EaglePrince

I shall only say that in most cases you know very little, and you "know" what you are supposed to know. Just like we in Yugoslavia "had to sell our best companies because we are switching to capitalism". Now when you look at it - what the f***? It isn't forbidden in any country for a state to have its own factories or whatever. If it doesn't do well, then fine, but they were selling those best ones. Later people see how they were tricked, and by the time they lose their will to vote or do anything. That was after year 2000. During 90's we also "knew" a lot of that which weren't facts. And now regarding this one: http://forums.stronghold-nation.com/post/11303/#p11303 Why do you think that more qualified doctors from India are unable to come to UK and work today? That is not a fact, every hospital has the right to choose which doctor he wants to employ. Sure, it may be easier for the one from EU to get the job, but if the hospital cares about who is the better one, they should arrange for the one in India to get a working visa, so he could come, and perhaps even settle in UK. So, I am sorry to break it, but it is ABOUT YOU. There are other things which you mentioned - regarding controlling your borders... The current issue with EU is mostly related to migration I guess, and the fact that you want to keep control of your borders. I understand why some may want to have any holding on borders between EU countries, but if they decided to change that, wouldn't that remove at least most of the problems? For example, if you were able to do this: 1. to let certain people in with their passports after the control on the border 2. to deport foreign citizens including EU citizens 3. to not let deported people in, or anyone else who you decide not to let in (you may add something else as well, if I forgot something) would that be helpful? Still, I have to point out that this way you wouldn't require a visa from someone entering a country, but only a passport. Also, this wouldn't affect EU migrants who seek for job - if being an EU citizen automatically means having permission to work, though like I said, almost anyone can get a working visa. What would you like to have regarding this issue. On the other hand, you could require visa's for citizens of some EU countries of your choice. Sure, you have free trade, no need to disturb that, but I don't get it why shouldn't it be an issue for you to control your borders. Of course, I realize some of these would require changing of some rules of EU... But still, those few states that managed to survive though centuries have survived because they were flexible, and they were managing to adopt.

And I am sorry that you got the wrong impression that I got wrong impression about you. :P You're not W whining, that is a fact I guess, that most games are like that... And yes, you are correct, the editor is one of the most important parts of Stronghold games. Also, you are correct, it would be awesome to be able to mod the game. The only issue is how much read easy it may be for Firefly to do it, and do they want to do it. I mean, the do want to sell their next games well. And yes, Firefly does count on their fans... Without their fans, they have very little scenarios, maps, etc... Don't get me wrong, I just wrote everything quickly these few days, and in the end you can get a wrong impression. And you're not whining. :D

I'd just like to add that it's not all so bad as you describe. Yes, that's what many developers do - add busty girls, and such stuff. Still, that is not enough reason to think that because of this any "more serious game wouldn't be able to survive". Lost of us started to play these games as teenagers. Also, when it comes to nowadays teenagers, I can tell you for sure that they do appretiate those games just like we did. I thought math in elementary school and in high school, and many of them like Crusader, Age of Empires, etc... Damn, sadly it would be unprofessional from me to challenge them on a game, or to answer some if their challenges. :P So it's not about the kids, it's about the games! I'm not sure what is it exactly, but I guess that it's not only about developers, not about available engines. It seems like it was easier to make lots of things back then on 2D engines than on those 3D engines. Obviously firefly didn't manage to make moats in Stronghold 3 nor in Crusader 2. Yes, they said moats wouldn't make sense in desert, but they would give them to us if they were able to. What developers need today is to give them a quality new strategy game, with great gameplay. Yes, unfortunately, poor graphics or 2D whine could repel some if the players from butting the game, but if the gameplay isn't good enough they will impress players are first, but later they would come back, crying for they wasted their money, and writting bad reviews. This is why we taught that it could be a smart thing for Firefly to do done more work on Stronghold 2, because this wouldn't be too much effort compared to making a new game, and with Stronghold 2 they already have a good 3D Stronghold game with excellent gameplay. Well, warfare isn't so awesome as it is in Crusader, but it is much better then in Stronghold 3 or Crusader 2. In Crusader 2 you even don't have laddermen. Still, I don't say Crusader 2 is bad, I like it, but still...

That with the popularity, if you population drops to zero or few peasants, then your popularity jumps to 75, i think they made this in purpose so they would give a chance to a ruined player to rise again. I used it free weeks ago when I was playing a mission given us by Chris. I didn't give them taxes to +8, plus ale to +8, but I just shut down the workshops, and I trained troops. With this population dropped to 1 (I kept the inn working), and popularity jumped to 75 from 0.

