Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

game  Star  WArs  Trek  political  discord  

Latest topics
» Eye of the Storm
Today at 9:33 pm by Crensler

» Battle of Scales
Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:12 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Discovery Rumination Schedule?
Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:32 am by The Lorerunner

» Turn 9-1068
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:59 am by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Nest of the Koth
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:21 am by SilverDragonRed

» Star Trek TOS essential episodes?
Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:04 pm by NMdum1

» Turn 8-1068
Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:03 am by FreelanceZero

» The end of a journey (Star Trek: Voyager Rumination)
Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:13 pm by NMdum1

» Is The Federation in Star Trek Fascist?
Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:59 pm by NMdum1

You are not connected. Please login or register

So, The GM Likes Transparency...

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 6 of 7]

126 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:45 pm

I apologise, but all that stuff will have to wait until tomorrow. I am really tired, and seeing as I'm starting to make mistakes I don't remember doing, I'll just call it a night right now.
Unfortunately, this means I'll start working on all the promised stuff in 8-12 hours.

Sorry guys!

View user profile

127 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:56 pm

To Lore's questions, I think:
1) I believe there should be stats, but in a limited sense. Something along the lines of currency, secrecy(ability to hide information) and spy networks(how you get information). These should all be stats that are able to be increased or decreased depending on the characters actions and should help run the game more easily. I can give more specific information on my views if this is a liked system.
2) I'm not entirely sure about which system I want, but I know that the "everyone in a federal position" won't work in a forum setting like this.
3) I believe that NPCs should not be in a federal position unless it is a minor one and there is a lack of willing volunteers to take the place. On the subject of turns, I think that is up to the system we decide.

Nice new profile pic, Lore Very Happy

View user profile

128 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:28 pm

The Lorerunner wrote:I'm working on putting together a sort of presentation I'll show Saturday but the way I see it, we need to decide on how we proceed with several points, which are not mutually exclusive.  These include;

Do we utilize an underlying game (stats of some sort or another) or no?
Do we merge everyone into federal (and at least three variants on this idea I can think of), or no?
Related to point 2, do we have NPCs in federal government?
And finally, do we utilize Turns or no?

Again I plan to discuss these in more depth Saturday but if anyone wants me to elaborate in advance I can.

1) I would think that the current stat system works in the way we need them, we're just missing population numbers and food supply but that can be dealt with. As for which underlying game, Crusader Kings II has everything we need to play Region Lords but Civ is easier to create custom maps/factions

2) It really depends on the system but I'm open minded, if I had to think up of a system right now, it would be something on the lines of no Senators, everyone find a day hour to log on chat and get things done.

3) I would argue that there should be NPCs representing offices and positions that are critical to the day to day business of running things. Don't forget that the GM is a player too and he should have his fun. Also it prevents players from ignoring the setting completely and do things that are petty and illogical for the situation at hand.

4) Yes we should use turns because some of us can only post so many times a week

View user profile

129 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:38 pm

Hi everyone I am the new Director of Domestic Intelligence. So if you have anything you need Domestic Intelligence to do than contact me

View user profile

130 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:03 pm

Nerozaz wrote:Hi everyone I am the new Director of Domestic Intelligence. So if you have anything you need Domestic Intelligence to do than contact me

Fires the Party Emitter at Nerozaz, exciting every molecule in his body and and causing them to dance all over the floor, creating grease stains into the concrete.

View user profile

131 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:05 pm

Gollvieg wrote:
Nerozaz wrote:Hi everyone I am the new Director of Domestic Intelligence. So if you have anything you need Domestic Intelligence to do than contact me

Fires the Party Emitter at Nerozaz, exciting every molecule in his body and and causing them to dance all over the floor, creating grease stains into the concrete.

