Difference between revisions of "Talk:Siege of Rolling Hills"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I left battle at that point, someone fill me with the details from there. | I left battle at that point, someone fill me with the details from there. | ||
| − | +1 to that. The defenses of Rolling Hills were broken, that houses were broken into, and the coffers were drained. | + | +1 to that. The defenses of Rolling Hills were broken, that houses were broken into, and the coffers were drained. That hardly sounds like successful defense. |
All the "defenders" were killed at least once. We cannot stop them from respawning. | All the "defenders" were killed at least once. We cannot stop them from respawning. | ||
Revision as of 10:41, 29 January 2007
Technically Rolling Hills fell and was drained, we didn't make it to the main deed through the caves as it didn't look like an option. Focussing on that entrance would have cut off our escape route as the heavy guards would have respawned behind us, ensuring defeat. BL troops retreated to the beach to open an alternate entrance to the caves, plan that failed since the cave network had been reinforced. I left battle at that point, someone fill me with the details from there.
+1 to that. The defenses of Rolling Hills were broken, that houses were broken into, and the coffers were drained. That hardly sounds like successful defense.
All the "defenders" were killed at least once. We cannot stop them from respawning.
You may call this a JK victory if you like, but it does you no justice.
--Benjo 03:38, 29 January 2007 (CST)
