H? attacking players at Standing Stones

This is Damage Control to Major Tom.....

Oh the irony...../facepalm
 

Not strictly fair. There's no reason to think that Kumomoto didn't sincerely mean that.

So,

Kumomoto: thank you.

Now in general, if I can adopt a slightly less combative tone that that which prevails (and which I may grumpily have contributed to - my apologies if I did so)...

This situation allows me to simultaneously ride my two current favored hobby-horses (neat trick, by the way, which should further my rodeo career if I don't damage my groin... but I digress...)

1)

There are lots of ways that Illyriad can be played. It has to be played as a city builder, but after that it can be played solely as a builder, or as a wargame, or as a trading game, and there are early signs that it might also in future be playable in other styles such as as a mystery game (note the Mysteries), etc. However, the wargame approach, as the rules stand, will always trump the others. So, in the tournament just passed, most players played the tournament as a solitary or alliance-based building and planning exercise, often deliberately avoiding conflict or changing their approach to accommodate their neighbors. H? (and, I infer, a couple of other alliances) chose to impose a wargame approach on this where "of course" PvP combat ensued.

Now, this wargame approach was not the only approach - there was no "of course" it should go that way. Rather than unsentimentally attacking smaller players, there was a collaborative / respectful / deferential approach evidenced up in Wolgast between Frost, Absa and PA (I had several conversations wherein people were seeking to avoid inconveniencing oneanother); and earlier in this thread a similar approach was referenced between WE and another player; most people seem to have taken this more laid-back approach.

There were two approaches. Nowhere is there a divine writ stating that one is right and the other wrong. But the fact is that the wargamers had the power to impose their approach on the others - on, I think, the majority. The more laid back types cannot impose their view on the wargamers. 

Now, in this instance I believe - and I may be wrong - that the wargame approach rendered the tournament less interesting. But it's too late to moan about that now, and honestly I don't think it's interesting. What is interesting is that in this, as in so much of Illy, there rules put all the power in the hands of the wargamers. Ultimately, they decide how things will unfold.

2)

H? are the feudal lords of Illyriad. They have just demonstrated that they do, excellently well, what feudal lords did to maintain power - and what the current setup of Illyriad requires that people do in order to hold a dominant position of power: they wield superior military force with superior skill.

This is not a sycophantic piece of flattery, fawning before the "glorious monarchs". It is also not some sort of liberal or Marxian critique leading to a call for revolution against the "unjust oppressors". It is just a statement of how things are.

The point that I am trying to make is that people should not over-react, either way. It would be more helpful, if before either slating H? too harshly, or contrawise disregarding all criticism of them, people were to understand the dynamics and different perspectives.

There are different approaches to Illy; H? do what they do, and personally I think it was to the detriment of the game in this instance, but that's just IMHO; and this neither makes them heroes nor villains.