An epic lights show if I have ever seen one! and I saw Nagasaki!. Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

View user profile

132 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:15 pm

to bad disco is a few years in waiting

View user profile

133 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:19 am

I finally have enough time to put to writing the system I inadvertently invented while thinking about the predicament of PG.
I am sorry for posting this so late, and, in fact, for posting this at all. This goes beyond the scope of a forum post, but I simply don't feel like I can fully articulate my point without applying my criticism and game design philosophy in a direct example. (Also, I am a narcissistic showboat, so I want to present it this way)

Critique of the PG as it is now

I believe the problems of PG are a combination of the scope of the game going wildly beyond original intentions, clashing ideas of players as to what PG entails, and subsequent ad hoc creation of ruleset.

A I understand it, originally this was to be a simple game where everyone has a similar post in a government with roughly similar power, but this quickly changed (for good and for ill), and I can't help but feel like it was largely my fault.

This divergence from the original concept began with two actions: me starting a character bio thread, which introduced more role-playing, and thus further differentiation in character's respective power (both it's qualitative and quantitative measures), and the start of the constitutional debate, which brought forth more simulation elements and was the first real fracturing of player base.

Thanks to all this, we ended up from a "pure" PG with a role-playing game simulating an entire nation, with a strong focus on the government and governance of the country.
Furthermore, from what was set up to be a tutorial became the game itself, and stats were added.
Both these decisions were good. The game clearly surpassed a mere tutorial (again, I cannot help but feel my over-enthusiasm and pushing to flesh out Echain was partly culpable), thus discarding it and starting anew would make a lot of player's work moot. And persistent stats were necessary, and, in my opinion, the current framework is solid.
What didn't work was the combination of the game as it was; the new stats system; and the constitution.

From these the constitution deserves the most flack. Again, I actually wrote it, and, being me, I did so mostly in character, which means actual gameplay wasn't a concern while I was writing it. Which was a massive oversight, and really this was the one cog that just didn't fit in.

So what was the problem with Constitution? First, it created wildly different gameplay roles, which meant implementing a comprehensive stats system and applying it was always going to be very difficult. Many agencies had to have additional systems in place, which is a nightmare to balance, especially on the fly.
Thus, businesses (like Gollvieg) had more resources and less limitations in their usage than the Government, and the Governors had no resources, but were the only part of government actually capable of working, because national government had too many players who weren't all that active.

My objectives and goals

Despite bashing the game as it was, I believe it to be pretty interesting and good. The mix of style created is brilliant, and, with a system which accounts for reality better, can produce wonderful situations and stories.
I like the variety it provided, and I like that it, theoretically, allows players to be as active as they can and want to be. Because there are so many roles, some don't require as much activity.
This is important, because there will always be crazy people (*points at himself*) who will be almost always online, and in a homogeneous game you'd have to pick between limiting such players (instituting "cooldowns" of sort), which brings further systematisation of gameplay, and would discourage deep involvement with the game, or you'd give those able and willing to sink their time into the game a massive advantage, to the point many would simply be unable to really play, as power would be more and more concentrated in the hands of those active.

Given all that, here are my objectives for a new ruleset:

  • Unobtrusive and flexible system - to allow as much freedom for the players as possible
  • Heterogeneity of roles - so players can focus on what they consider interesting and fun; this must include many ways to interact with the world and other characters
  • Continuity - the change must be doable, viable and reasonable in-universe; no "wiping the slate clean", no retconning which would be inevitably confusing
  • High tolerance margins - meaning the game is viable with very few really active players; it has to work with as little active players as possible
  • Preserving the mix of politics, role-playing and simulation
  • Gameplay balance


Terms and definitions

EPR - essential player roles. These must be filled with active players.
NER - non-essential roles. Don't have a required level of activity.
Activity - see below.
OOC - action made out of character, "meta"-game.

System of Government

Governors form the Council of Governors, which is the legislative body of the entire nation.
Council of Governors also shares national executive powers; these can be delegated (see Roles)
Governors have executive power in their regions; directly over the capital zone, and indirectly over the others (giving order to the local mayor).
Legislature in the Regions is done via NPC Assemblies, where the Governor and Mayors exert influence to push their preffered regional measures.
Division of national and regional powers is the same as it is now.

