June 10, 2019

Rule the Waves 2 Game 1 - January 1900


The recent vindication of Captain Dreyfuss has comprehensively upset the political situation here in France. As a result, the government has been replaced, and you have been asked to serve as the primary advisors in the Ministère de la Marine. Our strategic situation is reasonably strong, but perils loom. It is up to you to guide us.

I'm going to share screenshots from the start condition of the game, and then give some indication of the direction I'm looking for. Anyone is free to chime in on this discussion.

The world map

Our financial situation

The current fleet. There are 11 Durandal class destroyers that are not shown on this screen, all in Northern Europe

Ships currently under construction

Our current coastal defenses

An overview of the world situation. I'd recommend moving the cruiser from the Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia and replacing it with a Coetlogon from Nothern Europe.

Our situation base-by-base

The current levels of international tension. If that black line is crossed, war will break out.

The current relative strength of the various navies.

Available areas of research.

Things I need guidance on:

1. Shipbuilding. We're running a substantial budget surplus, at least enough to lay down another battleship and some lighter ships. Do we wish to focus our fleet on battleships, cruisers, destroyers, or what? (Submarines aren't available yet, sadly.) Or do we build up our coastal defenses, and wait for technology to improve a bit? I can provide sketch designs to request, but any ships we build will have the same tech to work with as the ones currently in service and under construction.

2. Finances. We can also pour money into other areas. Do we want to train our crews hard, spend money on getting a technological edge, or try to find out what the other guy is up to?

3. Diplomatic posture. Who do we want to try to be friends with? Who, if anyone, do we want to antagonize? Decisions will come up during play, and I'm not going to stop each and every time to refer them back to you guys.

4. Research. Do we want to prioritize any specific areas? Better fire control? Better torpedoes? Submarines? All up to you.

On Friday, I'll start the first turn worth of moves, and have them written up on Monday.


  1. June 10, 2019John Schilling said...

    Still getting up to speed on RTS2, but some general thoughts:

    Long-range guns with 1900 fire control are probably a poor investment. Since we're not facing an imminent war threat and we do have a global-ish empire to defend, I'd rather start with cruisers that will likely retain their utility longer. Probably including some armored cruisers with ~9" guns that can credibly fill out the battle line for a few more years and then be shifted to colonial roles when the dreadnoughts show up.

    Long-range guns with good fire control will be a game-changer, so getting a head start on the fire control seems like a good plan.

    And until everything goes to dreadnoughts and long-range gunnery, the difference between crappy compressed-air torpedoes and decent wet-heater designs seems like it could also be decisive and particularly suited to France's coastal defense requirements. If the game allows retrofitting new torpedoes to older ships like it should, that might argue for putting a fair chunk of our early tonnage into torpedo-boats and destroyers while we develop the torpedoes that will make them effective.

  2. June 10, 2019bean said...

    I can generate a set of cruiser sketches. Watch this space in a day or two. And the game automatically updates all torpedoes when new ones are researched. The biggest problem with an early torpedo force is that our destroyers are limited to 500 tons right now.

  3. June 10, 2019ADifferentAnonymous said...

    (Bear in mind all my comments are without having played the game. I've perused some of the AARs I can find)

    Seems like a war with Austria or Italy, or maybe Russians, would be a good chance to pick up territory? Germany or the US would be a bit close for comfort, Japan awkward to engage, and Britain right out.

  4. June 10, 2019John Schilling said...

    500-ton destroyers should still be useful in the Mediterranean for quite some time, but we wouldn't want to overbuild that category. Torpedo armament on the cruisers would also be useful if they are being otherwise optimized for close to medium range gunnery.

  5. June 10, 2019ADifferentAnonymous said...

    Also, for any other participants like me who lack the game: there is still such a thing as a video game manual, however much the art may have declined since the glory days of Microprose; you can find RTW2's here.

  6. June 10, 2019David W said...

    A couple basic questions: What causes increase in budget? Is that something we can influence by victory or is it exogenous? Similarly, is there anything that can be done to improve efficiency, cut maintenance costs or building costs for the same quality ship? Basically, is this a game where we can invest, or is this a game with fixed resources?

    Further, what information do we have on foreign plans? Aside from the slight tension with Austria it appears no imminent wars with anyone whether we want it or not?

    How useful are allies? I note that Germany and our fleets combined would be able to handle the UK, if perfect cooperation is assumed.

