My apologies for writing about this on a website dedicated to gamebooks, but I'm hoping the gaming community appreciates a few ideas of mine concerning the Total War games. Since 2001, developers Creative Assembly have completed eight TW titles (in order of release): Shogun, Medieval, Rome, Medieval II, Empire, Napoleon, Shogun II, and finally Rome II - not to mention expansion packs to each of these! Perhaps more relevant to the roleplay market is CA's next project to adapt Warhammer into a Total War title.

However, many TW fans half expected a strategy game set during the American Civil War period. Certain technologies were already touched upon in Shogun: Fall of the Samurai: railways, Armstrong guns, steamboats, and gatling guns all which would certainly feature in such a game. In one thread (on a website dedicated to Total War) a fan made an interesting point that it wouldn't work as there would only be two factions: Unionist and Confederate. But Total War has always been about a wider scope; rather than simply North and South and restricting the player to historical events, it's possible to introduce alternate history here. For example, an event occurred known as the Trent affair. A Federal ship stopped a British packet steamer with Confederate diplomats on board. Things got heated between the Northern States and Great Britain, although eventually both sides backed off. In total war, however, the player can take a very different decision....

Talking about wider scope, there doesn't have to be two factions: each side consisted of various states with its own strengths, weaknesses, and characteristics. The player could actually choose one of these states. Would they remain part of Union or Confederacy, will they readily commit troops to a rendezvous with a larger campaign force (in this case, not sure if player would control entire army or co-op alongside computer AI on the field - either one has already been done in the TW series), is there a risk of the player defecting to the other side, or even declare independence from both sides and create an enclave nation? Actually, this last one I borrowed from an episode of Sliders (cross-time parallel worlds) where California and Texas took advantage of the civil war and broke away to form their own republic. Again, the player doesn't have to be funnelled down an historically accurate road. In all total war games, the player has always carved out their own version of history, depending on their strategic planning and tactical skills during battle. It's possible to achieve more than that faction actually did, even develop technologically, and perhaps introduce 'alternate' units.

Another alternate history tangent is playing as either Britain or France, both countries deliberated in supporting the Confederate South (there was already a strong cotton trade in existence), although by then neither European power traded in slavery, having abolished it years before, so that fact (plus a grudging respect for the more industrial North) kept it out of what was a strictly an American Civil War. But what if Britain and/or France interceded? How would it affect gameplay?

Another faction to be played would be based on the 'horde' idea used in Rome Barbarian Invasion. Similar to the Huns or Vandals, a 'city-less' people, yet numbering in thousands, the Native Indian tribes could attack or ally with anybody they see fit. Perhaps even gain more suitable terms and prosperous pastures than they actually did....

Finally, just wondering if anybody has anything to add to this thesis.

Robert Douglas
Sun Aug 24 18:29:44 2014

Forgot to mention: I won't be going in for the Windhammer this year. I've got one lined up for next year, hopefully. See how it goes.

Tammy
Sun Aug 24 21:03:06 2014

Sorry to hear that, Douglas. Good luck next year then. And I have no idea what you meant in the first post since i don't play those types of games, maybe they should make movies. just sayin.

bcyy
Mon Aug 25 01:33:57 2014

Regarding the US civil war idea, I'm not sure how you would keep it balanced and historically accurate to any degree at the same time, even though I suppose it would be a good idea otherwise. That was an era in which US military power was still quite negligible to that of the European powers (a situation that was soon to change), and unlike the 1700s, the British royal navy reigned supreme over the continental powers. The issue of the civil war itself was also somewhat decided before it even started, with the Union holding overwhelmingly vaster resources in comparison to the Confederate, the latter staying in the war only by the genius and energy of a certain Robert E. Lee. The Indians would have been a non-issue, judging by their predicament of having next to no firepower. BTW, the Indians were hardly "city-less", being a settled people, probably even less mobile than any of the other nations hitherto mentioned.

That being said, I think your idea makes much more sense than a Warhammer game. Both Warhammer and Warhammer 40000 have excellent RTS renditions in the forms of Warcraft and Starcraft, respectively. The civil war also has a much firmer storyline, featuring many legendary figures and battles, in comparison to any sci-fi universe.