This change can be in-universe explained by the current regional uprising winning.

Roles

Governors
There are 9 governors.
They are all EPR.
In Council of Governors, they also cooperatively wield the positions of Commander in Chief, Intelligence director, National Bank director and have full control over foreign affairs.
However, these roles can, and should, be handled by Delegates, if there are any.
Governors have terms as detailed in the current constitution.

Delegates
They are not an essential part of the role, however, if a willing and active player is interested in a role in military (Delegate for Defense), espionage (Delegate for Intelligence), diplomacy (Delegate for Foreign Affairs), or the national-level economy (Delegate for Economy and Trade), they can ask the Council to gain these posts. If they are voted in, they essentially assume the power of ministers.
There can be other delegates; the system is flexible. So, there can be a Delegate for Judiciary, Delegate for Education, etc.; also, the only posts which are exclusive are the big three - Defense, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs. Also, if one person has Economy and National Bank, he can have no other role.
This is so power is not too concentrated.
If a delegate is inactive, Council assumes his authority, either temporarily, or they can vote to dismiss him.
A delegate needs 5 votes of Governors to gain power, but 7 governors need to vote for dismissal for the delegate to lose his station.
Delegates automatically lose their position upon governorial elections.
Delegates can also be Mayors.

Mayors
They are NER.
Mayors have terms same as Governors.
They control directly their Zone, where they have supreme executive power. They have to fulfil laws and ordinances, but they don't necessarily have to obey their Governors.
However, if they are inactive, they will do what their Governor wants them to do.
They can make official internal diplomacy on behalf of their zones.
They can vie for influence in the Assembly and other Zones in the Region (except for Capital Zone).

Extra-governmental roles
Here are all kinds of roles. They have no set gameplay.
All actions which have deadlines have to also be made known in a Bulletin thread, where only actions and deadlines will be posted (not discussion, voting etc.) to be properly registered.

What does "inactivity" mean?

Inactivity only applies to actions of Governors, and only in very specific cases.

National Legislative Action
Once a bill is put to the floor, Governors have 36 hours to vote on it.
Potential breaking vote belongs to the GM.

National Executive Action
If an executive action is proposed, Governors have 36 hours to vote on it.
Inactivity of a delegate is established by a Governor requesting proof of activity; if it is not provided in 12 hours, Delegate is considered inactive for the round, and his power devolves back to the Council.

Regional Legislative Action
Once a bill is put to the floor, Governor and Mayors have 36 hours to vote for their factions.
Potential breaking vote belongs to the GM.

Regional Executive Action
If a Governor makes such action, Mayor is required to make a statement concerning it in 36 hours. If he does not do so, the action is considered to proceed in the zone as the Governor planned it.

Crisis
Crises can be announced by the GM, or voted in if all Governors (all 9) vote for such measure OOC.
In a crisis, all intervals are reduced to 12 hours.

Stats

These aren't really the point of this proposal, since it's really just a proof of concept. Also, the current system would work pretty well, with couple minor modifications.
One thing I'd like to see is a personal "controversiality" stat. So you could have X popularity, but if you are more controversial, people either love you or hate you, whereas if you have low controversiality, people generally like you a bit.

Balancing

There is one gamebreaking bug in the game right now, as far as those I'm aware of go.
That's that government is completely unable to function because of in-game reasons.
There are two specific aspects of this. I'll start with the one that I don't know as much about; however the bugs are basically identical.

The army is weak and cannot do anything. Also, we have an invasion right of the bat. But hey, there's a PMC that is incredibly powerful, can coordinate and maintain deployment in several places at once (and all that without having any presence before that).

Second example is economical one, where the government has no funds, no property, but hey, there's Gollveig!