I'm not home at the moment, and i can't watch the video, but from what you said I guess this only works in map editor - it wouldn't work for castle in skirmish game?

Sure. Right now I am not home, but I may try to watch it at some moment when I get better WiFi signal, and when I have several minutes free. :) Looking forward to see it.

Although I agree with you that Firefly wanted to make a game for majority of players who would prefer fighting over castle life, we have to agree that they could have thought a little bit better when they were making Stronghold 2 and newer Stronghold games. Fighting, besieging castles, and defending a castle is way more interesting in those older Stronghold games, but not because those were simpler in Stronghold Crusader, but because those were way more complex in Stronghold Crusader. In Crusader you are able to choose which troops would be the best to defeat certain opponents, so while swordsmen are great if you want to attack the Pig, macemen would be far more efficient in killing the Caliph. In newer Stronghold games it's all about knights unfortunately. That's why I love to play with swordsmen. :P (which becomes impossible if your opponents have tons of knights, then you must have knights as well) There's nothing that can stop knights as efficiently as another army of knights. But still, I do like Stronghold 2 multiplayer games as well!

Well, I didn't have in mind posting a defeat screen, but if you insist, I do have one defeat screen as well. :)

Yes, fire in general is way more effective in Stronghold 1 and Crusader 1 than in any other Stronghold game. That makes sieges way more interesting in my opinion, I don't understand that new logic of Firefly... Yes, knights are more expensive, and they should be more resilient than other troops, but not against fire, their heavy armors shouldn't make them almost fireproof. So yes, for such reasons I prefer fighting in Stronghold 1 and Crusader 1 more then in any other Stronghold game, and fighting in Stronghold 1 is especially interesting because of slower economy. In both games you can get yourself easily in a bad position, but in Stronghold 1 you need to be even more careful. :) And yes, I agree, more missions such as this one would be great! I liked it way more than "produce as much as you can", or "kill as much as you can", etc... But I don't say those aren't interesting, those are interesting too!

Now I took a look into your castle. From what I saw I assume you also had issues with their assassins. In my case too those assassins were acting just like they knew what they were doing - unlike in most of skirmish games I play against Nizar. Those assassins were targeting either one of my towers to take down my archers, either the gatehouse to open it for other troops. That is why after several attacks I decided to use those boiling oil. Flame throwers are usually fine for the task as well, but since they acted so well, they didn't do the job well done as engineers with boiling oil would. Lord Chris, the scenario is awesome!

I certainly didn't use anything which hasn't been mentioned here at some moment, but I will tell tomorrow what was it. One thing - from the first moment I knew that I will have to use portable shields, which I avoid to use even in multiplayer games. In my first attempt (after looking around and thinking what are my options) I managed to survive until 1198 I think. And yes, it becomes the most difficult in the moment when you run out of bread. I will tell tomorrow what was the other thing I was doing. The map maker could have easily prevent me from doing what I did though. But one hint, I acted like my government. :)

Let's say I would be able to survive for as long as I want. :P But I suggest to Chris that if nobody else manages to do it like this, to give me and the second one to share the prize for this week. I gave everything to make this result. Let's say that I "went to the dark side". :) I was using tactics which I avoid to use in skirmish or multiplayer games. EaglePrince 1.sav

Wow, this is really great to hear! I must tell you that I love how you made all those buildings differently, one can be sure that you put a lot of effort into that, but many things turned out to be better than in the original Stronghold, such as hovels, and many other things, you did an awesome job. :) You could have read all what I said now in some older posts, we were discussing the look of your buildings, and we all agree that it is great; but in case that you didn't have time for reading those older posts - I'm telling you now. :)

Lord Chris, does this mission have any end? :/

Glad to hear that, the mission is indeed interesting. You are correct, as far as I got it, the mission would never be won, I guess it doesn't have any winning condition, or it has one which can't be accomplished. I wasn't looking into that.

Pretty tough mission. Has anyone else answered Lord Chris' call to arms?

First of all, Mathew, we know you are not naive or something like that, and there is no need for you to say something like that. :) And to add, those things don't have to do anything with religion (it's mostly the case at least), but it's about some other things... On one hand, you have those educated people who have worked their asses to become doctors for example, then they see that it is not appreciated in their own country, and they have two choice - to move, or to work some other job, which would be really sad after all those years of their hard work. Also, there are those who need more money, they work all day long in their home country for little money, and they are forced to move elsewhere. Those people won't do any harm to any society. On the other hand, there are plenty of those people who didn't want to work in their country, but not because it was for little money, but because they were lazy. When they move to that other country, they will be too lazy to learn the language, and not to speak about finding a job there (though there are those who manage to find a job without speaking the language if finds a job to work with people who speak their his/her language). In this case, not only that new country would give them certain amount of money each month, but they will also bring more problems. It's pretty simple - when people work, then they mind their own busyness, but if they don't have a job, then they just wonder around, and many of them will turn to crime.

