Warlord Faction

Rocks have problem, they can't move. :mischief:

Rolling requires the act of some other agency on the rocks. My question would be who would roll the rocks (presuming the Warlords are the rocks) and where would they be rolled?

Independent voters, to glory

:p
 
I'm being forced to choose 3 leaders here ;) but i have a playstyle that's vulnerable early-mid game but is very powerfull in mid-late game. For that reason i joined the Warlords faction btw, i wanna see how the early game is "supposed" to be played :)

My intake on leader traits would be: a lasting economic trait [financial or organized] combined with an early advantage trait [imperialistic or creative]

So you get:
Financial - Imperialistic
Financial - Creative
Organized - Imperialistic
Organized - Creative

Of these i like Org/Imp the least. Creative is more timeless than Imperialistic and Financial is economically better than Organized.

Therefore my top 3 leaders are:
1. Willem van Oranje - [Fin/Cre]
2. Victoria - [Fin/Imp]
3. Augustus - [Org/Cre]

Edit: it all depends on the platform however.. Specialist Economy vs. Cottage Economy, Aggressive vs. Defensive, Religiously dominating or submissive, ...
I think these should be discussed prior to choosing a leader/traits
 
Genghis Khan (Agressive/Imperialistic), Boudica (Aggressive/Charismatic), and Julius Caesar (Organized, Imperialistic) (Onis proposal)

NZLs proposal

1. Willem van Oranje - [Fin/Cre]
2. Victoria - [Fin/Imp]
3. Augustus - [Org/Cre]

Provolutions proposal

DeGaulle (Industrial charismatic)
Churchill (Protective charismatic)
Justinian (Protective Imperialist)
 
That are 9 different leaders :s
Let the discussion begin..

Allthough after reading the topic more closely, my leader selection isn't really "Warlord" oriented.. so please give less weight to my choices..
 
Hello all, my 3 proposals, in no order of preference, are:

1 - Kublai Khan - Aggressive, Creative.

2 - Hammurabi - Aggressive, Organised.

3 - Hannibal - Charismatic, Financial.
 
I'm thinking that our leader should have at least one of the following traits: Aggressive, Charismatic, Imperialistic, Protective.

At the moment, the proposals are:
Genghis Khan (Agressive/Imperialistic), Boudica (Aggressive/Charismatic), and Julius Caesar (Organized, Imperialistic) (Oni of Chaos)
Willem van Oranje - [Fin/Cre], Victoria - [Fin/Imp], (NZL)
DeGaulle (Industrial charismatic), Churchill (Protective charismatic), Justinian (Protective Imperialist) (Provolution)
Kublai Khan (Aggressive, Creative), Hammurabi (Aggressive, Organised), Hannibal (Charismatic, Financial) (AljayBoy)
Augustus Caesar [Imp/Ind], Queen Boudica- [Cha/Agg], Darius - [Fin/Org] (Lord Civius)

NZL, Augustus is Imp/Ind now ;)

From these, I would like to take off Willem and Darius (based off stated wanted traits).
 
Congratulations, your faction has been invited to the Prime Election Debate. The Prime Election Debate is now being hosted by the Poverty's Pub Guild. It is a place for the running factions to further voice their beliefs as well as citizens to get answers.

Please read the rules in the first post before participating.

Thanks.
 
We have barely begun recruiting, so we need to get our act together, before we can even think of running any debates yet.
 
We have barely begun recruiting, so we need to get our act together, before we can even think of running any debates yet.

Although we can still counter-debate and make sure that the faction(s) silly enough to post their incomplete proposals don't look so good.
 
Yeah, first out, I would say that sticking to "Warlord traits", with at least one being a warlord trait. Aggressive, Protective, Charismatic and Imperialistic fits the bill. We are still juggling internally, as we have a process for members only, that is to be complete and reach fruition in good time before the election.

We keep this at principle level until we have decided.

One reason why Warlords have a place in this game, is due to the need for a strong military on an overcrowded world with more nations out there than to be expected, and to compensate for not knowing what nation we will get ourselves. There is also a risk of cities rebelling against us at any stage, and the risks out there are numerous. This is why we need a dedicated Warlords Faction that put military security as a top priority, not number 2, 3 or 4 or 5.
 
Yeah, first out, I would say that sticking to "Warlord traits", with at least one being a warlord trait. Aggressive, Protective, Charismatic and Imperialistic fits the bill. We are still juggling internally, as we have a process for members only, that is to be complete and reach fruition in good time before the election.

We keep this at principle level until we have decided.

One reason why Warlords have a place in this game, is due to the need for a strong military on an overcrowded world with more nations out there than to be expected, and to compensate for not knowing what nation we will get ourselves. There is also a risk of cities rebelling against us at any stage, and the risks out there are numerous. This is why we need a dedicated Warlords Faction that put military security as a top priority, not number 2, 3 or 4 or 5.

Exactly. With 9 nations on a standard map, it will be crowded. Especially if we play at Prince or above. Therefore, having a top-notch military is essential to at least get us the breathing room to prosper.
 
We have landed on a most surprising outcome, I did not anticipate before today. We will keep you all noticed within the next few days.
 
We have landed on a most surprising outcome, I did not anticipate before today. We will keep you all noticed within the next few days.

Please explain. :confused:
 
NZL is now the new Warlord of the Warlords Faction ! Long live the warlord :)
 
:goodjob:Congrats to NZL on becoming the Warlord Faction's Leader.:goodjob:
 
*bow*:D :D
 
Top Bottom