Print Page | Close Window

The Great War

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Histories
Forum Description: Official and Unofficial Histories of Alliances, Wars & Politics
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=6075
Printed Date: 17 Oct 2019 at 16:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Great War
Posted By: Orin
Subject: The Great War
Date Posted: 10 Jan 2015 at 22:47
Greetings, brothers and sisters. I have decided to compile a report on the war between GA and the Dominion,Harmless? and it's allies. I think you know the one I mean, but it was the biggest in history. I require accounts from veterans of the war, as I have recieved many conflicting views. The report will be as neutral as I can possibly make it. I am looking for the names of every involved alliance, moments of heroism and especially the cause of the war and the crow history leading up to the event . Please do not hesitiate to contact me. I do realise this is a sensitive subject. therefore it cannot lay dormant. Finally, a account from a neutral would allow me to now have info from all 3 sides of the war. My in game name is Orin, please send me a IGM.



Replies:
Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 00:38
For Peace sake, Let's Not.

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 04:14
Speaking as a loser, I don't have a problem with this at all. History has always interested me and Illy history is fascinating. When I was a newb, I wanted to read everything I could about Illy history. I know I'm not the typical player but I know I'm not alone in that interest too.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Makanalani
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 06:20
This would be a great idea if people would be able to contribute as much information as they have. It would be fantastic to have one post with the main themes, important battles, and statistics on troops and numbers.

-------------
"Life is a beautiful struggle"

-New IGN: Mak (Dark Blight)


Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 19:25
Some details you'll want to put in your neutral history record; Permasits played a major part in that war and it was the first war to see total indiscriminate annihilation of active player accounts. It should be added that the 'peaceful' alliances were the ones doing the total indiscriminate annihilation.


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 20:25
Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

it was the first war to see total indiscriminate annihilation of active player accounts. It should be added that the 'peaceful' alliances were the ones doing the total indiscriminate annihilation.

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms. In fact, we even helped some players rebuild.

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms. Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 21:04
Originally posted by Orik Orik wrote:

I am looking for the names of every involved alliance, moments of heroism and especially the cause of the war and the crow history leading up to the event . Please do not hesitiate to contact me. I do realise this is a sensitive subject. therefore it cannot lay dormant. Finally, a account from a neutral would allow me to now have info from all 3 sides of the war.

Here's a link to a spreadsheet which shows a snapshot taken about 6 months into the war.

Link:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dRGjI3vUdcKr4H_C-RXDBSk2rPDMLFJdMfXtPd5cGHE/edit#gid=0" rel="nofollow - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dRGjI3vUdcKr4H_C-RXDBSk2rPDMLFJdMfXtPd5cGHE/edit#gid=0

It would be great to have someone document the war for historical purposes. But achieving an actual objective account will be next to impossible. I'd be happy to share some of my knowledge.

I suggest drafting a list of questions, and sending them to the leaders of all the alliances involved in the war. You might not get many responses, but you'll undoubtedly see that every alliance had it's own reasons for being involved Wink


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Ukkonen
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 16:38
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

it was the first war to see total indiscriminate annihilation of active player accounts. It should be added that the 'peaceful' alliances were the ones doing the total indiscriminate annihilation.

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms. In fact, we even helped some players rebuild.

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms. Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
 
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.


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 19:32
Originally posted by Ukkonen Ukkonen wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

it was the first war to see total indiscriminate annihilation of active player accounts. It should be added that the 'peaceful' alliances were the ones doing the total indiscriminate annihilation.

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms. In fact, we even helped some players rebuild.

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms. Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
 
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...


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 19:51
Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

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...
And what was that?


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 19:56
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.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms.
emphasis added. again with the emotional language.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:02
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:42
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

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.
The expression "I disagree", implies opinion and is subjective by definition.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms.
emphasis added. again with the emotional language.
Moot argument, considering that subjectivity has already been established.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)
As a connoisseur of pre-war illyriad as well as my own personal reasons and motivations for being involved in the war, you know the above did not apply to me or my alliance. You also seem to have read over my first post in this thread, so I'll quote it below for the sake of clarity...