This problem isn't about what these players are doing, it's more about how the game was set up and how it ran.
As I stated in the critique, the fact that the game transformed so much, so spontaneously and without any balancing (which was impossible without a complete reevaluation, like we're in process of doing) that this was inevitable.
However, it created a situation where players playing private characters, with full and immediate control over their assets, have as much, and I would argue even more, assets than the government, which creates a staggering disparity in power between characters and adversely affects the game for both the Government (who are not just deliberative and unable of immediate action, but also weak in said action) and these overpowered players (they are essentially forced to play single-player of sorts).

Now I'll go into detail on economy and why it really is a BIG problem. I am honestly a bit surprised noone noticed it to my knowledge, because it's pretty obvious Echain's economy is screwed right now.
I am not an economist, but I did study, in quite a bit of detail, Alois Rasin. He was a politician in my country who set up our currency in 1918 (after we gained independence). That's why I wanted to do national bank (OOC reason).

So, in the time period we're in, currency is basically fiat, but the pretense that it's not "just paper" is still strong.
Also, we are a new nation, and new, unstable currencies often become targets for speculation.

For these reasons, tying currency to bullion is essential. The only alternative is to institute a rationing system, which would have its own considerable drawbacks.

The question is, where to get bullion?
You see, there's nothing the Occupation left behind, apparently. It might have been forgotten in the fray, but both Zeiss and me did take gameplay action to at least find (in my case) the property left by the occupation.
So the only one with silver was Gollvieg. Now that's problem number one. He very well might be a lot richer than the government.

Okay, we've got silver, great. How much? Well, 200 mil USD (2017) worth. Great, right? Except... this is nothing, really.
If we print much more than that, Espada will still be weak against speculants.
So, I propped up this limited supply by adding rubber into the mix, but that has its own huge pile of problems, and it still allows for, maybe 800 mil ESP to be printed, and only if rubber production grows at a staggering rate.
Not to mention 800 million is not enough. It means, if everyone in Echain is equally wealthy, each person will have 200 ESP. And one espada is one current dollar.
This is very little, and for it to work, two things are required: either extremely fast circulation, or the domestic value of espada will increase.
Which, once again, brings in the trouble of foreign predatory speculation.

Not only is this game-breaking in that both these problems make everyone but two players impotent, or in that Echain is doomed right now and there is very little players in the government can do to save it, but it's also unrealistic.

The military situation is crazy. First there's the question of who would even invade, but we don't know, so I won't touch on that. Second, we just won our independence by strenght of arms. There would be a core of a military stronger than what we have according to the stats.

As for the economy, there is no chance there isn't any gold or silver left from the kingdom or the occupation. You could argue Japanese just bagged everything and took it, but A) Yokoi sounds like a semi-independent despot, and I feel like he would retain that bullion for himself, and B) if this did happen, people would know, or we'd find out, and we could, for example, enter arbitration with Japan over the matter.

Both of these criticisms sound quite personal, for which I'm sorry. I don't fault Gollvieg for this, or Lorerunner; as I said, the chaos of the game meant noone could really solve these issues.
The only direct actual decision I will criticise is the decision to have Echain's economy to be completely non-existent (no factories, no technology), but that at least doesn't break the game.

Sollution is easy. Give government more gold and military capability, and weaken private players so the tradeoff between resources and capability for independent action is as close to fair as possible.



Last edited by Karbin Cry on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:33 pm; edited 3 times in total

View user profile

134 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:57 am

I'm honestly confused with everything that has been happening. Are we waiting on continuing then until we get all this settled.

View user profile

135 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:13 pm

We're currently on hold Coolkid until some things can be hashed out. And in response to Lore's questions:

Do we utilize an underlying game (stats of some sort or another) or no? - I think a very limited system of stats will work, too many and it will just turn into a stat chasing game.

Do we merge everyone into federal (and at least three variants on this idea I can think of), or no? - I think giving everyone an as equal amount of power as possible will encourage everyone to form alliances, communicate and compromise. So I would be for putting everyone in at the federal level.