Robert Douglas
Mon Aug 25 13:18:33 2014

Hi Tammy,

Thanks for the best wishes. The truth is I've been quite busy doing an ETAP course and I've been working at a factory which takes up a fair bit of my time. I've also been concentrating on my bookworming, and 'The Pagan Lord' by Bernard Cornwell is next on the list. So, sadly, I've had to forgo Windhammer.

Hi bcyy,

Thanks for the feedback on a North and South: Total War idea. There is actually a mod by this name based on the Shogun 2 engine exploring ideas of a Civil War. As to the points you made: once divided, certainly it would have had an impact on the former United States military - although I've always assumed each side began with thousands of troops (the Confederacy less so as the Southern economy was mostly plantation-based as opposes to the more industrious North). Despite this, the Confederacy was led by more competent generals and as a result defeated the North in several huge battles. They almost reached Washington (by about twenty miles?) but in the end had to turn back, or were forced back. But could they have succeeded, and if so, what would have ensued? Would the United States government have done as it did in the War of Independence and simply shift the capital to another city? Or could the Confederacy have eventually forced the North to sue for peace?

As to the Native Indian issue, I've always considered their camp settlements could uproot and move to a safer area from which to deliberate and launch raids upon foes. You're right, however, about their lack of firepower being a major factor in their eventual defeat at the hands of an increasingly stronger US government. That, and the activities of trappers, traders, and ranchers who drastically decreased the buffalo population upon which the Indians relied on for a food and materials source. But what if one, two, or more tribes aided Unionists or Confederates in some way? Could they have ensured their future survival (or wrath of a winning side) by aiding whichever side as they did during the Seven Years War?

I'm not sure as to the status of both navies at the time - apart from the fact that the ironclad made its first appearance - when compared to those of other nations. But I'm sure the US navy during the 1812-14 War gave an excellent account of itself when pitted against the Royal Navy, enough to ensure a stalemate anyway.

I'm not sure how Creative Assembly would work Warhammer into a TW idea. But I can only imagine it would require a God-like engine to pull it off. I've always thought World of Warcraft was more a multiplayer RPG following along the lines of older, classical games such as Ultima and Neverwinter Nights? You're right: both Warhammer and the Civil War (or any other period) have over the years provided some fantastic figurines for tabletop wargaming.

bcyy
Tue Aug 26 03:30:37 2014

@Robert,

I've never played Shogun2, so I've no idea. How did the mod work out? :-)

"Thousands" would have been an understatement. "Hundreds of thousands with reserves many times that number" would have been more appropriate. However, their weapons were obsolete. Many still fought with muskets, and the most potent infantry weapon in their arsenal - the Springfield rifle - was already gradually being replaced by more advanced models across Europe, with the British having phased out their entire stock of equivalent rifles in 1855, before the civil war even started. American forces also lacked any serious artillery in comparison to their European counterparts. To say that the US was comparable to a European power at the time is equivalent to saying that Vietnam was comparable to the US in the 1960s. Even though the US won the war of 1812, as did North Vietnam the war against the US, they did so only by a vicious process of attrition, as did the Vietnamese, forcing their opponents to see so many bodies from both sides that they got sick of it and abandoned a won war in the end. Note that the British, as a matter of fact, captured Washington DC in that war, a feat which America never accomplished in Vietnam. As for the naval balance, the fact that the US navy never sought to engage the royal navy in a showdown is sufficient proof of the actual superiority of the latter, and, in my humble opinion, refutes every last hint of a stalemate. No significant defeat of an American fleet has been recorded, simply because no American armada existed to begin with. The same could be said of the Iraqi navy in the Gulf War of the 1990s. Commerce raiding had been carried out with varying degrees of success for centuries prior to 1812, yet only a navy that knows that it is hopelessly inferior would confine themselves to attacking merchant shipping and its escorts. This course of action finds a ready analogy in the tactics used by terrorist organisations of today on land, which they adopt not because they would rather kill civilians than enemy troops, but because they lack the firepower to challenge even the most trifling of enemy formations.

As for north vs south, the Union navy actually maintained a blockade of the entire southern shoreline throughout the war, which the south barely even attempted to disturb. True, the south was able to sink a few major northern warships, most notably using the world's first ironclad in battle, but the tenor of the war on the seas, dictated by the Union navy, severely restricted Confederate access to foreign trade, and deprived it of the war materiel of which it was in deadly need. Even more desperate the Confederate's situation appears, when you consider the fact that the north had a huge industrial advantage to begin with, comparable to that which the US had over Japan in WWII. Even though Robert Lee had a much better grasp of grand strategy in comparison to his Union counterparts, which gave the war an appearance of equality at first, war is decided by materiel and the capability to deprive the enemy of it, not by a few gifted commanders who are the stuff of poems. This is demonstrated as clearly in the age of Hannibal and Xiang Yu, as it was in the age of Napoleon, and further in the age of Rommel and Yamamoto.