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I suggest drafting a list of questions, and sending them to the leaders of all the alliances involved in the war. You might not get many responses, but you'll undoubtedly see that every alliance had it's own reasons for being involved

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.
So you resort to conjecture and unnecessary accusations of bias, while forgetting that you lack both the knowledge and the facts to back up your words. 

I just want to say that I would very much appreciate it, if you would stop baiting and harassing me Angrim. You did not participate in the war, nor did you suffer any consequence as a result of its existence. By your own admission, you do not know the details of the surrender terms, so I would advise you to stop making arguments from a position of ignorance.

The war is long over, and those of us who did fight are moving on.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:48
Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

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...
And what was that?
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 

I'm sorry Tyrande, but this simply isn't true.


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:13
As I recall, Tyrande, you quit nCrow because you were upset that a player from the other side diplo'd your alt while you had the alt in the alliance temporarily to facilitate a Tenaril or Exodus.  You felt this was grossly unfair because that player's profile said that she was not part of the war.  nCrow leadership basically took the position that since the account was in an alliance at war, it was fair game.  You believed this was incredibly unfeeling and quit in a huff.

You were quite happy to thieve other players during the war, as I recall, but couldn't handle being diplo'd yourself.  I don't recall you mentioning in chat or mail at the time you left any dissatisfaction with the way the war was being waged.

You were also happy to rejoin nCrow for the purpose of tournament participation whilst the war was still being waged, although you did not participate in the war activities (which were by then minimal).  This also argues against any crisis of conscience that led you to leave, or perhaps you did not feel as strongly as you represent.

It is fine to try to reframe the moment as something more dignified and meaningful in your own mind, but when you start claiming it publicly, someone needs to speak.

I will say for myself that I was troubled by the amount of destruction that occurred in the war.  However, I believe that both sides are responsible for this choice.  Either could have stopped the war at any time.  In the case of the "winning" side this would have meant giving up some claim to being clear victors.  In the case of the losing side, this meant admitting that they had in fact lost.  I think the endgame of the war was driven mostly by pride and stubbornness on both sides.  Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere for future conflicts.


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:14
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

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...
And what was that?
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 

I'm sorry Tyrande, but this simply isn't true.

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...


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:17
Interesting question, Tyrande.  I think that you are lying to yourself, to make your motivations seem more noble in your own mind than they actually were.  That is completely understandable, and I really don't think you have any agenda beyond that.


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:21
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Interesting question, Tyrande.  I think that you are lying to yourself, to make your motivations seem more noble in your own mind than they actually were.  That is completely understandable, and I really don't think you have any agenda beyond that.

I think you're reflecting yourself Rill... i left for 3 reasons.. 1 of them was some ppl, and you know who was, clearing the entire Ursor area... dizimating it.. and  i remember quite clearly asking that in AC.. "if we do that, how come we're better than they are?"

You denying it with that argument is just a frustated attempt to sound like i want, or need, any reason to justify why i left the Crow domain, other than not agreeing with stuff i saw there on war times.


Posted By: Tyrande Whisperwinds
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 21:45
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

As I recall, Tyrande, you quit nCrow because you were upset that a player from the other side diplo'd your alt while you had the alt in the alliance temporarily to facilitate a Tenaril or Exodus.  You felt this was grossly unfair because that player's profile said that she was not part of the war.  nCrow leadership basically took the position that since the account was in an alliance at war, it was fair game.  You believed this was incredibly unfeeling and quit in a huff.

You were quite happy to thieve other players during the war, as I recall, but couldn't handle being diplo'd yourself.  I don't recall you mentioning in chat or mail at the time you left any dissatisfaction with the way the war was being waged.

You were also happy to rejoin nCrow for the purpose of tournament participation whilst the war was still being waged, although you did not participate in the war activities (which were by then minimal).  This also argues against any crisis of conscience that led you to leave, or perhaps you did not feel as strongly as you represent.

It is fine to try to reframe the moment as something more dignified and meaningful in your own mind, but when you start claiming it publicly, someone needs to speak.

