Originally posted by Lord Ganja
Well I believe someone should play the Ottos. If noone else feels like playing them I'd give it a go.
Damn it, the Ottos. How I could forgot about them
Originally posted by Lord Ganja
Well I believe someone should play the Ottos. If noone else feels like playing them I'd give it a go.
Originally posted by Hive
I think your proposal is crap Arcorelli.![]()
First of all, I am against letting Slargos have Netherlands again for 2 reasons:
1) He should play from the start
2) I don't think anyone should play the same nation twice in a row.
Besides, we can possibly find a Dutch player later.
Another thing I have been wondering is whether Sweden really is that important to have played? I know they are good due to the overpowernment, but with Russia and Brandenburg (which I definately want us to have) will they really be necessary?
As for the allocation of nations I don't think your reasoning is good Arco. I don't like that you will automatically give a player a certain nation just because they are the only one who has it as #1 choice - when 2-3 others may have it as second, while they are so unlucky that their #1 choice may be wanted by more than 1. I think giving all people their second choice is better than giving some their first choice and others their third.
Originally posted by arcorelli
BTW, your proposal have an important problem. There is no Melchior![]()
Originally posted by Hive
Sorry Cit, I didn't mean to be injust to you. It's just very hard to make such a lineup when some nations are wanted by many, and other nations by none. I gave you Venice because you where the only one who had them on a list at all.
Any suggestions for a better way to do this?
Originally posted by Slargos
It is undoubtedly a plot to get rid of that crashing modemplayer.![]()