    I would be tempted to invest in every thing that isn't a ship, spies and research and production, until we have some idea of a mission for the Navy.

  7. June 10, 2019David W said...

    Thanks, ADifferentAnonymous! After reading the first quarter of that I think I understand the rough constraints: all we need is an unbroken string of short victorious wars! Or possibly a long stretch of high tension with multiple opponents short of war! Neither of those can possibly go wrong, right?

    I'd be inclined to make a first priority getting one of those wars, preferably in a zone we already have a base against a weaker foe. Perhaps we can aim to push Italy out of the Indian Ocean? That seems like a good use of CA, which according to John Schilling's reasoning seem like a good future-proof type of ship to start building now. Meanwhile we would want to fortify the Med but play that more defensively, I think. It's not clear to me whether you seize your desired target through invasion, or simply aim to beat up the foe and win the target in the peace treaty.

  8. June 10, 2019bean said...

    @John I’ve done a series of four designs for a new armored cruiser, and included our current class for comparison. Sorry that the images are too wide. I’ll need to figure out how to do this properly.

    Our current armored cruiser class, which was the basis for the following design series. Unfortunately, it’s rather overweight, and the naval design staff insists that any future ship be brought up to a more reasonable displacement.

    CA-00-I is a straight upgrade to the Dupetit-Thouars, with 9″ guns and enough displacement to give us some growth potential.

    CA-00-II is a more minor upgrade, brought up to size but with the 8″ guns.

    CA-00-III is CA-00-I with an extra knot of speed.

    All of the previous ships were designed for long-range service, such as you might want in colonial service. This is a version of CA-00-I with medium range, size reduced to match.

  9. June 10, 2019bean said...


    Russia isn't a player in this game. They were removed to make way for Austria. Not sure the logic behind this, as Russia and France were important allies.


    We have 26 500-ton destroyers right now, and no ability to mount above-water torpedo tubes on our cruisers. That's a thing we have to research. We can also only mount single tubes on our destroyers, which has often lead to silly designs in my past games.


    Resources fluctuate based on tension, prestige, and player decisions. You'll often be given choices between, for instance, increasing tension and budget, and decreasing tension and budget. Increase tension too much, and war breaks out. You get prestige by winning battles and such. Unfortunately, not much we can do about maintenance.

    We have no info on foreign plans, and I'm not really sure on allies. I'm France in my current game, to get some practice with them, and the British weren't much help in a war with Italy. I'm about to fight Germany with them as allies, so I should get a better grasp. Occasionally, some of their ships would join mine in battle, but they didn't have enough in the Med to tell for sure.

    You can invade or take territory at the peace treaty. Personally, I've had bad luck with invasions. They either don't happen, or happen too late and cost a lot of money while you're waiting.

  10. June 10, 2019Alsadius said...

    In RTW, long range design is mostly useful for raiders, not for combat ships. I tend to go colonial with my long-range ships as well, so that they can cover my foreign service needs in peacetime, but that may be preference. (Game rule note - "colonial" on a ship means it counts extra towards foreign service requirements. Note also that you can assign a ship's role as foreign stations, where it'll move around on its own protecting your colonies, and counting its whole mass, including any colonial bonus, towards your FS need.)

    Cruisers are a good place to invest, because they future-proof pretty well - they can convert to CVLs circa 1920, . That said, note that until the invention of turbines (circa 1905), high-speed ships are brutally cramped on tonnage. Those old triple-expansion engines don't like going fast, which is why those DDs only have popguns. For comparison, here's the 1900-era DDs from my current game, where I accepted slower speeds for loadout: https://imgur.com/ek8cqcF.png - the Nembo is short-range and cramped, but that torpedo loadout is still super-awesome for 1900. Those things have done for a lot of enemy capital ships(though they die like flies). I'll also throw in a shameless plug here - http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2771/mare-nostrum for anyone who wants to read my current AAR.

    As for specific CA designs, the -IV seems the obvious choice to me. It's 10% cheaper than the others (or 20% cheaper than -III), and has basically the same capabilities.

    Regarding strategic planning, I'd say go for a lot of tech, because that ages better than most other things, and then build a balanced fleet thereafter. Don't shy away from wars, though - take the +budget option on most events, and fight one when it happens.

  11. June 10, 2019bean said...

    I think that long-range ships do better when deployed away from bases, too. I've run ships that way, and had a lot less crew degradation than normal. And they do better at hunting raiders.