I will say for myself that I was troubled by the amount of destruction that occurred in the war.  However, I believe that both sides are responsible for this choice.  Either could have stopped the war at any time.  In the case of the "winning" side this would have meant giving up some claim to being clear victors.  In the case of the losing side, this meant admitting that they had in fact lost.  I think the endgame of the war was driven mostly by pride and stubbornness on both sides.  Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere for future conflicts.

How sweet of you.. Let's see:
I said i quit for 3 reasons, and 1 of them was indeed my alt being diplo'ed while only doing a exodus and having stated that was not taking part in war. That much is true, i give you that. I even recall ppl defending that alt when i was afk for 1 day. I was not angry at Ncrow for that, i was angry at the others alliances for saying they didn't attack ppl who were not taking part in war, and were doing exactly that.

I did got angry of being robbed, and then a Ncrow player taking the enemy city and didn't return the goods that were inside the city.

You got the nerve to accuse me of being happy to thive. That is so hypocrypctical of you. As one of the strongest diplo players in the alliance, YOU WERE THE ONES WHO ASSIGNED TARGETS FOR ME TO ROB, and assigned me missions to do so...

As for joining the alliance for tournament, you were the one who mailed me, asking me to return for toruney, to which i replied, for tourney purposes alone, that i didn't want to take any part in that dirty war.. Or shall i post that msg here? I don't care if i get banned anyway, this game is pretty much dead!

You didn't read what i wrote in chat multiple time, or choose to ignore it?
You are indeed pro and this lying political game Rill... 

EDITED for the sake of grammar and clarity..


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 22:08
I did offer you the opportunity to return for the tourney.  I intended it as a gesture of friendship and reconciliation.  I had no idea at the time that you had continuing differences with nCrow, and you did not mention them at the time you rejoined, other than that you did not want to participate in the war.

During the war, players in nCrow who had diplomatic units were encouraged to use them.  However, at no time did anyone demand that a player attack a specific target either militarily or diplomatically.  (Voluntary participation was certainly enthusiastically solicited.)  Many players in nCrow, myself included, chose not to participate in that aspect of the war.  I don't condemn you for doing so -- thieving is a game mechanic that is useful in a conflict and fun for many.  However, suggesting that you were in any way coerced or ordered to do so is a misrepresentation.

I do recall you saying in chat and in mail that you were uncomfortable with the level of destruction in the war.  That is something that we shared, as it was something I also struggled with, although in the end I decided that advocating for restraint from within the structure of the alliance was the best way I could contribute.  At the time you left you did not express that it was your reason for leaving.


Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 22:20
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

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.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms.
emphasis added. again with the emotional language.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.


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.

And this is digging it all up again.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 23:25
Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

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...
And what was that?
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 
I'm sorry Tyrande, but this simply isn't true.
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...
I don't know if you're lying (as in saying something that you know to be untrue), but I do know that this war was not about supremacy. Any amount of destruction you saw was considered necessary in the pursuit of victory. And that goes for both sides of the war.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 01:13
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

As I recall, Tyrande, you quit nCrow because you were upset that a player from the other side diplo'd your alt while you had the alt in the alliance temporarily to facilitate a Tenaril or Exodus.  You felt this was grossly unfair because that player's profile said that she was not part of the war.  nCrow leadership basically took the position that since the account was in an alliance at war, it was fair game.  You believed this was incredibly unfeeling and quit in a huff.

You were quite happy to thieve other players during the war, as I recall, but couldn't handle being diplo'd yourself.  I don't recall you mentioning in chat or mail at the time you left any dissatisfaction with the way the war was being waged.

You were also happy to rejoin nCrow for the purpose of tournament participation whilst the war was still being waged, although you did not participate in the war activities (which were by then minimal).  This also argues against any crisis of conscience that led you to leave, or perhaps you did not feel as strongly as you represent.

It is fine to try to reframe the moment as something more dignified and meaningful in your own mind, but when you start claiming it publicly, someone needs to speak.

I will say for myself that I was troubled by the amount of destruction that occurred in the war.  However, I believe that both sides are responsible for this choice.  Either could have stopped the war at any time.  In the case of the "winning" side this would have meant giving up some claim to being clear victors.  In the case of the losing side, this meant admitting that they had in fact lost.  I think the endgame of the war was driven mostly by pride and stubbornness on both sides.  Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere for future conflicts.


