Good point lmao if they didn’t send any spies or have defenses ready it’s on them so magical bomb away.
2 Likes
Yeah, I’d much prefer to take the cities, but we COULD do this.
2 Likes
True taking the cities is the smarter tactical choice but still lol.
2 Likes
Then again, tell that to Grafast.
1 Like
Regarding the two heirs do you think the reason they are still fighting even after the capital being obliterated a thing of pride or is it just “oh we were planning on killing each other anyway so let’s just do it despite our dad being missing or dead and the capital on fire.” lmao
2 Likes
As I understand it, the presumed death of the king and destruction of Emberford is why the other vassals swore allegiance to Grafast so quickly despite not really wanting to, since odds are this is the final nail in the coffin, but it isn’t officially the end of Emberford as a political entity. Theoretically, the heir to the throne could be proclaimed by a legitimate authority as long as surviving relatives exist to claim the throne. Even if the city is gone, the land still belongs to the throne and the return of a rightful heir could convince the vassals to try and restore the kingdom itself regardless of whether they chose to rebuild the city or build a new capital. You just need enough power backing you to fight off Grafast. Theresa is looking to aquire allies to muster the forces while Ecbert wants to take the capital as part of a yet unknown (probably still forming) strategy to gain strategic points to cripple Grafast. I assume he’d intend to keep both kingdoms for himself after this. Obviously, it’s possible to gain legitimate control over a kingdom in the eyes of international feudal law on this continent since everyone’s been trying. Not sure of the details on how it works there or irl. Maybe Ecbert wants to kill the Grafast king and his family?
2 Likes