  12. June 11, 2019Gareth said...

    (Speaking with no real experience in this game)

    I am slightly concerned about throwing our potentially temporary budget surplus into ships that might be rendered obsolete by the time they are ready to see action, such is the pace of technological change. Agree with Alsadius that we'd be better served to focus on tech progress at this stage.

    As for diplomacy, friendship with Japan seems important to avoid facing a superior foe in the far east. In any likely conflict, they will find it easier to concentrate forces than we will given our other commitments.

    If Italy is to be the target, perhaps Austria would be a strong ally (based on Bean's disappointing experience with the British).

    Also lean towards design 4 for reasons of economy, but am willing to entertain arguments by proponents of the other designs as to what benefits the additional investment is getting us.

  13. June 11, 2019John Schilling said...

    I do think an immediate emphasis on research would be a good idea insofar as we are in a period of low international tension and rapid technological change; knowing how to build better ships in 1910 is preferable to building ships now that will be obsolete in 1910. Maybe crew training and intelligence also, but to a much lesser degree at first as those are wasting assets whereas the R&D will just keep building on itself.

    As far as research emphasis, I see high priorities as: 1. Fire control
    2. Subdivision and damage control 3. Torpedoes

    Low priorities: 1. Naval guns 2. Armor development 3. Hull construction

    Rationale: If we're already capable of building 13" guns, we're outranging our fire control, and the latter is crucial to the coming big-gun era. In almost all eras, poor damage control has been the ruin of more ships than too-easily penetrated armor. France is not in a position to win by having the biggest, baddest ships on the seas, so our existing hulls are probably fine. And decent torpedoes are a hedge against being dragged into an early war in the age of close-range combat.

    We don't need superlative torpedoes, so once they get moderately good we can shift to AP shells or maybe gun turrets & mountings; the long-term goal is moderately powerful guns firing rapidly and accurately with shells that work. On ships that don't blow up.

  14. June 11, 2019John Schilling said...

    Regarding the cruisers, Design IV is almost exactly what I had in mind, but if the long range is going to be a significant edge when we send these off to the colonies that might argue for Design I. Once we have enough of these under construction, I was thinking the next cruiser design would be an economical long-range raider, fast but only moderately armed. But a mix of Design I CAs and cheap CLs might do better on that front.

    OK, my tentative vote is for a laying down a Design I, a 25% increase in research funding, and the leftover into intelligence and upgrading some of our foreign bases. Then three more Design I's as the in-work battleships are completed, then reevaluate based on new technology and politics.

    Actually, does the technology allow tweaking Design I with fewer 6" guns (or 5" vs 6") but in turrets? Casemates should work OK in the Med but are iffy on the high seas, unless the game doesn't know that in which case never mind.

    Also, I object in principle to French ships having their gun sizes measured in inches :-)

    Grand strategy wise, if I recall my Diplomacy correctly there's no way France prevails if Germany and England both turn against us, so we just need enough force in the Atlantic to play balance-of-power games. We probably do need to be able to take on Italy or Austria solo in the Mediterranean, and we want to at least make the Royal Navy worry in any sort of extended colonial fighting. Anyone else's colonies should become our colonies if they pick a fight, but let's not pick a fight with anyone until we've got a decent alliance with either England or Germany.

  15. June 11, 2019Alexander said...

    Looking at the world situation, it appears we have no ships in the Mediterranean right now. Maybe we should move some of our fleet there, or make some sort of alliance with either Italy or Austria-Hungary. Presumably Italy, as they are both stronger and more positively disposed towards us. The USA also seems like a worthwhile partner due to our historic ties and good relations.

    On shipbuilding, we probably need to keep the yards busy, and our battlefleet looks sufficient for the moment (second only to GB if I'm reading the table correctly). More cruisers sounds about right, but I'm not sure why the need the bigger guns - If they're with the main fleet 6" and 8" should do enough damage to take the enemy cruisers out of action, and make it hard for their battleships to fight effectively. Our battleships can finish the weakened enemies off. Also, we aren't going to see much benefit from increased range until we get better fire control, by which time our ships are probably only good for colonial duties anyway. I vote design II, and might even ask if a version with the armament of a Coetlogon would be too weak, since they'll hopefully be off patrolling the South China sea in a few years.

