Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - HAN B|B STARK Peace
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

HAN B|B STARK Peace
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 1.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote twilights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 23:57
BIM this is the second time you stepped in..the first was acceptable with stomp...the second time was just interference that determined the outcome of a war...shame on you....broken land sisters and brothers take note...our weak are being preyed upon from the vultures to the north
Back to Top
Nero View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 25 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Nero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 01:06
The game is broken if every action small alliances take is dictated by the wishes of a large confederation on the other end of the illy world. What would WoT, or any alliance, do if an alliance of equal size, who is known in the past to be aggressive towards you, switches from helping your confeds to appeasing your confeds enemies? From my perspective the alliances that were at war with our allies were getting a new base in Bl to attack Han and her allies. To say that Han attacked a weaker alliance is ridiculous. The fighting was pretty even until larger members started showing up in stark. 
Back to Top
Janders View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 36 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Janders Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 02:31
I still don't fully understand the uproar.

If HAN/STARK or any other two alliances want to agree to conditions of war, such as "this is a 1:1 fight, no outside joiners, max 3 cities razed per account, etc etc" I think that is AWESOME and a lot of fun.  We should do more of that, is my personal opinion.  A lot of us have played war-of-walls (with battering rams instead of pults) to have the fun of war with less risk of total destruction; perhaps there are other ways to settle conflicts and have military "fun" without risking the 10 cities you've spent years building.

HOWEVER, if one alliance wants to attack another without any preset rules of war, and expects them NOT to ask for assistance from outsiders, BL or ELGEAN based, they are playing the wrong game.

Granted any outside assistance can cause positive/negative repercussions for the joiners, but that is true of all game actions and forum posts.  HAWK and METAL were entirely BL-based players who wanted to join the fray.   I think we all know even little skirmishes like this could lead to a domino-effect of confederations and declarations similar to the first world war.  That said, if a member of our alliance wants to leave and join someone else in a war, I certainly don't have the power to stop them.  I can (and do) tell them they aren't allowed back in until they have ended their war commitments (i.e. you can't attack and then jump back into the alliance as a shield). WoT, as many of you know, has almost always remained neutral in war, and we tend to be a friendly, goofy, fun bunch.  But in most of the larger wars in years past, we have had members leave for extended periods to fight on both sides of these conflicts.  They aren't allowed to drag the alliance proper into it, without a vote of the alliance, and can't use us as protection.  Has this tarnished our reputation as "true neutral?  I suspect so! However, I think its more important to let our band of misfits play the game as they intend, and get involved in conflicts if they find them important.

PS are we really fighting over 20million gold? I'm sure if any little players on either side were damaged we can hook them up! [I wasn't privy to the peace negotiations]
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1212 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 02:49
Originally posted by Nero Nero wrote:

The game is broken if every action small alliances take is dictated by the wishes of a large confederation on the other end of the illy world.
dramatic.

the game is a sandbox. all the other players get to do what they like with their units, too. if small alliances are susceptible to this sort of pressure, that will be exactly the result, and should be.

i will be more interested in this sort of thing if/when agents of the Elgean powers participate in a losing contest and retreat to their home alliances for safety. Bimoda's enduring allegiance is well-known and here mentioned. are there repercussions for Fairy's diplomacy as a result of Bimoda's participation? it seems said participation is being interpreted as Fairy involvement at some level.
Back to Top
phoenixfire View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2012
Location: Westeros
Status: Offline
Points: 109 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote phoenixfire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 02:51
I wasn't actually around for the negotiations. I gave Bim guidelines and then said ok once she was done negotiating. 
Han didn't have to accept the terms. They also didn't have to declare war on us and expect no one to offer help.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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