in the midst of discussing bonuses when this map went on vacation, so it's not like I'm coming out of left field with all this. Everything I commented on had to do with either the long-standing bonus discussion or the relatively new addition of double commander terits. The map, while I like it a great deal, wasn't 100% ready for a gameplay stamp when it went on holiday, and it still isn't now (but it's really close).

I'm sorry, i'm not having a go at you, and i know the bonuses haven't been finished yet, but you made the statement:

An open-ended question: is there a better way to assign bonuses here than build-a-bonus? Look, I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench in things, and if build-a-bonus works best, that's fine, I'm just wondering if an alternative can be found. I will confess that I'm beginning to think that build-a-bonus might not be as awesome a bonus system as it's made out to be.

which led me to believe you wanted to change something that had already been bedded.

5. "Bucentaure" seems to have undergone a name change

Yes, i'll fix that now.

1. I like what you've done legend-wise with the Bow and Stern concepts, tho it seems like there needs to be one more line describing how the commander ships are essentially one terit when it comes to their interactions with surrounding ships. As it stands, people might think that Victory Bow operates one cannon, Victory Stern another. I confess I have no idea how to phrase this, tho don't think I haven't been bending the odd brain cell to try and figure it out. Graphically this'll potentially help, you can put the cannon (along with attack lines) amidships so every capital ship doesn't have to bristle with cannon pointing at the same target.

I have placed "Commander Ships are one ship with two armies that can attack & bombard" in the legend because as i stated sometime back, these larger vessels usually carried 128 guns. Therefore it makes sense that they should have more armoury and men (armies) to bomb with and conquer.
That is how i see the gameplay for commander ships.
As for bow and stern, i think .44 came up with the perfect descriptions as this is in line with things naval.

The canon firing aims i will update when doing the final graphics.

(tho one of the cannon on Principe Bow looks like it could bombard French Achille, which doesn't seem to make sense)

Offender removed.

3. having run some bonus concepts thru MrB's new drop bonus calculator, you'll want to give strong consideration to adding one to the terit required for every bonus save british windward (I know, I know, I've been harping on about this for some time, but eipi's calculator painted a grim picture, and MrB's is, if anything, a bit grimmer).

You can harp on about this as this is the bonus discussion that was occurring before. No probs.
So please tell me what bonuses you want on there now. The one that are there now are from option D that you gave before, but they will have to be re-done now that there are Extra armies on commanders. I am quite happy to go with whatever you decide since you and C have much more idea on these concepts/calculations that i do.

4. with two neutrals on every flagship (seems like you'd be able to do better with neutral 3's or better yet 2's), 1v1s will start with 18 terits apiece, which is a less than ideal outcome. One option would be to have only one terit of each flagship start neutral, which of course makes the 1v1 bonus drop odds even woolier, so it's not exactly a silver bullet

In your previous large bonus Options post you stated:

Furthermore, I'd put a potential commander neutral terit at only, say, 3 or 4...

...so you want these down now to even less.
If we are going to reduce the number of neutral starts on the commander vessels and still have one army start on each, then perhaps we should leave the neutrals up at 4 so that they don't get conquered too easily/early.

To all the above, version 34 is below:

by **the.killing.44** on Mon May 11, 2009 7:41 pm

Those graphic representations in the key are sweet, just what I envisioned

For the note down there, I'm a bit confused with the "(with above bonus)." You seem to be implying that the only way to hold a commander bonus is when you hold x number of y's ships, which is not correct, because the commander bonus is independent from the regular ship bonus, no?
But can the commander still add to the build-your-own-ship-bonus? I think that's what you were trying to say but it came out kinda crazily.

I suggest you reduce the size of the font to fit (this is all where "Commander Ships have bow & stern …" is currently):

Commander ships have bow & stern
+1 for any whole Commander …

then, depending on whether the Commanders can add to the build-your-own ones:

… (part of above bonus)

/

… (excluded from above bonus)

respectively. I hope that'll fit though. You can obviously change words around (and that second part I don't even know if it's related) — but the "whole Commander" would clear a lot of things up I imagine.

Just a small note, on the left-hand side "Commander Ships are one ship with two armies that can both attack and bombard. It'd also be ideal to put something that they are subject to the same rules as other ships, but not necessary (and there's not very much room!).