I find it quite odd that you were troubled by the amount of destruction when you yourself made sure a Dlord player was completely wiped out because he had the nerve to send thieves to one of your towns because someone was thieving his towns for several weeks.

Quit pretending to play innocent, Ncrow is by far one of the most ruthless alliances in the game so far.


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 01:47
Originally posted by Captain Kindly Captain Kindly wrote:

 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.
So what could we have done? Or better... what alternatives could we have tried that we didn't.

Originally posted by Captain Kindly Captain Kindly wrote:

 And in what way is this better than giving up two cities?
Most players were given the option to surrender individually without losing cities. Is that not better?

Originally posted by Captain Kindly Captain Kindly wrote:

 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.
That's simply not true. In a few cases help was sought from third parties to help negotiate an end to hostilities. That's not even close to having non-combatants dictate the terms of surrender.

Originally posted by Captain Kindly Captain Kindly wrote:

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

And this is digging it all up again.
The Grand Alliance did what was needed in order to achieve victory. The cost may have been great, but both sides are to blame for this. I cannot deny that more could have been done to limit the amount of destruction; but I will have to disagree with anyone who claims that this was solely the GA's responsibility.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Orin
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 08:06
The aim of this post was to supply information, not to have people at each other. If you have any info, again IGM orin. 


Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 12:06
hey guys its over! cheer up - its a great time for us all to rebuild and enjoy peace! 

not unless you guys wanted to start one. Tongue



-------------
Disclaimer: The above is jcx|orcboy's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Harmless? [H?] or of the little green men that have been following him all day.

jcx in H? | orcboy in H?


Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 14:41
Great idea to try for an unbiased history, but that always opens a can of worms.

To my astonishment the loosing side seems really quiet and content with that approach (big thumbs up for that Thumbs Up), while the winning side and players who left the war without too much losses do all the shouting... LOL


Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 16:25
Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

Great idea to try for an unbiased history, but that always opens a can of worms.

To my astonishment the loosing side seems really quiet and content with that approach (big thumbs up for that Thumbs Up), while the winning side and players who left the war without too much losses do all the shouting... LOL


We on the losing side know what was done and are ok with that. We are going on and doing things we want to do. The victors know what they did and need to deal with it themselves. You reap what you sow. The surrender terms were absolutely crazy and if I did not get help would never have been able to afford it.


-------------
Kaggen is my human half


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 18:32
Originally posted by Gragnog Gragnog wrote:

Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

Great idea to try for an unbiased history, but that always opens a can of worms.

To my astonishment the loosing side seems really quiet and content with that approach (big thumbs up for that Thumbs Up), while the winning side and players who left the war without too much losses do all the shouting... LOL


We on the losing side know what was done and are ok with that. We are going on and doing things we want to do. The victors know what they did and need to deal with it themselves. You reap what you sow. The surrender terms were absolutely crazy and if I did not get help would never have been able to afford it.

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.

H? members who surrendered early paid a fraction of what the rest paid later on. With one clear exception being the player who had cities in Djebeli, Larn and Elijal.

edit: improved for clarity. 



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 18:44
OK, fact one both sides agree on: there had been reparations Wacko

Guys, why not offer some dates, aproximate or even exact data on towns lost, number of players who chose personal surrender, etc...

The spreadsheet looks cool, btw... Thumbs Up

So point 2: When would each side date the start of the war, maybe starting with the smaller alliances' wars at the beginning?


Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 21:11
What started the war and what caused supposed peaceful alliances to turn the game into evony? As an outsider who was quite active at the time I can give my perspective;

1)The confederation who lost the last war was still bitter and wanted revenge.
2)The minor wars between NC and BANE, which saw many players from other alliances join in.
3)A minor skirmish between Tcol and some other alliance I can't remember the name of.
4)Personal hatreds and feuds, especially against The_Dude.
5)Fear that H? would somehow come back to win became 'destroy them before they destroy us'
5)Bored players with a ton of resources and permasits, plus blind followers.
6)A snub of general chat for outside confed chat rooms that alienated the community
7)The war between I think uCrow, Alt, Celtic Knights and RE unleashed the game plan that the 'peaceful' alliances coordinated at least 6 months beforehand.