Related to point 2, do we have NPCs in federal government? - I think NPCs could be possible to fill gaps that can't/aren't filled by players only, but should be used sparingly.

And finally, do we utilize Turns or no? - I think the turn system is okay for what it is currently used for, any deal making and discussion happening without the need for turns, but certain things that need firm resolutions or effects would work best turn based. i.e. the outcome of implementing a policy and its affect on the population becoming apparent after a few turns.

View user profile

136 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:52 pm

KarbinCry you magnificent crazy, crazy, man. Looks good so far.

View user profile

137 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:31 pm

So, my rule-set "proof of concept" proposal is done.
Now I'll finish DS9, and then maybe write a post here about why I think Ezri Dax is the best character (characterisation, development, and presentation) in all of Star Trek and why I don't get how can so many people hate her.

EDIT: So, I wasn't quite finished. Forgot to write conclusion to the balancing rant Very Happy
Also, Gollvieg, I hope you still consider me magnificent, well, at least crazy ('cuz I am Very Happy ), even though I do semi-directly tear into you there Smile



Last edited by Karbin Cry on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

138 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:35 pm

Karbin Cry wrote:So, my rule-set "proof of concept" proposal is done.
Now I'll finish DS9, and then maybe write a post here about why I think Ezri Dax is the best character (characterisation, development, and presentation) in all of Star Trek and why I don't get how can so many people hate her.

Before you go watch DS9, fill out your Character wiki before I write in that you died like a punk bleeding out on the carpet in front of 3 people in the room who did not bother to use first aid. Rolling Eyes

View user profile

139 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:38 pm

If you remember, Gollvieg, bigbadwolfhub actually tried to call medical help, but I responded by OOC calling my death on the spot Very Happy
You can go ahead and write me in. I'll edit if something isn't objectively true Wink
That being said, I like how noone remembers how we voted not to have character bio's on the wiki in the PG stream Very Happy (BTW I was one of the few who wanted bios to be there).

View user profile

140 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:41 pm

Karbin Cry wrote:If you remember, Gollvieg, bigbadwolfhub actually tried to call medical help, but I responded by OOC calling my death on the spot Very Happy
You can go ahead and write me in. I'll edit if something isn't objectively true Wink
That being said, I like how noone remembers how we voted not to have character bio's on the wiki in the PG stream Very Happy (BTW I was one of the few who wanted bios to be there).


SHHHHHHH! Very Happy

View user profile

141 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:42 pm

Karbin Cry wrote:If you remember, Gollvieg, bigbadwolfhub actually tried to call medical help, but I responded by OOC calling my death on the spot Very Happy
You can go ahead and write me in. I'll edit if something isn't objectively true Wink
That being said, I like how noone remembers how we voted not to have character bio's on the wiki in the PG stream Very Happy (BTW I was one of the few who wanted bios to be there).

How else are we going to get all this juicy backstory out there? Plus I thought the primary problem is that there would be no one to update, do the profiles and edit it. Since I am neurotic and suffer from a terrible case of insomnia, I volunteer to do all the work.

View user profile

142 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:48 pm

Hey, bradley! You voted against character bios on the wiki, and now you're one of the first to fill theirs in. Turncoat! ;D

Well, I pass the torch to you, Gollvieg. Putting in every region's infobox and then infobox pages for each zone and each tiny fu*king settlement I just had to put in that map (that I only made because I wanted to prove to Lorerunner I can do a good map Very Happy ) really burnt me out as far as wiki goes.

Plus, my favourite anime's 2nd season just began (which is really bad, considering the first one caused my first long mental breakdown), and my grandfather had a... well, it's complicated, but let's just call it a stroke, is in a coma for a week and lives on machines, which thanks to *** laws in my country can never be turned off, even though he's not going to wake up, and even if he did he'd be vegetable (but that doesn't mean we don't hope he's gonna be fine, which he won't, but until he's in the ground that *** **** **** hope will still be there), all of which is...