    John's point about putting the 6" in turrets is a good one, and I seem to remember you saying that's what the French did in reality. If we can't do that yet, maybe throw some money into turrets and mountings. I would also say that machinery looks like a worthwhile field for investment. We might not believe that speed is armour, but a raider want's to be able to pick its fights, and other ships could be smaller and cheaper to run. Can we redirect funding away from shells (because they should be easy to refit later) to finance this, or would that risk leaving us like the British at Jutland?

  16. June 11, 2019bean said...


    While I like the emphasis on fire control, I do feel compelled to point out that you're focusing on things that can be retrofitted at the expense of things that can't. First, guns aren't just measured in inches (which is a game limitation, and one I can't change) they also have a quality number. This is usually either -1, 0 or 1, although our 13" guns are -2. Everything we have above 6 or 7" is -1. Usually, a 0 is equivalent to a -1 of 1" larger, and I think the same holds true for a 1 relative to 0. You can technically refit these, but it's usually too expensive to do anything beyond replacing 6" guns on your CLs. Second, armor and hull construction can't be refitted. (And it's worth pointing out that hull construction means lighter hull = more tonnage to spend on fun stuff.) FC is pretty cheap to refit when it doesn't upgrade automatically, while torpedoes and DC do upgrade automatically.

    Also, our scientists say that they can use up to 50% more funding than they're currently getting, but more will just be wasted.

    I can do a turret design, but turrets of guns under 9" will suffer in ROF relative to casemate mounts. I'm not sure if the guns suffer penalties in a seaway.


    Moving some units to the Med is definitely a good idea, but ships can swing back and forth pretty quickly. And we can take away funding for shells for now. Upgrades there are instant, but we'll need to remember to turn the money back on in time.

  17. June 11, 2019DampOctopus said...

    @John @bean

    From the manual: "Casemate guns are more sensitive to weather interference and will get higher ROF penalty in heavy seas." So the game does understand this.

  18. June 11, 2019ADifferentAnonymous said...

    We should also think about docks and bases.

    Dock capacity, it seems, is abstracted as a maximum--so we can build as many 16000-ton ships simultaneously as we have budget for, but will need to expand our facilities to build 18000s. Investing in this now probably won't pay any dividends for a few years, but it won't depreciate either, so we could consider it if we don't feel great about the ships we're building.

    As for base capacity, looks like we have more than enough room for the fleet in both of our home regions, and can almost fit the whole fleet in SE Asia. West Africa, South Pacific, and Indian Ocean can all hold about 1/3 of our current fleet, and I don't see us needing to concentrate too many ships there. The region that concerns me is the Caribbean. Unless we plan to just write off Haiti in the event of war with the US, we should build up there.

  19. June 11, 2019David W said...

    A couple of Bean's original questions: I don't think we should spend on special training...it costs a considerable amount but the benefits don't appear to last. That said, I would be in favor of running a fleet exercise, the increase in tension may improve our budget enough to pay for the cost of the exercise, plus it would improve our crews. And it would be a chance for bean to demonstrate the tactical side of the game while we wait for tension to rise enough to narrow down on a real mission.

    Would there be some value in a Mediterranean dedicated design? Take off everything that gives range or weather performance and just focus on winning battles? On the one hand, we have lots of worldwide commitments and would like more. On the other hand we will probably always have a Mediterranean threat

    I agree with everyone else on increasing research spending. That may have to ramp down when war comes but we seem to be far from war.

  20. June 11, 2019ADifferentAnonymous said...

    I think I have to vote for max research spending. That lets us either build a cruiser and not much else, or maybe get some bases and intel while delaying construction until our ships in progress complete. I lean towards the latter--we're likely going to lay down a whole wave of cruisers as things finish next year, and I don't see the sense in finalizing the design a year early just to get one extra ship.

    Reserve priorities are a tough question, but I think we should be okay de-emphasizing shells until our first round of dreads are ordered. In the short term we might prioritize things more useful for cruisers--machinery? I'd also consider permanent high priority on fire control and damage control, just because they're so important. Sure, fire control is retrofittable, but I say we aim to build our ships with advanced fire control and then retrofit then with even more advanced fire control.

  21. June 11, 2019John Schilling said...

    I didn't realize our heavy guns were bottom-tier material, and withdraw my suggestion that naval gun technology be de-emphasized. Bump that up to medium at least, and maybe to high in the short term while bringing fire control down to medium. I don't want that latter situation to endure, because I do want to take and keep the lead in fire control, but I appreciate the argument that we can refit fire control easier than we can crappy guns.