All this lead up to Illy turning into Evony for close to a year.




Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2015 at 23:50
Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

Guys, why not offer some dates, approximate or even exact data on towns lost, number of players who chose personal surrender, etc...
I have some data from the war, but its purely for archival purposes.

Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

So point 2: When would each side date the start of the war, maybe starting with the smaller alliances' wars at the beginning?
For me the war started when H? threatened war against DARK for intervening to stop the NC vs. BANE conflict. Elsewhere in illyriad Kumo and KP were making very public comments to the effect that Crowfed was getting too large, and was starting to smother the game. And in yet another corner of illyriad... H? was threatening to siege a player called Hannibal Foulwind out of the game.

There might be some protest/upheaval about that last claim, but make no mistake; its a confirmed fact.

It would ultimately take a few weeks before the first war declarations; but in my opinion it was these events, which lead to the conversations which ultimately gave birth to a Grand Alliance.

As far as timelines go, I'd say this happened in August and early September 2013.

edit: Corrected dates from 2014 to 2013 LOL


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 00:52
lol Epi LOL

As an insider I would comment the following...

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

What started the war and what caused supposed peaceful alliances to turn the game into evony? As an outsider who was quite active at the time I can give my perspective;

1)The confederation who lost the last war was still bitter and wanted revenge.
I can't comment on desires for revenge and such; but I can say with absolute confidence that most Consone alliances were not involved in the Great War.

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:


2)The minor wars between NC and BANE, which saw many players from other alliances join in.
Spot on. The circumstances surrounding that war (especially the flimsy casus belli) were a major factor for at least 6 alliances (including my own) to join the GA.

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

3)A minor skirmish between Tcol and some other alliance I can't remember the name of.
Could it have been the skirmish between BSH(TCol) and uCrow? If you're referring to this incident... then yes, it also played a role.

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:


4)Personal hatreds and feuds, especially against The_Dude.
I'm not sure what to say to that, except that The_Dude was never an "objective" for the GA. He was obviously a high value target as the leader of RES; but I doubt he was ever a prefered targeted due to his infamy.

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:


5)Fear that H? would somehow come back to win became 'destroy them before they destroy us'
This one's definitely wrong. Everyone in the GA knew the war was won from the very beginning. We had overwhelming numbers and the geographical advantage to win the war.

Here's a little fact that only the leaders of the GA alliances know: We put considerable effort early on, into discouraging the other side from fighting. Unfortunately their messaging was stronger than ours, and it resulted in the other side being even more determined to fight. Geek

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

6)Bored players with a ton of resources and permasits, plus blind followers.
I respectfully disagree. As far as I know; every alliance informed their members and offered them the possibility of opting out of the conflict. So no blind followers, only willing participants.

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:


7)A snub of general chat for outside confed chat rooms that alienated the community
I don't know what to say to that. Illyriad does not have confed chat, or the ability for group chats so people have to resort to other mediums like chatzy.

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:


8)The war between I think uCrow, Alt, Celtic Knights and RE unleashed the game plan that the 'peaceful' alliances coordinated at least 6 months beforehand.
It definitely wasn't 6 months beforehand, but I will not deny that there was some premeditation. Please my comment above for more info...

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:


All this lead up to Illy turning into Evony for close to a year.
And yet you made a killing on the markets, and never suffered a single attack! lol Tongue

All in all I found your insights quite interesting and even a little funny. Hope my comments don't come across too harsh. Thanks for sharing!

Originally posted by DISCLAIMER: DISCLAIMER: wrote:

I have no intention of hijacking this post, or dictating the outcome of Orin's historical account of the Great War. I will limit myself to offering my personal opinion; sharing some insider secrets every now and again, and disagreeing where necessary. As the war has long past, it is my sole intention, to have a constructive conversation about its history.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 01:09
If we're going to discuss war, why not do it while enjoying good music? Wink




-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 04:23
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

For me the war started when H? threatened war against DARK for intervening to stop the NC vs. BANE conflict. Elsewhere in illyriad Kumo and KP were making very public comments to the effect that Crowfed was getting too large, and was starting to smother the game. And in yet another corner of illyriad... H? was threatening to siege a player called Hannibal Foulwind out of the game.