Regarding the Native Americans, I see that you're right and I'm wrong. a wikipedia search reveals that there were many Native American cultures at the time, some of which were indeed relatively nomadic. Time to review my history books...

I meant Warcraft as in the RTS version. Can't remember the actual title name.

My apologies if any of the above appears a little arrogant. It doesn't feel right to speak to a fellow student of history in this manner, but I just lack the linguistic capabilities to make my point in a milder way.

Robert Douglas
Tue Aug 26 17:01:08 2014

@bcyy,

No need for apologies - your thesis came over as a well-detailed explanation. I must confess that, while I have a passion for history, I've a terrible habit of making assumptions. You're probably right that the Confederacy could never have achieved a complete victory what with the limited trade and material resources due to Union naval blockades, despite Robert E Lee's and Stonewall Jackson's best efforts. And eventually, the North had some first class generals of their own such as Sherman and Grant, so the South lost all chances of regaining the initiative. If the North had continued using incompetent generals, however, I'm not sure if the South might have brought the North to negotiations. Another facet to an alternate history scenario is if France and/or Britain officially entered the war (as it nearly did with the Trent affair). I looked it up on Wikipedia and Britain didn't want to become embroiled for a few reasons, one being she had to keep a watchful eye over would-be, might be rivals in Europe. I read somewhere that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have brought the South official recognition of national status in the eyes of Britain, perhaps also France who seventy years prior went through a Revolution and might have proved sympathetic to a 'rebel' cause.

I also concede the point that many leaders have, in spite of their strategic skills and long list of amazing victories, have nevertheless met a sticky end. One exception to this rule is Alexander the Great: true, after such an untimely death his newfound Hellenic empire split into warring factions. Yet his overall intent to defeat a much larger and resourceful Persian Empire with vast numbers at their disposal actually came to fruition. Two things helped him achieve this: his own military genius, and a loyal following of highly trained, disciplined soldiers. Even the mighty Persian navy that dwarfed the combined Macedonian/Greek one couldn't do much to prevent their eventual doom.

'Sundial Corner' is hosted by professors bcyy and Robert Douglas. Be sure to tune in next time for more intriguing historical discussions! 'Sundial Corner', sponsored by Rugrat Carpets...! (Cue an old black and white commercial).

bcyy
Wed Aug 27 03:23:30 2014

@Robert,

I agree that the south may have brought about negotiations, had they won Gettysburg or a few other battles which they historically did not. Interesting to hear about the opinions of the European powers at the time - I didn't know them.

Regarding Alexander the Great, even though I agree that his talent was a major contribution to the Greek war effort, and tipped the scales at a few crucial moments, I believe western history somewhat exaggerated his tactical skills. Persian forces may have had the advantage in numbers, but the Greeks were far superior in terms of training and weaponry. Note that in previous Greco-Persian engagements, the Greeks were able to win every battle in which they were outnumbered by anything less than a factor of 5, with no notable exception, even though Alexander was never even born at the time. Considering the superiority of the Macedonian phalanx to any other fighting formation in the world at the time, it seems natural that the Persians would have needed an insane numerical advantage to break even. In other words, a mediocre Alexander would have sufficed to deliver a crushing blow.

Despite the apparent Persian naval superiority, which I concede was very real if you consider their numbers and the actual freedom of movement they had over the waters, the Greeks won the only major naval engagement between them (i.e. Themistocles at Salamis). This implies that the Persian naval superiority may not have been as dominant as believed. Another indicator of this is the fact that Alexander's supply line was never severed (or else he would not have received the constant stream of reinforcements and provisions from Greece which he actually did). Had the Persian navy been a dominant force over the seas, any marginally competent Persian commander would have understood the critical importance of blockading the Aegean and Black Seas, as well as the narrow straights around modern-day Istanbul and Canakkale. Had they done so, any Greek supply line would have had to route itself either through Sicily and Egypt, or through Ukraine and the Caucasus, if it did not risk outright destruction by braving it through Persian-warship-infested waters. This would have meant that Alexander's army would have had to live off tree bark and roots once the Persians adopted a scorched-earth strategy. The same happened to Hannibal when he invaded Rome prior to challenging the Roman navy. In short, any invasion of Persia by Alexander would have been a fatal strategic blunder, had the Greeks been in a state of hopeless naval inferiority.

