Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Great War
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Great War
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 23>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
The Unkown View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 40 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Unkown Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2015 at 00:54
Personally I think the GA forced many players out of the game due to relentless sieges. If they had not caused so much blood shed we might still have some of the players who were seized out of the game.
Back to Top
abstractdream View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: TEXAS Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1865 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abstractdream Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2015 at 00:43
I can only speak for myself and TVM but I will say that my own declaration against TVM surrendering was made because we were attacked by (first) a much larger alliance and then told (directly by the GA's top leader) we had to surrender so that alliance could help fight our allies in another part of the continent. For me, it was clear we would eventually be defeated but the more noise we made and the longer we held out the better chance our allies had of ultimately winning in their own territories. It wasn't to be, but I still believe we did the right thing.
Bonfyr Verboo
Back to Top
The Unkown View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 40 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Unkown Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2015 at 00:25
I agree with artahm
Back to Top
Epidemic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 773 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epidemic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2015 at 00:25
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Brandmeister, I received many mails from players, including alliance leaders,  that they would not make peace under ANY terms, so the actual peace terms offered and accepted or rejected are not necessarily relevant to the belief of people like myself who took those people at their word and believed it was possible that they would not make peace at all.



After seeing many of their members sieged out of the game, this from very early in the war, do you honestly blame that they would be defiant and choose annihilation over humiliation? Your lies and propaganda are only working on the newbs you 'help' in gc.
Back to Top
Epidemic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 773 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epidemic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2015 at 00:20
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

His name was Thorgrim.  I remember his name, even though you do not.  He later went inactive, which I was sad to see.



Nope, that must of been another player you mercilessly went after. Both players did go inactive after your peaceful alliance razed at least half their cities.
Back to Top
Artahm View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: Polska
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Artahm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 23:40
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

No, people from our side have NOT stated that people were given no terms or terms that would equate to being sieged out of the game.  In fact, even people from the OTHER side have never claimed that.  Terms were always available, and I sought many times to contact both the leaders and individual players in the alliance to ask to make peace, including asking what terms would be acceptable to them.

Everyone had the option to end the war.

You misunderstand the situation and are making assumptions about it based on other games you have played.


Just a few quotes from this very topic. There was one stating outright that Sir Bradly would have not gotten any terms given in any circumstance, but I can't find it now and it's too much to read through again. 

Not one of theese is from The Coalition side. 

Having fought in the beginning on the victors side I must agree with Epidemics version and it is one reason amongst many why I left the war. People can quote what they like but it just became a mauling with no honour.

Having also fought in the beginning on the victors side, i can confirm that. It was one of the 3 reasons that made me quit my alliance and renounce the war... At some given point, i couldn't tell how we could be called "the good guys" when we were doing the exact same thing that we accused the "bad guys" of doing...

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.
this is so clearly propaganda it should require no correction. "on good terms" is in the eye of the beholder; had the opponents felt the terms were better than annihilation, they clearly would have opted for them.


Not true you say? I have no interest whatsoever in any of the parties now.. why would i be lying?
I know what i saw there, and i saw entire REGIONS being cleansed just because someone could flex their muscles...

Adding on what Angrim said, let's not forget the absolute BS justification the Grand Alliance used here: "They are refusing to surrender to our terms, so we can do nothing else [emphasis mine] than razing them back to the newbie ring". There are always alternatives, if involved parties are willing to see them.

And in what way is this better than giving up two cities?

I'll be the first to admit that surrender terms were high after the Consone War, but I also note that the ones setting up the terms on behalf of the GA (barring HATHALDIR) weren't even participating in that war.

There is no justification for what some GA-alliances did in the last war.


You know full well that we ultimately held you and your former alliance responsible for the enormous toll of the great war. It's rather obvious that you wouldn't be afforded the same treatment as the other alliances.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 23:16
No, people from our side have NOT stated that people were given no terms or terms that would equate to being sieged out of the game.  In fact, even people from the OTHER side have never claimed that.  Terms were always available, and I sought many times to contact both the leaders and individual players in the alliance to ask to make peace, including asking what terms would be acceptable to them.

Everyone had the option to end the war.

You misunderstand the situation and are making assumptions about it based on other games you have played.
Back to Top
Artahm View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: Polska
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Artahm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 23:01
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Many people left the war and made peace, knowing that their friends also had the option of doing so.  Making a wise choice and encouraging others to do so is not a betrayal.

Haven't people from your side stated that there were opponents that were given no terms at all or terms that would in reality equate to being sieged of the game? 

How many people had left the war knowing their friends did NOT have the option to do so? How many others were drawn into oblivion by the GA, becouse they would not stand idly by while their friends were methodically obliterated? 

Dont get me wrong, I understand the tactic and it is just that - a tactic. I very much dislike the spinning of the matter afterwards. Even disregarding Tamaeons 'liberal' approach to truth (dude, when your own side disporves whay you have written, have the decency to admit it mkey?). It's half a year after the war, why do you still feel the need to try throwing blame around? Admit the facts, admit the strategy and move on. Stop the propaganda. Who is it aimed at? Us newbies? Really? 
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:43
Many people left the war and made peace, knowing that their friends also had the option of doing so.  Making a wise choice and encouraging others to do so is not a betrayal.
Back to Top
Artahm View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: Polska
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Artahm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:34
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

We can say with martyrdom was their preferred path because they said so repeatedly themselves.  In mails and in global chat.

Becouse you were not offering a way out, but a way to betray their friends. Giving a choice like that is not giving a choice at all. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 23>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.