Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Conversion and EU4 rules discussion thread Options · View
King of Men
Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:02:18 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,470
Location: Nowhere
Some points to resolve, ideally before we convert:

  • Should we have a Tallest Poppy rule? To recap, the suggestion is that if one player becomes very powerful, a vote may be called to declare that player the target of a coalition war. Anyone who votes yes is then obliged to join the resulting war, which the target's allies may not join. If the target wins the war, he is declared the winner of the game and we restart in CK2 (unless there are good reasons not to do so, for example the target player quitting). If he loses, the peace treaty may not transfer territory (except cores - not claims) directly to the winners.

    Notice that only two parts of this require an actual rule: One is the obligation of the target's allies not to join the war, the other is the limitation on the peace treaty. Everything else could be done by regular diplomacy. The intent of the second part is to prevent the situation where the second-largest player DOWs the largest with half the map in support, wins, and is now the largest. The purpose of the first part is to create "plausible deniability" for the target's allies, who can avoid helping him in a war that will end the game if he wins, without being in breach of their alliance - it's not their fault, it's the rule.

  • Conversion status of same-dynasty kingdoms. I believe that the option of making them PUs in the auction was too powerful - it enabled starting with essentially a double-sized realm. A possible replacement is to replace with marches, which are not intended to be the size of a full realm but something between one-third and one-half that size. Thus, if you buy the 'create a march' option in the auction, you designate a kingdom of your dynasty, it gets chopped into two or three pieces (before conversion), and one of those pieces becomes a march. I also welcome other suggestions for what to do with same-dynasty kingdoms; one option is of course to do nothing, just have them give score, as they will.

  • Large AI realms of a player dynasty. If you grow an empire's size to 300 without actually playing it, so that the realm-size limit doesn't come into play, what should we do with it? Plainly you should not be converting as that realm. Overlaps somewhat with the above.

  • HRE: Auction bonus? Give to the AI so it can defend itself a little better? Put in India? Electorates and memberships could go in the auction as well.

  • I'm pretty sure I forgot something.

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
  • dragoon9105
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:13:49 AM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,148
    I'm fine with a tallest Poppy Rule, Sort of simulates the Balance of Power politics of this period of European history the best we reasonably can.

    Same Dynasty Kingdoms i'm inclined to keep points only becuase of all the addition of Sets and Missions for additional score. We could keep the PU in the auction but with the Caveat that only nations with less than 100 Development can be personal Unioned.

    Realistically we should carve Player slots from AI realms, player dynasty or no. A big issue with the balance of Power in the Middle east was the Indian Powers, Mali and Sammanids were so large that we couldn't put players there, and in the Sammanids case more or less forced me and Sauron into a Defacto alliance as we HAD to kill them before they god they received a player.

    HRE, I think putting all lands in the Dejure HREin Ck2 into the HRE sort of works. As for if minors or players should be electors *Shrug*

    James Craig
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:08:30 AM
     1st Lieutenant


    Joined: 2/1/2013
    Posts: 171
    Location: Scotland
    I dont like it neutering alliances like that. It seems like it would be abused to pick apart stronger alliances in favor of the alliance belonging to the next tallest poppy, and also forces the target to stay out of successive wars on allies due to the truce. This can be gamed to destroy people.

    Vae Victis!
    Vaniver
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 6:01:00 PM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    I think the tallest poppy rule is missing something like "if half the world votes yes." We don't want to be in a scenario where Alice calls a vote against Bob, and now people are either obliged to help Alice knock down Bob or lose the game (because if Bob trounces Alice solo, then Bob wins).
    The Professor
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 6:16:35 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,434
    Location: Time
    I don't think it's a good idea to have winning/losing the game tied to that vote, I think we can call a separate vote if it seems insurmountable; but close victories/defeats should set the stage for a rematch.

    Quote:

    I dont like it neutering alliances like that. It seems like it would be abused to pick apart stronger alliances in favor of the alliance belonging to the next tallest poppy, and also forces the target to stay out of successive wars on allies due to the truce. This can be gamed to destroy people.


    But then it applies to them and that alliance can't help each other either...