My point is that the Persian superiority in terms of materiel is far less significant than many have been led to believe, and even that small superiority was balanced, at least in part, by a Greek technological advantage (long spears for the phalanx). I wholeheartedly support your opinion that the competence of a leader is a major factor in war, but disagree with the notion that it can be a dominating factor that renders all other variables negligible.

Back to you, Professor Douglas. :-)

Robert Douglas
Thu Aug 28 18:21:40 2014

@bcyy,

I'm puffing on my pipe musing over the points you made. Again, you make a good case of how modern history glosses over any character flaws of famous commanders and concentrates more on their brilliant successes. Yet I cling to the belief that Alexander was a legendary strategist, battle-plans drawn up were of his own devising, and he commanded the loyalty and respect of his disciplined troops (although even they threatened mutiny after many years of campaigning). Even more importantly, he knew how to use such soldiers, exploiting their strengths to the full, and those weaknesses of the enemy. He was personally brave and daring - on the point of being reckless by putting himself in harms way, perhaps, but then some risk is often required.

It's true in (every?) battle the Persians far outnumbered Alexander's force, yet this didn't factor in as the Greek/Macedonian phalanx was a prime tactic of the time. Eventually, a few centuries later it was rendered obsolete by the Roman military's flexibility. However, Persian strategies revolved around their use of chariots, archers, and thousands of levies - all no match against a sturdy phalanx of pikes - and their military psyche hadn't kept up with the change in times, i.e they relied on the same old form that had overwhelmed and defeated previous yet inferior foes to the Greeks/Macedonians. But you're probably right about a less-able commander (King Phillip, a less able Alexander, someone else with a bit of sense) still pulling off a victory. But would an alternate commander have gone as far as Alexander dared and actually did? Speaking of the phalanx, SPOILER ALERT - APOLOGIES AS THE SPOILER BUTTON WON'T WORK FOR ME: Steve Jackson used it in The Trolltooth Wars, so it still bears some iconic resonance.

I'd completely forgotten about Salamis and you're right, it certainly disproved Persian invincibility at sea. Yet despite this setback Persia was still able to maintain a mighty fleet that ultimately could have caused problems to Alexander's supply lines. Could the Greeks have one yet another naval engagement if required? I don't know. But there's a special campaign in Alexander: Total War (narrated by Brian Blessed, no less!) and he explains each scenario leading up to each battle in a sequence of about five. In itself, quite a fascinating story charting Alexander's progress. Despite Salamis, he realized that the Greek navy was still inferior in larger scheme of things - but one tactic to defeat a mighty enemy fleet is to capture all the city ports and deny them a safe haven. Quite an ingenious way for a land army to neutralize a naval force - without even having to fight that navy! Again, the Persians lacked strategic counter offense and foresight in retaliating by targeting Macedonian and Greek ports, perhaps even landing their own invasion force while Alexander was away from home (as Scipio had done while Hannibal was busy in Italy; unlike the Persian navy, Rome often utilized its military resources and tools well with excellent organisation skills). The Persian empire had a powerful fleet that contributed very little to the war effort. They didn't even intercept reinforcements that helped replenish the Macedonian-Greek ranks!

Granted, you raise a good point about Persian superiority in materials and resources being somewhat exaggerated, perhaps even mooted; their dominion was vast, it could accommodate a massive force, yet it took time for such enormous quantities of food and supplies to reach an equally enormous army. They had good admin and logistics skills, but couldn't perform miracles. And by the time supplies do reach a particular point..? Alexander's already defeated that army! And, "...oh look! Some fresh food and water provided by our enemy - how nice of them!" Again, I'm in agreement to your point where various factors contributing to the overall result in a war are concerned. Even a little luck, for example, when that order got lost only to be found by the enemy during American Civil war.

Although, I'm not certain if a scorched-earth policy would have registered within Persian tactics. It worked well for the Russians against Napoleon and Hitler, but it's my belief the Persians wouldn't have condoned or even considered it. You're right about Hannibal's dilemma: he respected the Roman navy as a threat but never appreciated Roman pride and military resilience. But I digress...