    Pushing R&D into the 10+% range seems wise; not sure whether we want to go all the way to 12% on account of diminishing returns but if we don't have anything else critical to spend the money on then maybe.

    If we want to trade something off so that we can work on guns and fire control both at medium-to-high level, would it work for us to de-emphasize submarine development in the short term on the grounds that we can probably buy good submarines from e.g. Germany when they come available and load them with our own good torpedoes? Doesn't work if we're enemies with Germany, but in that hypothetical submarines are probably not what we are looking for.

  22. June 11, 2019bean said...

    Submarines aren't part of your fleet on a tactical level. You might be able to buy tech from Germany, but not whole subs. There's no design, just picking from coastal, medium-range and minelaying, and we can't actually build any of them yet.

    As for the secondary battery on the cruisers, going to twin turrets actually saves a few dozen tons, but at the price of a 40% reduction in ROF.

  23. June 11, 2019ec429 said...


    I say we aim to build our ships with advanced fire control and then retrofit then with even more advanced fire control. AIUI if you're 'ahead of the curve' in a tech area you get a slight malus to further advances. This might still be a good plan, though; I concur with this thread's affective death spiral around fire control.

    @bean Of those four cruisers, II has an advantage: it's a small enough change from the D-T to share 80% of the development costs. How about trying something medium-ranged (like IV) but with the displacement closer to D-T (so it shares dev) and put the extra space to good use? If we are paying full development costs, then I think ADA has a point about not designing a whole year early just for a single ship; in that case I'd be tempted to suggest looking at CL options instead (note that at the same time CAs are refitting into CVLs, the CLs can turn into dinky 5-fighter escort carriers), or just ploughing our surplus into research.

  24. June 11, 2019bean said...

    Unfortunately, changing range from Long to Normal is enough to drop it out of being a variant, so that's off the table.

  25. June 12, 2019Evil4Zerggin said...

    I advocate dock expansion.

    • The cost is not massive, especially amortized over time.
    • They take a long time to build, so better start early.
    • Ships become obsolete, but docks are forever. (Well, superbattleships eventually become obsolete, but we're a long way from that.)
  26. June 12, 2019beleester said...

    Our battle fleet looks pretty good (better than Germany's if you count the B's under construction) as long as we don't go to war with Britain. So I'm going to suggest we focus on long-term improvements. Max out our research spending, buy a dock upgrade, and then spend the surplus on CA's. We'll get a battleship in a year or two when we have better tech and more idea who we'll be fighting.

    I think I like the CA-I. CA-III is faster but we pay a lot for that extra knot of speed, and we don't know if that extra knot will help us reach any break points (able to outrun an enemy ship that we otherwise couldn't).

    Foreign policy: If we want to fight someone, I think we want to fight Germany. Italy, A-H and Japan are easier targets, but they also have barely any colonies, so we'd only be fighting them for prestige. So, raising tensions with them is okay, but I think we should avoid antagonizing the US and UK and push for alliances if possible.

    I'm also going to suggest Low intel spending across the board. We're pretty far from war right now, but we want a vague idea of what sort of ships the enemy will field.

  27. June 12, 2019ec429 said...

    In that case, I vote for II with as much extra displacement as keeps it a variant, to be used up with more ammo. 100 rpg seems a bit on the low side given the accuracy of 1900-vintage gunnery, and I'd rather have 8” guns firing than 9”ers that have run out of shells.

  28. June 12, 2019bean said...


    Current plans has research at 11%, emphasis on guns and machinery with submarines set to low (there's no need to balance these, but setting everything to high won't be any different from setting everything to medium). I'll start docks when we get enough money, along with an expanded base in the Carribbean. I don't see a consensus on shipbuilding right now, so I'm going to not lay anything down now. We'll have a bunch of docks opening up at the end of the year or early next year, and we might have some better idea where things are going.

    Play will begin at 1500 (ish) Friday.

    @ec429 I can easily get to 140 rounds with a ~20 ton margin on 13200 tons. Not going to post a screenshot, because that takes more work.

  29. June 12, 2019David W said...

    How complete is the war simulation? If we fight Germany do we have to worry about the Ardennes? You can't sail a battleship there...