I agree with Chris. I would only like to add this issue about immigrants who don't have their passports - when someone is fleeing from war, he may not even have his passport. I myself didn't have a passport until two years ago (or maybe three, I'm too lazy to check :P ) I think. This thing with passports is not that simple if you want to help those people, but on the other hand - this could have been done in way better way, letting everyone enter freely is the worst possible solution in my opinion. Another thing I would like to point out is that, when someone is fleeing from war, once he has reached a country where there is no war, he has no argument to move to another country unless he was rejected asylum in the country he currently is. Still, maybe they (European Union, or Germany) do want to accomplish something we are not aware about. We know as much as we were served, and if you don't get enough fact, you cannot make the right conclusion. Or, it may be simple as well, who knows...

I agree, and if a country have that issue with mental illnesses, then it is even more important to put this matter under control. I'd only add that here is unclear what one considers by mental illness, but that doesn't much at this point.

Of course, I don't say that you should close your door to those people who have nothing left, but only not to let your good will to be misused. It is one thing when someone wants to have another chance, but it is entirely different when someone comes to Europe only to use those benefits. There are people who go abroad, and they don't want to work there, because they can get the money anyway. You see how those people who travel accross Balkan don't stop in Macedonia, Bulgaria or Serbia to ask for asylum? That is because we have little money for ourselves, and we are not able to give them what people of Western Europe can. There are few of them who asked for asylum in Serbia though, and as far as I know - they were granted it. They don't want to come to any safe land, they want to come to a rich safe country. But of course, from their perspective, it is better for their own future to try hard to get into one of those richer countries - you work here in Serbia, you work there in France, and you don't earn the same money here and there. And in the end of this paragraph, don't get me wrong, just as I want to be respected by your people, so I respect those people who are fleeing from war. And yes, I agree, we have said everything about this matter about guns. I would also add that in my opinion it is not majority of Americans who support the current gun laws in the USA. Many say it opinions like that are promoted by companies which produce weapons and sell them... But that is also a different story.

Well, yes, when it comes to terrorism you are correct. However, until seventy years ago there used to be a war in each part of Europe every now and then. Just look at how many wars were in Central Europe during nineteenth century. It's not that we suffer too much, people in Europe live pretty well considering what was the case 150 years ago, and it is less likely that someone is going to die for his country. Regarding the wall, it is not that I support that certain candidate, but I don't think that he was telling about legal migrants, he was speaking about illegal ones, and I must say that I don't see an issue with that. Also, when we look at Europe, I think that European countries should accept only those who are going to be loyal to their new country, and those who are willing to contribute to the society they want to be part of. It is not discrimination in any way, no countries tax payers should work their asses only for their country to give away money to those who come to you as refuges (or should I say "refuges"). It is very well known here there there are people who move to Germany, ask for asylum, get some money from them, and then come back with that money after they get rejected. And no, they wouldn't be rejected, I am sure about that, if they were willing to sit down, learn the language, and find a job. Also, I don't think that we live in a caring world today. We live in a world where someone will help only because of some interest, as always we have always been. There are exceptions, but this is my opinion.

Well, that point of view is not so unfamiliar to me. I saw that that kind of opinion usually have those who like guns, they are always like "guns don't kill people, people do", or "people are afraid of guns because they didn't have enough contact with them". I have also seen so many posts on 9gag like "I left a gun in front of my front do facing the street, and it didn't kill anyone", which seems as a pretty stupid example to me. Well, those are simply not true, look at example of my father - he hates when someone hold a knife on the table, he's always like "put away that thing when we're talking!". I guess it's pretty good example that no knowing guns isn't the issue. Just don't judge Americans for this. People fall for stories like that, and politicians know that. Not entire people, but majority does, and that is enough for them. Keep in mind that if you control the media you could brainwash any people into anything - they may even be aware of what you're doing, but you would still succeed. I guess that is one of the reasons why there are nations which don't like each other. During nineties our news were telling one thing, and some others news tell the opposite to their people, and both justifying the actions of their side. Most people believe it, and many take it emotionally. Just look at this - Serbia is a relatively poor country, and people doesn't live so great, and yet many politicians collect their votes with "Kosovo is Serbia" story. I mean, what the f***, if they don't want to live with us, let them go, and let's just see how can we live better for once. :) But still, keep in mind that you should care for your nation. But by that, I don't mean on how someone was born, I mean on preserving the way you live, and preserving your identity. In history, there were times when people had to stick together, and if they don't (or if they lose a war), they could all end up badly (being poor or worse). Now we have a short period of peace in Europe, but we should all work together to keep it that way, and one thing that we have to do for that is to be strong and united - which does require people to be bonded by their nationality. But, by nationality I don't mean on what is your father, but more on something like in USA - "if you have American citizenship, then you're an American". I am not a Serbian, but I like the fact that I am accepted here, and here I belong. (If I move to another country, I hope they would accept me as well, as I would accept any other people who would want to come here. Only I would expect for those new guys to act like he's one of us.) PS. damn, this paragraph is confusing, maybe I should delete it... :) And I hope Americans won't prove us wrong about this matter, because that would mean something terrible happened somewhere. :D And no need to worry about that, this is where we discuss about stuff like this, and you're not saying anything bad. From what you wrote here I can only conclude that felt bad for what happened in US, and you felt even worse realizing that something like that wouldn't happen if laws and customs in US were different.