While Professor bcyy is formulating a response, cue commercial: "'Sundial Corner' is sponsored by Karg's Slashers, leading manufacturer and distributer in Orcish axes. Each blade is razor-sharp and the haft guaranteed not to break - even upon dragon-hide! Competitive prices, special deal for this week only: purchasing two from our wide range of excellent axes means your second choice is only half price...yes, that's right...HALF PRICE! Karg's Slashers, for all your hacking, slashing needs!"

bcyy
Fri Aug 29 03:24:31 2014

"... the SSF potion, skill, strength and fortune, 3 in 1! Brought to you by Yaztromo & Son Incorporated, coming to a store near YOU!!!"

@Robert

No objections to your first paragraph. I'm pretty sure not many people could have done what he did under the circumstances.

I'm not familiar with the history of the Macedonian phalanx. I was always under the impression that its demise started with Cannae, when the Roman Triarii were obliterated by a flanking manoeuvre?

I've never played Alexander: Total War, although I've heard about how he neutralised the Persian fleet by capturing its ports. I find it incredible that the Persians could have sat on a massive navy without letting it do anything, unless the Greeks had a navy that was at least capable of contending with it. One possible interpretation of the events is that the Greeks had inherited a scary navy from the days of the Athenian Empire, which reduced its Persian counterparts to hit-and-run tactics, which Alexander then dealt with by capturing the aforementioned ports.
But then again, you made a good point when you said that Persian commanders of the age may simply have not understood the concepts that people of today do. They may have seen the navy as merely a method of transport for the army, and never realised its strategic potential, which was certainly the attitude of many civilizations at the time. If they had understood the principles of naval power, neutralising their navy by capturing its ports is hardly a practical strategy - just imagine how hard it would be to neutralise the present day US navy by capturing its ports, or the USAF by capturing its air fields. It would simply be easier to fight and destroy the navy at sea.

Same goes with scorched-earth policies. I think you're right - no nation had ever implemented such methods at the time, and we have no reason to believe that the Persians could have independently developed the concept.

bcyy
Fri Sep 5 07:34:31 2014

"...Can't visit the market 'cos you'll turn everybody to stone if you did? Try out our Drumer's Gorgon Sunglasses, 'specially designed for the lonely gorgon! Hotline 666-666-666!"

@Robert,

That's a very nice summary of Alexander's lifetime, and again, I agree that he was truly exceptional, so far as human beings go. His marriage to a Persian princess also added a nice touch to his diplomatic policy.

I think I'll stop here, before we colonise the entire "General Chat" section. :-)

Robert Douglas
Fri Sep 5 15:45:09 2014

@ bcyy,

Okay, we'll 'Sundial Corner' on the shelf, for the time being at least. Oops, wait, one last commercial from Vampire Channel 9....

"...Having trouble getting around your home during daylight hours? Then purchase a quality blackout from our Dark Prince range, brought to you by Reiner Heydrich and Sons. They come in many shapes and boast a variety of superb, eye-catching interior designs by Fighting Fantasy artists - so our blinds can match your gothic décor! Reiner Heydrich and Sons: what keeps light from escaping, can also stop it getting IN!"

We might have started an FF style advert craze here.

Tammy
Sat Sep 6 18:41:37 2014

I'm sold :)

bcyy
Wed Oct 1 06:21:54 2014

@Robert,

Happy Gaugamela day!

Robert Douglas
Fri Nov 6 21:56:50 2015

Welcome back to 'Sundial Corner'! Today, we're focussing on current affairs within the world of Total War...AND Games Workshop. Yes indeed, these two corporate giants have combined to create a digital version of the Warhammer universe. And doubtless we can expect expansions and add-ons in the near future. But for now, you can see how Warhammer: Total War is faring when googling it on Youtube. I've had a good look at some of the gameplay and, thus far, seems damn good! Magical spells wielded by sorcerers, warlocks, shamans, etc, have added that extra spice to gameplay (I consider previous titles in the series were becoming somewhat stale in this regard). Besides which, plenty of mythological monsters, supernatural paladins, demons and the undead all have their own characteristics and statistics which can affect battles. However, I'm not sure if Games Workshop fans will readily take to it; preferring table-top matches with miniatures and models perhaps? What do you think? While we're waiting for calls to come in, here's another commercial...