    ****************

    I think a better variation of Tallest Poppy is having it auto-triggered when certain conditions or thresholds are met, and/or at certain increments. Thus, whoever happens to be tallest *is always* under threat, and we can simulate the ticking wars that happened historically, the Wars of Spanish Succession, the 30 Years War, the Great Northern War, the War of Austrian Succession/7 Years War, the Napoleonic Coalition Wars were all vaguely evenly spaced out until closer to the end.

    I think its better to have rules designed to more consistently attempt to pull the rug out from nations before they have a chance to consolidate would be better, and have them happen often, then to have one big clash that potentially determines the game.



    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    LordSauronOfHertfordshire
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 6:42:28 PM
     Optio


    Joined: 5/22/2017
    Posts: 233
    I agree with Blayne on this, the real world usually does not work in Tolkenian Final Battles, it is a constant shift and upheaval of power, something not well simulated by the game. If we want to add that to keep things interesting, something more consistent would, in my opinion, be better. For example, we might consider that the largest nation by dev in the world should get some kind of Imperial Decadence modifier that improves their score, prestige, and power projection, at the cost of some debuff, so that if someone tries to topple them it isn't insurmountable, a sorta Roman Empire "Size isn't always only a good thing" scenario...I don't know, just a thought.

    Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:52:55 PM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    From Discord:

    Clone suggests adding in triggered modifiers based on size and development that increase coring cost (and decreasing it for small nations). This will slow expansion somewhat for the majors, making runaway growth harder.

    Conditioned on us wanting to play through to HoI, I suggest adding explicit blue shells. Basically, there's not a reliable way to get players #2 and #3 to take down player #1, but a button that can be pressed by players not at the top that makes life worse for the person on the top will help even things out. To soften the blow, this should be combined with some boost in HoI (either more points for whatever auction we run then, or we have a list of things to draft that get taken as people get blue shelled).

    My guess was the right thing to do here is take people from the top to the middle or the 25th percentile or similar. Ideally you end up with another player spot, which could be taken by anyone who wants it (and, hopefully, also makes the person who got blue shelled the 'younger brother' in the relationship).

    The idea here is that for the players who are good at expansion, we want them to remain roughly the same power (say, not more than 50% more powerful) than the other players, but also reward their skill with a better chance of winning the endwar.

    (There are things this doesn't solve--even if we had split up Mark last game, there being a hole in Western Europe would have meant we'd need to shell him again--but (1) this is doable and (2) one could imagine Yami jumping into the western European half of shattered HRE and now having a much easier time of things.)
    Ranger9000
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:27:26 PM
     Captain

    Joined: 4/11/2013
    Posts: 324
    Maybe for the 'blue shell' it could be making the larger empires more vulnerable to espionage things like 'assist rebels' and the like? It might even make Espionage ideas of some use other then being a troll. So you could end up with both the higher coring cost making it very hard to get rid of cultures and leaving them ripe to be spawning beds for nationalists.
    The Professor
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:02:18 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,434
    Location: Time
    I don't like the blue shell as it reduces agency.

    The advantage of what I'm proposing, of regular and triggered coalition wars, is that by happening sooner and more often, they not only don't have to result in 'lol game over', but they allow for the possibility of the target nation getting ganged and winning, getting a temporary advantage until the next coalition; or a stalemate in which case the target's growth is now contained until the diplomatic situation adjusts.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    LordSauronOfHertfordshire
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:33:39 PM
     Optio


    Joined: 5/22/2017
    Posts: 233
    The problem is that people don’t have to participate. If you’re allied, and the coalition war is forced to fire, all you have to do is not move from your borders, and just wait out the war.

    Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:35:57 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,148
    My biggest issue with restricting expansion or just tossing out blue shells is the meat of the campaign, is EU. It's 400 years with no early conversion and sets the stage for the balance of power that should be overturned in vicky and challenged in a giant climactic showdown I'n hoi. Someone or some alliance should come out of eu4 ahead to a decent degree.

    Players should be dying and picking up new slots l
    Empire's should be being forged
    Giant wars should be being fought over the balance of power

    Those things are essential to make EU actually interesting and fun to play. Else we might as well just play risk

    I've though this over a bit and I think the carrot works better than the stick here. We need to provide incentives for players to attack people ranked higher than them with those rewards getting exponentially better depending on your relation to the top.