Yes, I do agree. In fact, when someone uses that argument, then he expects from people to bear arms with themselves all day wherever they go, but in that scenario we can only guess how much more victims there would be. Almost every fight could end with worst possible consequences. Or, maybe, this way people would avoid conflicts more then they do now, but I don't think we are ready to conduct that social experiment :p, plus what about those people that don't want to bear arms - they would be left defenseless, and we could also say "why do we have police anyway?"... Still, regarding USA (Crusader, I am sorry, I am sure that you were talking about this last time, but I wasn't reading carefully at that time, I was busy), I do have feeling that USA do want to put control over those stuff, but there are some of the states that are resisting. And then, when it comes to that resistance, it's not out of nowhere, remember that some areas like Wyoming were settles since some 150 years ago. It's even now rarely populated state, but imagine what it looked like back then when everyone had to rely on himself to survive. Those people who live there now and like grand grand grand grandsons of those people (only four generations ago), while I understand that even now guns may be necessary for them to feel safe depending of where they live. Maybe we could say similar thing for the tough southerners. :) What I want to say is that any civilized country should go towards what you're talking about, but at this moment I feel that they would feel like helpless lambs if someone took away their guns over night, and that something like that would only lead to making small workshops which would be making guns in some basements illegally. And to some point, it is a good thing for society "not to be weak", but this is a story for another day. And yes, I don't know if pistols are an issue here actually? I believe that in those cases weren't used pistols, but guns such as M16, or Uzzi, or AK47? I am mentioning this because, while I see why someone had a need to own a gun, I don't see why would someone need to have a gun like this, and I think that in USA people can buy those legally. I think that those should be only used by military. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot about another thing... USA is a large country, and we often hear about sad things like the one you mentioned, but still - it is not the case that those things don't happen in Europe. Look at the case with Serbia - we do read an article now and then about a man who snapped and killed several neighbors, like five of them. And then you consider that Serbia have about six million people (not counting Kosovo and Metohija), and guns here are not so easily acquired - at least not legally. Also, those cases don't always have something to do with the war 20 years ago, and it's my opinion that a man in Germany can acquire an illegal gun as easily as in Serbia, as there is a lot of scum from Kosovo (and some other former Yugoslav republic, I don't want to offend someone from Kosovo) who trade with guns. And, once again, I am sure that those guys who trade with weapons are only from countries around Serbia, but it's only that I am familiar with those cases. Also, those guns would be brought there from anywhere. And about what I mentioned before - people not wanting to feel like defenseless lambs... It's not that I can't understand that beside all immigrants who come from war areas, or areas with high crime rate. Also, far from that that I want to suggest "don't accept immigrants", I only think that countries shouldn't keep those ones who don't want to work. Hehe, who knows, maybe I myself move to another country some day. :P

Now I read your post to the end. I must say that I didn't know that they don't check if the person is mentaly stable when it comes to giving him the licence. You are right about that, and in my opinion it wouldn't be any kind of discrimination. Same if the person lives with someone who isn't mentaly stable, and who could get access to the gun. Also, we could say that having certain types of fire arms is unnecessary, it's like people need to prepare for their personal war. A pistol should be enough. And yes, the argument "we have guns to defend ourselves" isn't valid enough - at least in urban areas. What would happen if everyone carried his gun when he goes to the town, or to work... And there should be exeptions, like if someone lives "wild". Similar to when someone lives where little people live per km2... It's easy for me to say "call the cops" when I live in a city where cops would arrive in few mins. I will write more about this matter later.,

I know I've been saying few weeks ago I would try to participate in some missions, but this one would really be a shame for me to miss it. :)