——————

For the bonuses, I think build-your-own is the best way to go (despite the drop), firstly because with the naval/nautical theme it would make sense, seeing how you're not differentiating between different units beyond country (and rightly so IMO); and also because on a map this hectic it's the most efficient and easiest style. The Weather/Lee Line is enough variation to keep it interesting and not wildly chaotic gameplay-wise, just stick to this

Meh, I'm on the ropes about 3 vs. 4 neutrals. On one hand, 3 would be better because that's more of a "okay, you're not getting the bonus first time around, take it and let everyone else deal with it," whereas 4 is more of a block against taking it early on in the game. But with all the small and easy-to-get bonuses that come with build-your-own, 4's probably the best way to go …

——————

Hmm, graphics. I can't say much here, besides that Algesiras should be above the dotted line, a period should be at teh end of "England expects that …", and you c/should stick a en dash between "Trafalgar" and "1805" in the title. Maybe you could make the key's representation of the Weather/Lee Line clearer? Going with that, reducing the ship in the background's opacity even more would make the text clearer.

Nothing else, really.

.44

by **Incandenza** on Mon May 11, 2009 11:33 pm

cairnswk wrote:
Incandenza wrote:I know, I know, I'm Mr. No Fun. But we were in the midst of discussing bonuses when this map went on vacation, so it's not like I'm coming out of left field with all this. Everything I commented on had to do with either the long-standing bonus discussion or the relatively new addition of double commander terits. The map, while I like it a great deal, wasn't 100% ready for a gameplay stamp when it went on holiday, and it still isn't now (but it's really close).

I'm sorry, i'm not having a go at you, and i know the bonuses haven't been finished yet, but you made the statement:

An open-ended question: is there a better way to assign bonuses here than build-a-bonus? Look, I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench in things, and if build-a-bonus works best, that's fine, I'm just wondering if an alternative can be found. I will confess that I'm beginning to think that build-a-bonus might not be as awesome a bonus system as it's made out to be.

which led me to believe you wanted to change something that had already been bedded.

Fair enough, as that was sorta my intention, but while a complete overhaul of the bonus system would probably be a bit much, just hang on a sec...

cairnswk wrote:I have placed "Commander Ships are one ship with two armies that can attack & bombard" in the legend because as i stated sometime back, these larger vessels usually carried 128 guns. Therefore it makes sense that they should have more armoury and men (armies) to bomb with and conquer.
That is how i see the gameplay for commander ships.
As for bow and stern, i think .44 came up with the perfect descriptions as this is in line with things naval.

Works for me, tho just above me 44 makes a good point as to the clarity of the legend instructions. How about just "+1 for holding entire Flagship" (and a general change from Commander Ship to Flagship might not be a bad idea, tho I know that it might not be the best word when it comes to naval combat, as theoretically each side had but one flagship)

cairnswk wrote:You can harp on about this as this is the bonus discussion that was occurring before. No probs.
So please tell me what bonuses you want on there now. The one that are there now are from option D that you gave before, but they will have to be re-done now that there are Extra armies on commanders. I am quite happy to go with whatever you decide since you and C have much more idea on these concepts/calculations that i do.

Hang on, I'm going to show ya the updates bonus drop odds, I'll do that in a separate post to keep this from being novel-length.

cairnswk wrote:
Incandenza wrote:4. with two neutrals on every flagship (seems like you'd be able to do better with neutral 3's or better yet 2's), 1v1s will start with 18 terits apiece, which is a less than ideal outcome. One option would be to have only one terit of each flagship start neutral, which of course makes the 1v1 bonus drop odds even woolier, so it's not exactly a silver bullet

In your previous large bonus Options post you stated:
Furthermore, I'd put a potential commander neutral terit at only, say, 3 or 4...
...so you want these down now to even less.
If we are going to reduce the number of neutral starts on the commander vessels and still have one army start on each, then perhaps we should leave the neutrals up at 4 so that they don't get conquered too easily/early.

You're right, I did say that, but that was back when there was only 1 terit per flagship.

Drop odds to follow, then we'll see where we're at.

by **Incandenza** on Tue May 12, 2009 4:33 pm

Okay, here are the overall drop odds under 2 different scenarios. No, I have no idea why the screengrabs are fuzzy, but then again my computer sucks, so what are ya gonna do....

The first, 1 terit per commander starts neutral:

Click image to enlarge.

The second, both terits per commander start neutral:

Click image to enlarge.

Now, the bonus drop odds for 61 starting terits are just brutal. Even in 2v2, three different bonuses have over 10% chance of being dropped by someone.

The drop odds for 55 terits is better, but then there's that whole pesky "starting with 18 terits in 1v1" thing that we try to avoid.

So two options, each with flaws.... but wait, there's a third option, where both terits per commander start neutral, and there are 53 starting terits:

Click image to enlarge.

How do we get that, you ask? Well, the history weenie in me recoils a bit at the suggestion, but the risk-playing weenie in me thinks it might not be that bad of an idea: get rid of Britannia and Spartiate (you'll note a commensurate small tweak in the British Windward bonus). Their presence in the actual battle aside, those two terits aren't really bringing a lot to the table here. And if they go the way of the dodo, then the drop bonus odds are manageable, 1v1 players start with 17 terits, and worldpeace draws that much closer to becoming a reality.