    Basically I'm saying add a coring cost reduction power projection bonuses and such for taking land off the great powers with the bonuses being greater the higher you aim.

    So say taking 100 development from number 9 takes 100 admin. Well against number 1 it might only cost 50 as a very loose example.

    Then add in a further reward based on how powerful their allies are. So if #1 2 and 3 all ally taking land becomes basically free.

    Essentially instead of a blue shell, we use a moba esque bounty system. So even in the event the big 3 ally, there is massive treats for everyone else to coalition up. But not that much incentive for the big 3 to work together when doing so paints a target on them.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:46:44 PM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    dragoon9105 wrote:
    Basically I'm saying add a coring cost reduction power projection bonuses and such for taking land off the great powers with the bonuses being greater the higher you aim.
    I like the idea of also having bonuses / maluses to hostile coring cost, such that winning against larger players is more attractive. But I don't think we can do specific coring cost reductions, where it's cheaper for #3 to eat #2 but not cheaper for #1 to eat #2. (You sort of get this by combining the two, but there's not an independent effect.)

    The main benefit of a discrete penalty is that it lets you pair with a discrete bonus later, but smooth effects are also nice.
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:24:19 AM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,148
    From what I understand of the code, The game has some means of distributing bonuses to individual great powers mainly through power projection. So In theory we can apply that same sliding scale to hostile coring cost, and also coring cost Maluses. So it ends up that it's the cheapest for everyone, including other GP's to attack Gp's of the highest rank.

    Clone's probably the one ultimately to rule if its possible or not.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:38:34 AM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    dragoon9105 wrote:
    From what I understand of the code, The game has some means of distributing bonuses to individual great powers mainly through power projection. So In theory we can apply that same sliding scale to hostile coring cost, and also coring cost Maluses. So it ends up that it's the cheapest for everyone, including other GP's to attack Gp's of the highest rank.
    Yeah, you can have modifiers trigger off of great power rank; my claim is that to get a cost that's F(a,b) instead of F(a)+G(b) you need to do something that's probably too complicated (where a and b are the ranks / sizes / etc.).
    The Professor
    Posted: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:42:38 AM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,434
    Location: Time
    The advantage with my idea is that you can set the percentage such that you have have nations that are First-Amongst-Equals without also triggering the automatic wars, so you can have alliances or blocks that convert with an advantage; just not one so overwhelming that people feel the need to call the game.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    Yami-Yagari
    Posted: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 9:26:39 AM
     Generalmajor


    Joined: 1/16/2014
    Posts: 1,150
    Just posting my thoughts here since someone actually thought it was good, which is a first.

    Instead of having to Mod in complex solutions that might seriously backfire, I'm all for the more simpler approach of making compelling gamerules that make things interesting, but not needlessly punishing for people that do get ahead.

    Three kingdoms division theory.

    3 factions, led by the 3 greatest of European great powers, in constant rivalry. With the other europeans free to side with whoever suits their personal interests at that time, with occasional swapping between when they no longer do so.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 8:25:14 PM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    I think we should get some clarity / common knowledge on the size limit. As stated, the rule is:

    Quote:
    A played character may not have a realm size greater than 150. This will be enforced by edit between sessions.
    The question is, is this a rule at all times, such that players should not take actions that will cause them to go over limit, or a rule at session ends? The sense I got from Dragoon in Discord is that it's a rule at session ends. I also observe making it a rule at all times breaks the dynasty-expansion aspect of the game unless you're limited to pressing other people's claims. (If I kingdom-subjugate Avaria then hand it off to a brother, I deliberately go above 150 realm size and then drop back below.)

    But consider, in boxing, the 'weigh-in' which determines weight class, which is a day before the fight as opposed to immediately before; the strategy, then, is to dehydrate as much as you can, get weighed, and then rehydrate to normal before the fight. A thing that I could do as an emperor-level title is vassalize all (willing) players at the start of the session, run as an empire for four hours, and then grant independence to drop back down to 150 realm size, and then vassalize everyone again at the start of the next session.