Honestly I just lost my train of thought. Just needed to vent I guess. Sorry. I could delete it, but for some reason I don't want to.

View user profile

143 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:56 pm

It's alright, I hope I can do as good a job as you did on the map.

View user profile

144 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:48 pm

The Lorerunner wrote: For example I've heard several people mention the compartmentalization.

Being one of said people, let me comment on this. As Karbin said, one of the fundamental problems of the game is/was that it's scope increased (too?) far beyond its initial intent. The constitution created more posts than there were players - or active players, at least - so there would always be a lack of people on critical positions. And when given the choice, people would always be able to pick which position would be more fulfilling to them, which is of course preferable. What I found when playing as a governor, though, was that I found myself to be somewhat distanced from politics as a whole, and thus from national affairs and inter-vocational interaction as well. This might be a personal flaw, though. I often have trouble participating in threads with high contributional traffic, often ending up responding to an issue brought up two or three pages previously. I therefore usually miss out on casual banter. Which is fine.
The point being here, though, is that I didn't even feel the need to read all that was going on on the senatoral level, or between departments and the senate, seeing little affected my charge. Sure, I interacted with people on an individual level and took position in some national issues, but still felt that there was, gameplay wise, no real interaction between national and provincial politics other than rubberstamping a bill once in a while. That we were (or I was) mostly playing a separate game. This is what I meant with the game feeling compartementalized.

As I said, this is my personal take on it, your milage may have varied. That said, I endorse Karbin's plan for merging those two levels of play into something more holistic and appreciate the idea of delegating provincial power to mayoral players. A concern I would like to point out is that a low, static number of key positions might disencourage new players.

View user profile

145 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:44 pm

But cecasander... We had that discussion(argument) in the ministry of foreign affairs. Sad

Also, I agree with Karbin on this one...
Why is every post you make a full article recently, Karbin? Very Happy

View user profile

146 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:21 pm

Nice work Karbin, but I'd wait on worrying about currency. Two communist militias have just attempted to take over the country. I have my own ideas for it.

View user profile

147 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:42 pm

I doubt your actions would be allowed since 1) the game was in pause when you enacted your plan and 2) Our whole government might change, so your plans of taking the central government won't work if there is no central government...

I, also, doubt that the people of Lurem will be happy when they learn that their own regional government turned against the very force that saved them... i.e. the national government and democratic militia forces.

View user profile

148 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:57 pm

I'll discuss this more tomorrow during the stream (reminder) but it's interesting to note that Karbin's idea and mine actually gel pretty well except for the city level of things. I'd have to think about how to fit that in.


_________________
The Lorerunner
View user profile http://lorerunner.com/

149 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:30 am

President Grifenknight wrote:I doubt your actions would be allowed since 1) the game was in pause when you enacted your plan and 2) Our whole government might change, so your plans of taking the central government won't work if there is no central government...

I, also, doubt that the people of Lurem will be happy when they learn that their own regional government turned against the very force that saved them... i.e. the national government and democratic militia forces.
I really hope that's not the case, because we put quite a bit of effort into that plan and we launched it basically as the pause came into effect. 

As for the central government possibly not being a thing anymore, well that would be the outcome of our coup.

View user profile

150 Re: So, The GM Likes Transparency... on Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:00 am

Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:
President Grifenknight wrote:I doubt your actions would be allowed since 1) the game was in pause when you enacted your plan and 2) Our whole government might change, so your plans of taking the central government won't work if there is no central government...

I, also, doubt that the people of Lurem will be happy when they learn that their own regional government turned against the very force that saved them... i.e. the national government and democratic militia forces.
I really hope that's not the case, because we put quite a bit of effort into that plan and we launched it basically as the pause came into effect. 

As for the central government possibly not being a thing anymore, well that would be the outcome of our coup.

OOC: Damn it WW, how is Lorinbas and I going to pull off a Monarchist coup when you already dissolve the Government?

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum