Guardians of the Ashes Download Free

Guardians of the Ashes Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game

Guardians of the Ashes Fitgirl Repack Free Download PC Game final version or you can say the latest update is released for PC. And the best this about this DLC is that it’s free to download. In this tutorial, we will show you how to download and Install Guardians of the Ashes Torrent for free. Before you download and install this awesome game on your computer note that this game is highly compressed and is the repack version of this game.

Download Guardians of the Ashes Fit girl repack is a free to play the game. Yes, you can get this game for free. Now there are different websites from which you can download Guardians of the Ashes igg games and ocean of games are the two most popular websites. Also, ova games and the skidrow reloaded also provide you to download this awesome game.

Guardians of the Ashes for Android and iOS?

Yes, you can download Guardians of the Ashes on your Android and iOS platform and again they are also free to download.

Also Read:

How To download and Install Guardians of the Ashes

Now to download and Install Guardians of the Ashes for free on your PC you have to follow below-given steps. If there is a problem then you can comment down below in the comment section we will love to help you on this.

  1. First, you have to download Guardians of the Ashes on your PC. You can find the download button at the top of the post.
  2. Now the download page will open. There you have to log in. Once you login the download process will start automatically.
  3. If you are unable to download this game then make sure you have deactivated your Adblocker. Otherwise, you will not be able to download this game on to your PC.
  4. Now if you want to watch the game Installation video and Troubleshooting tutorial then head over to the next section.

TROUBLESHOOTING Guardians of the Ashes Download

Screenshots  (Tap To Enlarge)

 Now if you are interested in the screenshots then tap down on the picture to enlarge them.
Guardians of the Ashes Download

Guardians of the Ashes Review, Walkthrough, and Gameplay

Do you like “Guardians of the Ashes download? Are you into magic or other nerd garbage? Do you wish dragons were real and on C-SPAN? Well, this could be the place for you! “Endless Legend” is the turn-based 4X game.

There’s a lot of playstyles to go over. But I’m gonna go through all of them. Wait, that’s a space ship. This is a sci-fi game… Let me give you the quick rundown. The first game in the series is called “Endless Space”, and it’s also a Guardians of the Ashes fitgirl repack. It didn’t use titles like this game – the map looked more like this: It did have some issues, but it was competent and sold pretty well. Well enough to fund two more games. A smaller team made “Dungen of the Endless” – an Guardians of the Ashes PC download Tower Defense game. Bizarre, but pretty fun. The bigger team made “Endless Legend”, which was also turn-based, but fantasy. So you can call Amplitude a lot, but not risk-averse.

Ah, right, all these games are in chronological order, too! “Dungeon” is the first game, then “Legend”, then “Space”. I’ll get to how that works out soon, but for now, let’s dive in. Over the years, the game’s gotten some free updates and expansions, so it’s changed a lot from release. So, for the most part, I’ll try to go through the gameplay by faction and introduce new stuff they added when it comes around. I mean, look at this! I can’t do this all at once! If you value your eyes, the first thing you wanna do is turn the big UI on. I’m really not sure why this isn’t the standard, but whatever… If you have all the expansions, you’ll have eleven factions to choose from, and they all play very differently. In case you’re wondering: yeah, there’s twelve here, but one’s just a Guardians of the Ashes igg games. They also have a system where you can make your own custom faction, but I don’t use it often, because it breaks the game, and easily.

When you make a new game, there are tons of map settings to choose from. This way you can let your inner cartographer, who was wise enough not to get a degree in it, run wild. You can tweak nearly any game setting you can think of. So if you want a “warfare only” game, you can go for it. “Endless Legend” doesn’t have a story campaign or scenario editor, so the base games are what you’re gonna get. I’ll get to new factions later but start with the base ones. Vaulters are simplest, besides elves. “Guardians of the Ashes ocean of games” The Vaulters are a Science-based faction. They’re descendants of a space ship crew that crashed thousands of years ago. The first thing that I noticed about “Endless Legend” is that it has a very unique art style. Yeah, the Vaulters stuff does look like Viktor Antonov work, but that’s pretty unique for a fantasy setting. On a technical level, it’s not really that good. All the effects are limited by what their version of Unity could do, but the art direction really carries the game. Instead of just slapping a text box on an event and calling it a day, they have really nice artwork to go with everything that happens. There’s some stuff that gets recycled for events, but the original stuff is fantastic. I’m willing to bet money there are a bunch of D&D nerds out there who have these as wallpapers and have no clue what they’re from.

This is a distraction to hide that the game is not exactly incredible up close. The artwork, the style and the color all come together, and the game world looks great. You can only see shortcomings if you REALLY peer close. So here’s how the game is played: cities work off of four main tile resources, called Guardians of the Ashes torrent, which are present in every “Endless” game. You got Food, Industry, Dust, and Science. But “Legend” introduced Influence, so I guess it’s FIDSI now. Food affects how many of these new workers you get, which you can move around to make more resources in the city. The more Food you have – the more workers you can maintain and the faster it will grow. The industry represents how many factories or sweatshops your city has. The higher the Industry – the faster your city can make buildings and units. Now, Dust is a… Let’s just say it’s your money in this game. You can use it for stuff like paying off building and unit maintenance, getting stuff off the market or just buying out a unit and building instantly, if you can afford it. Science is straightforward: the more you have – the faster you unlock technology. You can get anything from a wheel representing an Era, and once you get enough of one, you can unlock the next wheel. There are no trees – get what you want. Plus, each faction has unique stuff, and some can only be found from quests and events. Influence is a tricky one.

Think of it as… “diplomatic good boy points”. You spend it to make trade deals, create empire plans or assimilate minor factions. You get these resources off the map by where your city is put down. When your population gets higher, you can build expansions to it and stretch out the tiles you exploit. Then later you can get buildings which increase your output. The map isn’t designed in a way where you could put a city down and expand wherever you want. When you set a city down, you’re claiming ownership of an entire region, and there’s only one city per region. So, if you’re gonna settle, you gotta choose wisely.

Each region has unique resources you could dig up if you have the technology for it. Some are strategics for buildings and weapons, others are luxury resources, which can give your empire some pretty big buffs. But you need to spend them to activate the effects. Vaulters are unique in that they can activate strategics this way. You don’t only find these things in tiles though. Regions will always have some minor faction mud huts, so you can do a quest for them, which might give you extra resources, or just kill them off.

This is useful when they live in one of your regions because each one counts as working towards your city. If you assimilate them, they’ll give you some nice buffs. Plus, you can then draft them into the army. So whether you’re grave-robbing for hard cash or finding a place to put a new city down, you get rewarded for exploring. But you do have to take the risk that the locals or an enemy empire might see your troops and attack them. It’s risk versus reward. It’s why Vaulters are good for new players. They don’t do anything too crazy, and with their Science bonus, you could see the stuff in the game pretty quickly. They have an excellent defense since you can teleport troops from city to city.

They also get bonus resources during the Winter. Alright, Winter! I can talk about this setting a little bit, and what’s going on here. Like I said before, the only story is doing your faction’s main quest. Even though the factions are different, they all have a very similar goal in mind. They’re all aware that their planet of Auriga is about to eat shit hard, so they’re each seeking a solution to either wait it out or get off the planet. (whispering) It doesn’t end very well… The deep lore is that the entire planet was a laboratory for an ancient race called The Endless. But then it got bombed out a few million years ago by other Endless, Guardians of the Ashes download and it was lost to time forever. So the current planet is made up of a combination of escaped lab experiments and a prisoner ship that crashed a few thousand years ago. The Winters are becoming more frequent, longer and harsher. There are fewer resources in Winter, and people will starve if you’re not careful. It only gets harder as the game goes on. Most units will have movement penalties, and the effects will become even harder. You should always be thinking about Winter. But if you’ve got the technology, or you’re a faction like the Allawi, you’ll always know when the Winter is coming.

Otherwise, you can only make a guess. We’ll talk more about Winter a little bit later. Some expansions tweaked it a bit. As for the Vaulters, I like their aesthetic, and they’re fun to play, but I’ve heard arguments that another faction is good for new players. “We must leave the forest. Start again. Explore and reach out.” They’re elves. These are the Wild Walkers, and they… Guardians of the Ashes download… they like trees… If their cities are exploiting a forest tile, they get way more production out of it. So if you have a nice forest and some good anomalies that boost production, you could get a pretty big start.

They have an ability where they can sense enemy armies in your own region or neighboring ones. Their units also get more defense if they spend time squatting in trees. But I don’t think we should talk about combat just yet. We’re having a good time, let’s not ruin it… Their production bonuses mean that they’re pretty adept at pumping out armies quickly, so, if they’re left to frolic in the woods alone too long, they can have a Woodstock swarm show up at your doorstep. They’re pretty simple to play, and they don’t bring anything unusual. Idunno… I think we could move on. “Use your eyes, or I will remove them in the atonement.” These are the edgy wizards. If you combined the mall Hot Topic with “Harry Potter”, you’d probably have the Ardent Mages. They can pay resources to cast magical pillars in their cities, which help boost their output, or other effects, like increasing troop speed around it. They can even use spells in battle. Ugh… There’s no avoiding it… Let’s just do this now. Battles take place right on the game world map. You can choose a few tiles to deploy your troops, choose their stance and who they should attack. Then you click “Launch” and watch it happen. It’s a bit “hands-off”… If you want, you can zoom out and do something else on the map. It’s not… terrible, but it’s not good either. Yeah, I’m gonna have to bring this one up. Besides having cool designs, you can also customize your units in “Endless Legend”. You can choose the kind of weapons they use, research upgrades for them, use materials to make new weapons or find them from quests – there are tons. There are also hero units you can get, and they have the same level of customization for their equipment.

Besides being able to equip special stuff you might find from ruins or quests, they also have skill trees, and these skills depend on the class of the hero and the faction they’re in. So you can set them up as a good governor, a powerful leader or a strong warrior. Now, all of this sounds cool, but the thing is – these are all passives. There’s nothing you click on. Any sort of spell a magic unit has is just a damage modifier. In a game like this, with some really creative units, that’s pretty disappointing. The “Guardians” expansion tried to fix this with some super units, but their abilities are mainly in the overworld, not in battle. To make it even less appealing, the auto-resolve system is really fair. There have only been a handful of times where I thought that controlling a battle would save the outcome for me. Those were mainly based on unit weaknesses, or if I saw some terrain I could use. What makes it a problem for me especially is that a game came out a few months before this, which had a system like that. Even if you say that’s too short-term, it’s clear they are looking at a ton of other things. So they had plenty to draw from. To be fair, “Endless Space” used a “pick a card” system for the battles, so… maybe I expected too much. But to get back on topic, the Mages are unique, because they have active spells they can use in combat.

The Co-insurance Clause

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause

Of the more important clauses in current use, the one most frequently used, most severely criticized, most mis¬ understood, most legislated against, and withal the most reasonable and most equitable, is that which in general terms is known as the “co-insurance clause.”
Insurance is one of the great necessities of our business, social and economic life, and the expense of maintaining it should be distributed among the property owners of the country as equitably as it is humanly possible so to do.
Losses and expenses are paid out of premiums col¬ lected. When a loss is total the penalty for underinsurance falls where it properly belongs, on the insured who has elected to save premium and assume a portion of the risk himself, and the same penalty for underinsurance should by contract be made to apply in case of partial loss as applies automatically in case of total loss.
If all losses were total, liberality on the part of the insured in the payment of premium would bring its own reward, and parsimony would bring its own penalty; but the records of the leading companies show that of all the losses sustained, about 65%—numerically—are less than $100; about 30% are between $100 and total; and about 5% are total. The natural inclination, therefore, on the part of the public, particularly on the less hazardous risks, is to under¬ insure and take the chance of not having a total loss; and this will generally be done except under special conditions, or when reasonably full insurance must be carried to sustain credit or as collateral security for loans. There were several strik¬ ing illustrations of this in the San Francisco conflagration, where the amount of insurance carried on so-called fireproof buildings was less than 10% of their value, and the insured in such instances, of course, paid a heavy penalty for their neglect to carry adequate insurance.
Co-insurance operates only in case of partial loss, where both the insurance carried and the loss sustained are less than the prescribed percentage named in the clause, and has the effect of preventing one who has insured for a small percentage of value and paid a correspondingly small pre¬ mium from collecting as much in the event of loss as one who has insured for a large percentage of value and paid a correspondingly large premium. We have high authority for the principle,
“He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”
and it should be applied to contracts of insurance. Rating systems may come, and rating systems may go; but, unless the principle of co-insurance be recognized and universally applied, there can be no equitable division of the insurance burden, and the existing inequalities will go on forever. The principle is so well established in some countries that the general foreign form of policy issued by the London offices for use therein contains the full co-insurance clause in the printed conditions.
The necessity for co-insurance as an equalizer of rates was quite forcibly illustrated by a prominent underwriter in an ad¬ dress delivered several years ago, in the following example involving two buildings of superior construction:
“A’S” BUILDING “B’S” BUILDING
Value $100,000 Value $100,000
Insurance 80,000 Insurance 10,000
Rate 1% Rate 1%
Premium received— Premium received—
one year, 800 one year, 100
No Co-insurance Clause No Co-insurance Clause
Loss 800 Loss 800
Loss Collectible 800 Loss Collectible 800
“B” pays only one-eighth as much premium as “A,” yet both collect the same amount of loss, and in the absence of co-insurance conditions both would collect the same amount in all instances where the loss is $10,000 or less. Of course, if the loss should exceed $10,000, “A” would reap his reward, and “B” would pay his penalty. This situation clearly calls either for a difference in rate in favor of “A” or for a difference in loss collection as against “B,” and the latter can be regulated only through the medium of a co-insurance condition in the policy.
At this point it may not be amiss incidentally to inquire why the owner of a building which is heavily encumbered, whose policies are payable to a mortgagee (particularly a junior encumbrancer) under a mortgagee clause, and where subrogation may be of little or no value, should have the benefit of the same rate as the owner of another building of similar construction with similar occupancy, but unencum¬ bered.
In some states rates are made with and without co- insurance conditions, quite a material reduction in the basis rate being allowed for the insertion of the 80% clause in the policy, and a further reduction for the use of the 90% and 100% clauses. This, however, does not go far enough, and any variation in rate should be graded according to the co-insurance percentage named in the clause, and this gradation should not be restricted, as it is, to 80%, 90% or 100%, if the principle of equalization is to be maintained.
Various clauses designed to give practical effect to the co-insurance principle have been in use in this country for nearly forty years in connection with fire and other contracts of insurance. Some of these are well adapted to the purpose intended, while others fail to accomplish said purpose under certain conditions; but, fortunately, incidents of this nature are not of frequent occurrence.
There are, generally speaking, four forms, which differ quite materially in phraseology, and sometimes differ in prac¬ tical application. These four clauses are: (1) the old co- insurance clause; (2) the percentage co-insurance clause; (3) the average clause; (4) the reduced rate contribution clause.
Until recently, underwriters were complacently using some of these titles indiscriminately in certain portions of the country, under the assumption that the clauses, although differently phrased, were in effect the same, but they were subjected to quite a rude awakening by a decision which was handed down about a year ago by the Tennessee Court of Civic Appeals. The law in Tennessee permits the use of the three-fourths value clause and the co-insurance clause, but permits no other restrictive provisions. The form in use bore the inscription “Co-insurance Clause,” but the context was the phraseology of the reduced rate contribution clause, and although the result was the same under the operation of either, the court held that the form used was not the co- insurance clause, hence it was void and consequently inop¬ erative. Thompson vs. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. (Tenn. 1919) 215 S.W. Rep. 932, 55 Ins. Law Journal 122.
The law of Georgia provides that all insurance companies shall pay the full amount of loss sustained up to the amount of insurance expressed in the policy, and that all stipulations in such policies to the contrary shall be null and void. The law further provides that when the insured has several policies on the same property, his recovery from any company will be pro rata as to the amount thereof.
About twenty years ago, the Supreipe Court of Georgia was called upon to decide whether under the law referred to the old co-insurance clause then in use, which provided
“that the assured shall at all times maintain a total insurance upon the property insured by this policy of not less than 75% of the actual cash value thereof . . . . and that failing to do so, the assured shall
become a co-insurer to the extent of the deficiency,”
was valid and enforceable, and it decided that the clause was not violative of the law. Pekor vs. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1898) (106 Ga. page 1)

The Co-insurance Clause
The Co-insurance Clause
The court evidently construed the clause as a binding agreement on the part of the insured to secure insurance up to a certain percentage of value, and virtually held that if the insured himself desired to take the place of another insurance company he was at liberty to do so as one way of fulfilling his agreement.

The Georgia courts, however, have not passed upon the validity of the reduced rate contribution clause in connection with the statutory law above referred to; but it is fair to assume that they will view the matter in the same light as the Tennessee court (supra), and hold that it is not a co-insurance clause, even though it generally produces the same result; that it contains no provision whatever requiring the insured to carry or procure a stated amount of insurance, and in event of failure, to become a co-insurer, but that it is simply a clause placing a limitation upon the insurer’s liability, which is expressly prohibited by statute. The fact that the insurers have labeled it “75% Co-insurance Clause” does not make it such.
It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the question is frequently asked as to the difference between the various forms of so-called co-insurance clauses, and these will be considered in the order in which, chronologically, they came into use.
Probably in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there is no difference* between these clauses in the results obtained by their application, but cases occasionally arise where ac¬ cording to the generally accepted interpretation the difference will be quite pronounced. This difference, which will be hereinafter considered, appears in connecton with the old co-insurance clause and the percentage co-insurance clause, and only in cases where the policies are nonconcurrent.
The first of the four forms is the old co-insurance clause which for many years was the only one used in the West, and which is used there still, to some extent, and now quite generally in the South. Its reintroduction in the South was probably due to the Tennessee decision, to which reference has been made (supra). This clause provides that the insured shall maintain insurance on the property described in the policy to the extent of at least a stated percentage (usually 80%) of the actual cash value thereof, and failing so to do, shall to the extent of such deficit bear his, her or their pro¬ portion of any loss. It does not say that he shall maintain insurance on all of the property, and the prevailing opinion is that the co-insurance clause will be complied with if he carries the stipulated percentage of insurance either on all or on any part of the property described, notwithstanding the fact that a portion of said insurance may be of no assist¬ ance whatever to the blanket, or more general policy, as a contributing factor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.