    This seems like not the game the realm size is trying to achieve. It still does some nice things--while I don't have the vassals for an in-game month, it's a real-world week, and so if people get tired of Vaniver's tyranny they can collectively choose to not swear fealty at the next session, or switch to Clone instead, or so on, without having to fight any independence wars (and they have a baked-in truce!). But it also means players have access to massive stacks--if, say, Dragoon doesn't swear fealty because he's e_italia, but no one swears fealty to him instead of me, and then I decide to fight a subjugation war for Burgundy, then he's going to have a bad time. Emperors can't declare full coalition wars at will, but they can raise enough levies to do something similar.

    ---

    I note that this plays nicely with Yami's suggestion of 'three kingdoms,' as any player who hits Emperor rank automatically becomes a faction head. It doesn't play well with landing dynast kingdoms, since kings hate swearing fealty, but does play well with landing dynast dukes, which would seed the EU4 map with a more HRE flavor.
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 8:53:06 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,148
    There is a reason why its GM enforced. Because of people try to find cute ways to skirt around the limit in ways it wasn't intended they will be warned, and later penalized if the behavior continues. Its king of Men's call on such things, but I've been open on my intent that more GM oversight is a better substitute than having to make an incredibly long rule list with a erata over 500 words long just to keep people playing in the spirit of the game.
    King of Men
    Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42:51 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,470
    Location: Nowhere
    It seems to me there is a general sort of consensus (at least among those who have posted) that there should be some sort of "Tallest Poppy" rule, or blue shells or whatever; but as for the details I think we have as many opinions as posters.

    Quote:
    The question is, is this a rule at all times, such that players should not take actions that will cause them to go over limit, or a rule at session ends?


    It is a rule at all times. It is enforced between sessions for reasons of practicality - we don't want to stop in the middle of a session to do edits. Players should not deliberately go over the limit except temporarily as, for example, the result of a victorious war; in such a case they should slim down again as soon as reasonably practical.

    Quote:
    Three kingdoms division theory.

    3 factions, led by the 3 greatest of European great powers, in constant rivalry. With the other europeans free to side with whoever suits their personal interests at that time, with occasional swapping between when they no longer do so.


    I'm not clear what exactly you're suggesting here. What prevents the three greatest powers, or two of the three, from allying, openly or secretly, and conquering everyone else? What is it that creates the "constant rivalry"? Experientially, people ally with one neighbour in order to knock out another, and then maintain that alliance for the rest of the game because it's working, they don't want to break their word to someone they have a good working relationship with, and if they try to switch factions there's no guarantee they'll actually be protected. How does your proposed rule avoid this mechanism?

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    Yami-Yagari
    Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 8:42:57 AM
     Generalmajor


    Joined: 1/16/2014
    Posts: 1,150
    King of Men wrote:



    I'm not clear what exactly you're suggesting here. What prevents the three greatest powers, or two of the three, from allying, openly or secretly, and conquering everyone else? What is it that creates the "constant rivalry"? Experientially, people ally with one neighbour in order to knock out another, and then maintain that alliance for the rest of the game because it's working, they don't want to break their word to someone they have a good working relationship with, and if they try to switch factions there's no guarantee they'll actually be protected. How does your proposed rule avoid this mechanism?
    By having them rival one another, they wont be able te ally one another ingame.

    I proposed this concept under the notion that the strongest power will try and become stronger at the expense of the others, with the remaining 2 in opposition to this. with everyone else following their own agenda. if you think we need to incentivize people to adhere to this principle of gP rivalry, we can by granting them exponential boons based on their place on the powerscale. Be it by modifiers or perks Come vic2 conversion.
    King of Men
    Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35:03 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,470
    Location: Nowhere
    Ah, you were referring to the game mechanic rivalry, not player rivalry. Ok, so your proposed rule is that the three greatest powers must always rival each other. That would avoid ingame alliances, but not out-of-game ones; two out-of-game allied, ingame rival players can still gang up on a third, they just need to come up with two separate CBs. And of course, being rivals with the third one, they'll have an easy time of it! The one with a claim can DOW for that, and the other DOWs to Humiliate Rival.

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    Yami-Yagari
    Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:57:25 AM
     Generalmajor


    Joined: 1/16/2014
    Posts: 1,150
    Did not think of meta allies. Thought people had matured enough at this point to forgo them entirely.