Could work. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll step outside to see if I can hear cairns' howl of dismay from halfway around the world.

by **cairnswk** on Tue May 12, 2009 5:05 pm

Incandenza wrote:Okay, here are the overall drop odds under 2 different scenarios. No, I have no idea why the screengrabs are fuzzy, but then again my computer sucks, so what are ya gonna do....

You could get a new one!!

I'm sorry but under the guidance of what i don't get paid here at CC, i can't afford you one.

The first, 1 terit per commander starts neutral:

Click image to enlarge.

The second, both terits per commander start neutral:

Click image to enlarge.

Now, the bonus drop odds for 61 starting terits are just brutal. Even in 2v2, three different bonuses have over 10% chance of being dropped by someone.

The drop odds for 55 terits is better, but then there's that whole pesky "starting with 18 terits in 1v1" thing that we try to avoid.

So two options, each with flaws.... but wait, there's a third option, where both terits per commander start neutral, and there are 53 starting terits:

Click image to enlarge.

How do we get that, you ask? Well, the history weenie in me recoils a bit at the suggestion, but the risk-playing weenie in me thinks it might not be that bad of an idea: get rid of Britannia and Spartiate (you'll note a commensurate small tweak in the British Windward bonus). Their presence in the actual battle aside, those two terits aren't really bringing a lot to the table here. And if they go the way of the dodo, then the drop bonus odds are manageable, 1v1 players start with 17 terits, and worldpeace draws that much closer to becoming a reality.

Could work. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll step outside to see if I can hear cairns' howl of dismay from halfway around the world.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! How dare you! :lol:

Drop two ships from the battle.
Me thinks that history-weenies would be overcome with dismay.
I can cope with that, but can the players cope?
Please discuss, or will there be any discussion on this matter since the map is only reviewed by three of you?

by **Incandenza** on Tue May 12, 2009 5:30 pm

cairnswk wrote:
Incandenza wrote:Okay, here are the overall drop odds under 2 different scenarios. No, I have no idea why the screengrabs are fuzzy, but then again my computer sucks, so what are ya gonna do....

You could get a new one!! I'm sorry but under the guidance of what i don't get paid here at CC, i can't afford you one.

The sad thing is that I had money set aside for a new laptop last fall, then my TV went tits-up and had to be replaced, and then the economy went tits-up and prompted me to hang onto every last nickel... so basically I figure I'll use this laptop until it dies. Oh well.

[/offtopic]

cairnswk wrote:Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! How dare you!
Drop two ships from the battle.
Me thinks that history-weenies would be overcome with dismay.
I can cope with that, but can the players cope?
Please discuss, or will there be any discussion on this matter since the map is only reviewed by three of you?

The nice thing is that you have some deniability, in that even now the map doesn't show every last ship that was involved with the battle (i.e. the smaller ships). And I can't imagine anyone but the biggest Trafalgar student on earth even noticing that the two ships were removed. And it solves so many issues at one fell swoop.

Of course, like you said, it's pretty much just you, me, yeti, and now 44 commenting on this, so it's a bit echo-chamberish (at least until you get the swarms of folks for final pre-forge review, which I know you're a huuuge fan of :lol:

) But I would like to get some feedback from 44 and yeti. If they're cool with this change (and you seem to be onboard), then it's gameplay stampin' time.

by **the.killing.44** on Tue May 12, 2009 6:42 pm

Yeah, the last option by Inc (take off the two terts) seems best. Although 53 seems a bit odd … if there was some way to get it to 51 (17 for each in 1v1) it'd be ideal, but hey, it's fine as is. If you were to go down this road, two things come to mind: first, the obvious "pick 2 ships (one British, probably) and code 'em 3 neutrals," or you could make just the Minotaur and Eurylaus neutral, because they're guarded by their fellow Brits anyway. But I'm just rambling.

If you do take away the two ships, then I'd assume you'd alter the Weather Line British bonus requirements, Weather (couldn't resist the pun :roll:

) it be the required ships or the bonus number. Though it'd be more logical to make it "7 British (W) +3," seeing how you took away ships, and using parallel structure (idk if that's real … it works in grammar and in math, so why not!) on the bonuses, that would be the way to go. And I don't believe you'd have to alter the bonus number if you're making it just 7 Brit ships needed.

FYI, there would be 9 Brit ships (excluding Commander): so atm it's 8/10; with the change it'd be 7/9. Seems fine.

.44

by **Incandenza** on Tue May 12, 2009 6:51 pm

I think 53 works okay, 1v1 players still start with 17 each, and there'll be two extra random neutrals. I'd rather have that than start coding neutrals or lopping off more ships.

