The Era of Justinian

Rebels? Really? and Armenia? and the Arabs?

1) He should have created a force to protect the Eastern Borders before he attacked Italy.
2) This is a medieval Era. Do you remember a year of Byzantine History without at least one battle?
3) About the Rebels, if he had a large force to protect the Eastern Borders, and at the same he would send a large Force to take over Italy, then he would be made ''Saint''.
 
Seems a lot like my NES update style :p.

Anyway,

Curse my bad luck! Two milities were destroyed, and one had a +6 advantage! Even with the mountains, how does that make sense?!?

*sigh*

Ah well. Better luck next time I guess.
 
Seems a lot like my NES update style :p.

Anyway,

Curse my bad luck! Two milities were destroyed, and one had a +6 advantage! Even with the mountains, how does that make sense?!?

*sigh*

Ah well. Better luck next time I guess.

d20.
You rolled a 'one', they rolled a 'twenty'?

What can I say, the dice gods are fickle?
 
Actually, he would have won if he had led his army or had a General lead his Army. The Goths won only because they were led by Generals.
 
Christos,

You will make a post when you complete the update, right?

I hate to keep scrolling thru the posts on the first page, looking for differences.

Thanks.
 
Of course.
 
Actually, he would have won if he had led his army or had a General lead his Army. The Goths won only because they were led by Generals.

...

I though the armies were general-led by default. :(
 
Evidently not.
 
lurker's comment: I like the update format. It's clean, but detailed.
 
If you executed those Bankers, then all of Egypt, Palestine and minor Asia would rise up in revolt. The Bankers have a lot of money.
 
It is to balance the game. I do not want players to buy 100 Units and then execute the Bankers.
 
some one pp'd from the game right ? can I have that place ?
 
Back
Top Bottom