"...As a Skeleton Warrior, I can tell you I've had my fair share of knocks in battle with bold adventurers. Many a time an arm or leg has been swept clean away - BUT NO LONGER! 'Calci-bond' has since kept all my limbs intact and restored my confidence in battle. See if you can defeat me now, dungeoneer! CALCI-BOND! Developed by the reputable Zanbar Bone Industries. Get yours today (available from most magical outlets)!"

Tammy
Sat Nov 7 23:52:48 2015

I need an expansion pack.

Robert Douglas
Sun Nov 8 21:38:32 2015

Aha...sorry about that, viewers, prank callers and all that...

Robert Douglas
Mon Nov 26 13:00:40 2018

Sundial Corner is proud to announce the eleventh instalment in the Saxon Chronicles: a fantastic series set in late Dark Age England, and written by historical author Bernard Cornwell. 'War of the Wolf' sees our warlord hero and ardent pagan under threat from two foes - one old, one new. Can he hold on to the reclamation of his ancestral home of Bebbanburg? Or has this mighty warrior finally met his match? Be sure to check the Book Club section for more details coming soon!

In the meantime, Bernard Cornwell has written many novels since 1981, and his very first book was 'Sharpe's Eagle', introducing Lieutenant Richard Sharpe: an officer raised from the ranks to lead the Chosen Men of the 95th Rifles during the Peninsular War. He went on to write a total of twenty one novels (to date) within the Richard Sharpe series alongside three short stories. However, in later years, Bernard inserted additional novels between those already released; causing some degree of confusion to new fans of his work (thankfully, a full list of the novels in chronological order can be found on both Wikipedia and his website).

Bernard is also renowned for the legendary 'Warlord Chronicles', a trilogy portraying his version of King Arthur during the very early post-Roman years of ancient Britain. It follows the adventures and campaigns of Derfel, a Saxon saved by Merlin, he then becomes a mighty warrior and warlord serving in Arthur's army. Apart from the dire threat of encroaching Saxon invaders and Irish raiders, Britannia is divided by rival, squabbling kingdoms.

'The Grail Quest' series tells the tale of Thomas of Hookton, an English Archer during the brutal, turbulent Hundred Years War. As always, Bernard's descriptive talent brings to vivid life those battles about which we read in the history books, such as Crecy and Neville's Cross. The fourth title '1356' was celebrated as Bernard Cornwell's 50th novel.

Bernard has written several 'standalone' historical novels. One of his greatest works is the excellent 'Azincourt' (or more famously 'Agincourt', which Bernard asserted that Azincourt is actually the correct name and place of the battle!). The protagonist is Nicholas Hook, an archer in the service of King Henry V. There have also been two novels set during the American War of Independence: 'Redcoat' and 'The Fort'. A mystery set during late Georgian England comes in the form of 'Gallows Thief'. 'Stonehenge' (as the title suggests) takes place during the Bronze Age. And 'Fools and Mortals' follows the trials and tribulations of Richard Shakespeare, younger brother to the world-famous poet of Elizabethan England - and Bernard himself is a keen dramatist, so writing this was doubtless a special treat for himself.

He is currently busy writing the next (and twelfth) Saxon Chronicle...and I daresay another foray into the world of Sharpe!

"'Sundial Corner' is sponsored by 'Sukumvit Sentinels' - guaranteed to keep your treasures safe and dungeons free of those pesky adventurers! Even the mightiest blade will bounce harmlessly off their bejewelled form, so that you can deploy our Sentinels again, AND again, ETCETERAAAAA!...."

CLICK!

"....'Stonebridge Smiters' - fashioned by our very own Dwarven blacksmith. Where a blade won't do, trust in our fine-crafted warhammers to smash more stubborn foes asunder! Purchase a Smiter today! (Orders are subject to a minimum fortnightly wait before completion)…."

CLICK!

"....Special offer: thirty percent - that's right! - THIRTY percent discount on EACH crystal warrior if you buy the full five figurine set: diamond, ruby, emerald, sapphire....and many other precious stone styles to choose from! 'Sukumvit's Sentinels' - guaranteed to keep your domain adventurer-free!"

CLICK!

"...Aye, that's right, infernal crystal warrior jumped out of nowhere! Lucky I'm from Stonebridge, though: no match for my Smiter! And now I'm rich beyond my wildest dreams..."

1 to 18 of 18 | [next] [previous] | [first] [last]