  30. June 12, 2019bean said...

    The land war is very abstracted. Occasionally, the Army will launch an offensive and ask for some of your budget to support it. Weirdly, it seems to do this without any regard for the actual situation on the ground, such as when the US is fighting Germany. If it wins, then there's a moderate chunk of Victory Points in it for you, but no more than you get out of a medium-sized naval battle. You definitely don't get knocked out of the war based on what happens on land.

  31. June 13, 2019ec429 said...

    @David W: Typical French overconfidence; "the Maginot line can stop here, the Germans will never be able to attack with battleships through the Ardennes!"

  32. June 13, 2019Belushi TD said...


    We will certainly wish to increase the size of our battleships, and increasing the size of the docks now, while we have a surplus, and low tech, means that we can be ready to build the larger ships when the tech is more mature.

    Belushi TD

  33. June 13, 2019bean said...


    On diplomatic policy, I plan to attempt to remain generally friendly with Britain, the US and Japan, while antagonizing Germany, Italy and Austria. A war with either of the two later powers should be fairly straightforward, while Germany is best faced either very soon or in concert with Britain, because their budget will outpace ours. Overall, an alliance with Britain is our best bet, although allying with Germany against them would also work, and will be pursued if it works out and the British alliance doesn't.

  34. June 13, 2019ADifferentAnonymous said...

    @bean Sounds good to me.

    One thing I'm having trouble figuring out is, how exactly things would shake out if despite our best efforts we end up at war with Japan. How much Navy do we have to leave in Europe? Could our SE Asia fleet be forced to engage, or can they sit tight in port until help arrives? Would an arriving fleet be at risk of getting Tsushima'd? If we do manage to establish superiority in SE Asia, would that leave us in a stalemate (as we have no bases in NE Asia)?

  35. June 13, 2019bean said...

    Our fleet could be forced to engage, and Japan might even be able to sneak-attack them in harbor. The arriving fleet would probably be OK, particularly as we have bases in the Indian Ocean. We can deploy into NE Asia, but the fleet starts losing crew quality if it stays there, unless the ships are long range. (I think.) Best option is to steal a base there, probably from Germany.

  36. June 13, 2019Alsadius said...

    Blockading without a base is possible, but your ships start taking progressive damage for being away from base too long. What "too long" means depends on the ship's range. In the demo, I tried having the RN blockade the US east coast for a few months (which has a base at Bermuda, but not one big enough for a full fleet). I found that I was usually down a few ships for repairs at any given time, sometimes fleet units, but they do repair within a couple months, and that was a fleet that was almost entirely medium-ranged. So it's not crippling, but it's a real cost.

  37. June 14, 2019Alexander said...

    A classic Entente v Central Powers line up! But without Russia, and Italy on the other side, we might be overwhelmed. Can we try to avoid facing all three simultaneously, and instead fight anyone we have to fight in sequence?

    If our 6"/7" guns are of superior quality to larger calibres I see that as another reason to give any cruisers we build a lighter armament, along with those in my earlier post. Obviously once our technology improves, this may change, especially if we plan on refiting our cruisers with new guns.

    Bases and docks are a good idea, though I might be prepared to gamble on good relations with the US rather than fortify the Carribbean, even if that means abandoning it in the event of war.

  38. June 14, 2019bean said...

    Usually, you only face one at a time. I think I've only ever seen one alliance between the other powers, and one other case where I ended up facing two powers at once. My basic plan is to generally try to reduce tensions with the 3 we want to ally with, and increase tensions with those we want war with. But not to the point of war at the same time.

    Obviously once our technology improves, this may change, especially if we plan on refiting our cruisers with new guns.

    Refits of anything mounted in a turret get very expensive, to the point that I wouldn't do them unless I was under a naval treaty of some sort and couldn't build new.

  39. June 14, 2019Alexander said...

    Well, if we won't be switching out -1 quality 8" or 9" guns for newer versions, let's stick with 6" or 7", whatever the largest quality 0 we can make. Glad to hear we're not planning on taking on the rest of Europe single handed Ü

  40. June 14, 2019bean said...

    The time has come for the game to begin. Expect the report soon. (It will take more time to write up than it will to play.)

Comments from SlateStarCodex:

Leave a comment

All comments are reviewed before being displayed.

Name (required):

E-mail (required, will not be published):


You can use Markdown in comments!

Enter value: Captcha