There might be some protest/upheaval about that last claim, but make no mistake; its a confirmed fact.

It would ultimately take a few weeks before the first war declarations; but in my opinion it was these events, which lead to the conversations which ultimately gave birth to a Grand Alliance.

As far as timelines go, I'd say this happened in August and early September 2013.

edit: Corrected dates from 2014 to 2013 LOL


I was gonna stay out of this but I'm compelled by the sheer egregiousness of this biased doublethink and slander.

Case 1 - Dark/Bane/NC
Doublethink Exhibit A:  Dark threatened war to defend an ally, H? responded with a similar threat and yet Dark = Good and H? = Bad.

Doublethink Exhibit B: The reason NC/Bane war was still going was because Bane didn't want to surrender. So Tamaeon is using an alliance defending another alliances right not to surrender as his excuse for war.  Have a look at the other posts he's made about surrender in this thread and see if you can reconcile that piece of fancy footwork

Doublethink Exhibit C: Dark chose to break the former ties of the coalition by siding with Bane against NC (their former ally) so despite the fact that every H? action was only in response to a Dark move they proceeded to whine in GC for over a year about how H? betrayed them.

Case 2 - Crowfed
Firstly, I said nothing about Crowfed being too large (but as we know Tamaeon does not let facts get in the way of a good story).

Secondly, Kumo's concerns (despite the poor way they were voiced) proved to be completely accurate and valid based on the subsequent behavior of vCrow, uCrow, nCrow.  Fortunately other crows like mCrow and eCrow showed they had a little more moral fiber.

Case 3 - HFW
There was a period in time when HFW would regularly login to one of the accounts he was sitting and rant about H? in GC under that cover - not realising it was perfectly obvious who it was. Then he went silent and we were informed he had quit so we decided to take a few cities for our members (especially since one was still owed from the Consone settlement).

Once we found he had not quit and he finally started being somewhat reasonable we quickly came to an arrangement where he stopped trying to trash us all the time and we left him alone.

At no point did we threaten to remove him from the game.  We did threaten to do him some serious damage if he didn't stop being obnoxious but no threat of sieging out of the game. I did say to Hath that if the poor behavior continued then it would be of benefit to the entire game if he just abandonded but that was as far as it went.

Case 4 - more hypocrisy
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

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

Even in the context of this thread, you're still making stuff up to suit whatever argument you are trying to present.  The fact is that the surrender terms were much harsher than previous wars, did include city surrender (in some cases) and you also admitted that even if H? had surrendered we would not have received reasonable terms whereas at the time you were all "Just surrender and it will be fine" in public.

Case 5 - looking for the facts
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Everyone in the GA knew the war was won from the very beginning.

In this very forum The Duke himself claimed that he had no idea if GA would win or not - so who's lying, you or him?

Conclusion
I think the main issue here is that Tamaeon has been fed a such a steady diet of Anti-H propaganda that he just comes out with a constant stream of whatever he can think of to say that is anti-H? regardless of the fact that is self-contradictory rubbish at best and flat out lies at worst.


-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 11:44
If I learned anything from the Consone war, then it was that each side has it's own facts (honest facts they believe in).
Even if one manages to take away all the "propaganda", you'll end up with two different biased stories!

So why not compare those and tell one story with two sides; without accusing the other side as liers. 
It might be true, it might be vaguely untrue from your point of view. 
And that is even more true for motives and reasons than it is for the facts themself...

Just state your view/facts is/are different and don't start another war on history writing Wink


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 14:59
Hora - if those "honest facts" manage to contradict themselves within the first 4 pages of a thread then I think you can pretty safely say that they are neither honest nor facts.


-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 16:20
Just looking at this thread Im not sure is history of that war be very fun or interesting,but it would create lot of that old and bitter illy forum discussion that we all miss LOL

Seriously maybe all parties involved and interested enough should write their version of what took place.
Perhaps out of this forum since it is nice to see orginal copies of IGMs and such to prove things. 