    Then again, same can apply to the tallest poppy. Where meta allies can deliberately throw in the towel against the coalition target etc.

    So there's little to be done against meta, unless you want to either ban it completely or ensure that they're not worthwhile to have.
    oddman
    Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 12:22:16 PM
     Admiral

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 3/16/2007
    Posts: 2,830
    Location: Netherlands
    Yami-Yagari wrote:
    Did not think of meta allies. Thought people had matured enough at this point to forgo them entirely.


    Nothing immature about meta-allies. It's how the real world works.

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
    -Bertrand Russell
    Yami-Yagari
    Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:25:16 PM
     Generalmajor


    Joined: 1/16/2014
    Posts: 1,150
    My bad, probably phrased it wrong.

    But the point remains, there's no point in adding any sort of failsafe mechanic or gamerules that discourage/counteract the individual power divide if they can easily be circumvented in this manner.
    The Professor
    Posted: Thursday, October 19, 2017 4:25:51 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,434
    Location: Time
    The Crab Bucket Rule

    When a player has more development than his or her development multiplied by one over the total number of players whose capital is present in Europe*; than this nation is to be referred to as "Top Crab of the Bucket" hitherto 'Top Crab'.

    After the session all players whose capital is in Europe at the beginning of that session vote on whether to coalition war said nation.

    Upon a successful yes vote by simple majority all European nations who voted yes; and all vassal, allied, and neutral European AI nations, will be edited into a coalition war against the "Top Crab"; unless those AI nations are allied or a vassal to the 'Top Crab' or any nation that voted no.

    Nation's that voted no will not be edited into the coalition war; but also may not enter the coalition war either; though they may change their vote to a yes and enter the war on the side of the coalition at anytime.

    Upon victory in which the amount of development of the top crab is reduced to below the aforementioned limit, the coalition is disbanded.

    Should the coalition be defeated, or a stalemate is reached, the coalition will not be disbanded, and will remain in effect; until victory is eventually reached, or another nation reaches the aforementioned limit.

    Nations not in Europe may enter the war on either side.

    *************************************************************

    As for the RotW/Asia, the idea is that they are irrelevant for this rule, someone succeeding at unifying all of Ming by 1500 is not a realistic threat to the balance of power, and does not seriously risk the possibility of Europe voting to end the game; tough cookies if people think this is unfair, Europe shouldn't have the right to arbitrarily end the game if you can't handle someone getting a mere 1,200 development by 1500 outside of Europe.

    After some arbitrary point when the world becomes more interconnected and power projection is more feasible, say Age of Absolutism the rule can be expanded to be the whole world, or add in regions after each new age is reached.

    You can also copy and paste these rules to apply separately for each continent; but this rule is basically quite pointless outside of Europe and clashes with the Mandate of Heaven mechanic for Asia (Where 'Ming' is supposed to be powerful and surround itself with tributaries); though it may make sense if the America's were played.

    As for whether the rotw will be played or whatever, that's a separate conversation; but my stance is I fully expect to be able to faff off to China as per tradition if I can't hack it in Europe; I put more effort than everyone else combined into finding players at great personal expense to play the RotW, no one has a right to bitch about this, period.


    *:Example: If there are 12 players in Europe. The percent max dev is 1/12. So if the total player dev is 6,000, if a player has over 500 development (out of 12 players), then the rule is triggered.

    This is meant to account for a player expanding against the AI, as well as against other players. This percentage can be adjusted to allow more breathing room to enable some nations to become solidly great powers and "first amongst equals" without triggering constant coalition wars to hammer down the nail sticking out; but I feel like this is comprehensive and generally easy to understand; retains full player agency, and should happen frequently enough that the game never risks ending and the 17th century style balance of power politics are retained.

    The majority of players can also just vote no if they aren't ready yet, and discuss things in a private room between sessions.

    edit: 12 players and making it 1/12 is probably far too strict, so something like 1/(T - (T/4)). 1 over the total number of players minus the total number of players divided by 4 probably is closer to the ideal number. 1/(12-3), is 666 dev. So 667 dev and BOOM.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    Users browsing this topic
    Guest


    Forum Jump
    You cannot post new topics in this forum.
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
    You cannot create polls in this forum.
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

    Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
    Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
    Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.