EaglePrince

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. :)

I certainly will, and I apologize for writing a rushed reply. :)

I am sorry for replying without reading everything you wrote, but I'd like to say that if someone isn't able to buy a gun legally, he would be able to get it another way. :( Just look at Europe, how many people are there trading with illegal weapons. I read news about that now and then, and it may be that we see it more frequently, because sometimes it's about firearms made in Serbia (while we were part of Yugoslavia, or recently).

Not at all. If you would be able to play at some moment, let me know. :) We could see when both of us would be able to play.

Interesting questions, and thanks for the answers, Crusader1307! And, yes, I agree with Mathew regarding the number four here - about the rules of engagement. Especially if I consider those events from the civil war here in Yugoslavia... I imagine it is different in US for example, where you have profession army (today we have it the same way here as well), while it wasn't the case here. Among others, there were many criminals who were allowed to go to war in exchange for not going to prison (I don't know the details, maybe it was delaying going into prison, maybe it was something in between). Well, when somebody fights against those guys, I guess he should better forget the rules of engagement, as those showed little mercy towards civilians, and not to talk about others... :( But of course, not to be misunderstood, in the war there were people like that in all three sides, and each side suffered.

By the way, I have recently bough a new GPU for my better PC, it's NVIDIA GT 730, it's way better then my old GT 520. :) If there is someone who would be willing to join me in a Crusader 2 batter against AI lords, it would be my honor to fight side by side with a Stronghold Nation brother. :D We could play this weekend, or we could also play during next week. I still have a lot of work to do, but at this moment, what I do I have to do at home, so I can choose when to have a break. :P

This is going to be pretty useful tread. Last week I did have some time to spare, and I was thinking about making a gaming event - but not for any Stronghold game in specific. Next time I have some free time like then, I would jump in here, and ask you guys who's up for a game, and what game would you like to play. Subscribing to this tread. :)

I see it's pretty interesting. I'm going to give it a try tomorrow. :) I hope I'll make it. :)

This looks amazing. :)

Welcome back, Nigel, I'm glad that you had such a great time. :) Next week I am going to Prague (the opposite side of Austro-Hungarian Empire), that's going to be furthest from home I've ever been. :P It's not going to be a holiday though, but I hope I will be able to find some time to look around. :)

This one seems interesting, I hope I will be able to participate and submit an entry. :)

As far as I get it, changing amplitude should only change the volume (it determines how loud is the music), so I guess that you shouldn't change those two (pitch/frequency and volume) proportionally but to change only one of them. Now, my guess is that these problems like the one you mentioned can be caused by the software "not doing the job right" in combination with the original recording not being perfect. Whenever you do any changes you always lose some data - like in almost any calculation in nature. Now, I was assuming that pitch and frequency are (almost) the same thing, but they are not... "Pitch may be quantified as a frequency, but pitch is not a purely objective physical property; it is a subjective psychoacoustical attribute of sound." - from Wikipedia Another issue is that we may not be able to simplify this matter to only few properties, as sounds are complex - especially music, in which we have several sounds in a same moment (though they are merged into one).

I agree, @Lord_Chris! And, @mati555, I hope that if they change it so AI lords keep more troops inside their castle, it would be way more interesting already. :) They can make no mistake with that I believe. The only thing where they could mess something up is making them attack and defend village estates in smarter ways - by periodically sending larger bands of troops for those tasks. In fact, I think that if they do it like this, it would be excellent, and you wouldn't want to change a thing - I only don't know how easily can that be done.

So you did mean on AI Castle Editor there. Yes, that option would really be good, but still, they would hardly give us something like that, that would be asking for a moding tool. As about me, I would be happy with AI lords defending their castles better by keeping more of their troops there. Oh, and, @Lord_Chris, I don't really think that we should have that in the list, at least not like that. As I described it, it was something which would regard the map editor, so those information would need to be stored in the map file. That could over-complicate things, but I see that you have already written the suggestion in the best way possible. :) As you wrote it, it would be simple as choosing difficulty level - just like I wanted to correct myself now.

For example, if you make a three players map, you could assign the estate in the north to be strong, the one in southeast to be medium, and the one in southwest to be weak. So if you set to play against two William's, one if them would be stringer - it to say it better - more aggressive and with more troops in defense. I'm just trying to understand what you meant, I'm not saying any idea of mine. :) That's right. That is why I think it is better like this when it comes to ground ballistae. One could get tens if them quickly and easily, and it they could fire automatically they would be devastating. When it is as it is now, that depends of how we control put army.