Also, in my third spreadsheet up there, I changed the British Windward bonus requirement to 7. And for what it's worth, each commander terit counts as a ship terit in the bonus structure (should this fact perhaps be reflected in the legend?), they're just not added to the initial drop 'cause they're neutral.

by **the.killing.44** on Tue May 12, 2009 6:54 pm

Incandenza wrote:And for what it's worth, each commander terit counts as a ship terit in the bonus structure (should this fact perhaps be reflected in the legend?), they're just not added to the initial drop 'cause they're neutral.

Oh, they do? See, that's very very important, and seeing how I couldn't realize that after staring at the map for a whiiiile :shock:

then that should be clarified in the key. Once again, is the (with above bonus) referring to that? That's in the next version in any case.

So previously 8/12 = +3, now 7/11 = +3. That's fine.

.44

by **Incandenza** on Tue May 12, 2009 6:59 pm

Actually there are 12 british windward terits (10 ships plus 2 Victory terits). And since you've been looking at the map and made the mistake, then there should be some sort of clarification in the legend.

How about something like this:
[graphics representation of Bow and Stern]
Flagships consist of a Bow and Stern, hold both +1
Each Flagship terit counts toward larger bonuses

Maybe?

by **the.killing.44** on Tue May 12, 2009 7:03 pm

Incandenza wrote:Actually there are 12 british windward terits (10 ships plus 2 Victory terits).

Typo + edit = :roll:

And since you've been looking at the map and made the mistake, then there should be some sort of clarification in the legend.

How about something like this:
[graphics representation of Bow and Stern]
Flagships consist of a Bow and Stern, hold both +1
Each Flagship terit counts toward larger bonuses

Maybe?

Hmm …

[bow & stern graphics]
Hold whole Flagship (Bow & Stern) +1
Each Flagship terit counts toward larger bonuses

Your second line is good, I think my first one is more to-the-point.

I do think we (well, Inc & myself) have beat this version to death, however …
(that's your cue, cairns)

.44

by **yeti_c** on Wed May 13, 2009 3:29 am

Incandenza wrote:How do we get that, you ask? Well, the history weenie in me recoils a bit at the suggestion, but the risk-playing weenie in me thinks it might not be that bad of an idea: get rid of Britannia and Spartiate (you'll note a commensurate small tweak in the British Windward bonus). Their presence in the actual battle aside, those two terits aren't really bringing a lot to the table here. And if they go the way of the dodo, then the drop bonus odds are manageable, 1v1 players start with 17 terits, and worldpeace draws that much closer to becoming a reality.

My main concern with this is loosing 2 british ships...

However - as a Risk map - this also reduces that little pocket of protectable ships in the corner there to much less than useful as before - which can also be useful...

Of course the other option would be to simply make these two ships neutral... they would rarely be used in most games - and that would appease the history buffs and the gameplay gurus?!

C.

by **Incandenza** on Wed May 13, 2009 4:00 am

yeti_c wrote:My main concern with this is loosing 2 british ships...

However - as a Risk map - this also reduces that little pocket of protectable ships in the corner there to much less than useful as before - which can also be useful...

Of course the other option would be to simply make these two ships neutral... they would rarely be used in most games - and that would appease the history buffs and the gameplay gurus?!

C.

If they're going to be useless, might as well get rid of them. I'm a pretty smart guy, and a history buff, with a casual knowledge of Trafalgar before commenting on this map, and I wouldn't miss two British ships at the back of the column that did precious little (if any) meaningful fighting in the battle itself. The population of CCers that are substantially more history-weenie-ish than I, people that would be moved to complain or boycott the map because of the exclusion of those two ships, represent a population that could be safely housed in a cardboard box.

But a big cardboard box. Maybe one of those refrigerator-sized ones.

by **yeti_c** on Wed May 13, 2009 6:41 am

Well - if they're there - they can be fought over - and could provide someone a little haven to attempt to build a bonus from...

I like the idea of neutering them.

C.

by **cairnswk** on Wed May 13, 2009 7:14 am

yeti_c wrote:...
I like the idea of neutering them.

C.

I thought i knew a lot, but this one's a newie on me....'til i checked it out.
Onya C. Learn something every day!

by **yeti_c** on Wed May 13, 2009 9:48 am

cairnswk wrote:
yeti_c wrote:...
I like the idea of neutering them.

C.

I thought i knew a lot, but this one's a newie on me....'til i checked it out.
Onya C. Learn something every day!

He he he...

I take it you're not the pet type then?

C.

TRAFALGAR [12.4.2012] QUENCHED (V65)

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V32a(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V33(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V33(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V33(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V33(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V33(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V33(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V33(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V33(P22) - Naming commander double terts?

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Re: TRAFALGAR [D]- V34(P23) - Bonus discussions

Who is online