 


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 18:11
First of all, welcome to the thread KP. Hope we can have a good conversation without resorting to propagandist tactics, truth monopolization and spin. Here's my reply...
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

For me the war started when H? threatened war against DARK for intervening to stop the NC vs. BANE conflict. Elsewhere in illyriad Kumo and KP were making very public comments to the effect that Crowfed was getting too large, and was starting to smother the game. And in yet another corner of illyriad... H? was threatening to siege a player called Hannibal Foulwind out of the game.

There might be some protest/upheaval about that last claim, but make no mistake; its a confirmed fact.

It would ultimately take a few weeks before the first war declarations; but in my opinion it was these events, which lead to the conversations which ultimately gave birth to a Grand Alliance.

I was gonna stay out of this but I'm compelled by the sheer egregiousness of this biased doublethink and slander.

Case 1 - Dark/Bane/NC
Doublethink Exhibit A:  Dark threatened war to defend an ally, H? responded with a similar threat and yet Dark = Good and H? = Bad.
Did I at any point say that H? is/was bad?
genuinely believe that people were increasingly threatened by H?'s words and actions, and especially that pathological need to always claim moral superiority.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Doublethink Exhibit B: The reason NC/Bane war was still going was because Bane didn't want to surrender. So Tamaeon is using an alliance defending another alliances right not to surrender as his excuse for war.  Have a look at the other posts he's made about surrender in this thread and see if you can reconcile that piece of fancy footwork
Quite the opposite.

Dark was not defending BANE's right not to surrender. They were trying to mediate an end to the war. There was considerable commotion, even outrage over the casus belli and a general perception that the war was unjust.

Halcyon was in fact trying to negotiate white peace as an alternative to surrender. When this failed, he tried to join BANE and eventually offered DARK as a substitute sparring partner.

Here's a link to one of the pivotal public discussions about the NC vs. BANE war:
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/ncbane-war_topic5236.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/ncbane-war_topic5236.html

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Doublethink Exhibit C: Dark chose to break the former ties of the coalition by siding with Bane against NC (their former ally) so despite the fact that every H? action was only in response to a Dark move they proceeded to whine in GC for over a year about how H? betrayed them.
I disagree. I know quite a few people who believe that H? chose to isolate DARK. This happened during the very public disagreement over the NC vs. BANE war. I cannot speak for DARK, but it seems rather obvious that H?'s actions and rhetoric at the time, gave common cause to multiple alliances that eventually joined to form the GA.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Case 2 - Crowfed
Firstly, I said nothing about Crowfed being too large (but as we know Tamaeon does not let facts get in the way of a good story).

Secondly, Kumo's concerns (despite the poor way they were voiced) proved to be completely accurate and valid based on the subsequent behavior of vCrow, uCrow, nCrow.  Fortunately other crows like mCrow and eCrow showed they had a little more moral fiber.
I'm not even going to justify this nonsense with an answer. Save that Koolaid for your followers LOL

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Case 3 - HFW
At no point did we threaten to remove him from the game.  We did threaten to do him some serious damage if he didn't stop being obnoxious but no threat of sieging out of the game. I did say to Hath that if the poor behavior continued then it would be of benefit to the entire game if he just abandonded but that was as far as it went.
You forget that members of the GA previously had access to the H? embassy, and other coalition resources. I won't name any names, but a convincing case was made that H? directors were saying the game would be quote: "better off without Hannibal Foul Wind".

Again, my intention is not to accuse or slander. I'm merely pointing out some of the factors that played a role in the formation of the GA.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Case 4 - more hypocrisy
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

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

Even in the context of this thread, you're still making stuff up to suit whatever argument you are trying to present.  The fact is that the surrender terms were much harsher than previous wars, did include city surrender (in some cases) and you also admitted that even if H? had surrendered we would not have received reasonable terms whereas at the time you were all "Just surrender and it will be fine" in public.
Let's look at the facts then, here's a link to the Harmless surrender announcement:
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/harmless-surrenders_topic5735.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/harmless-surrenders_topic5735.html

I will state once again that I'm only participating in this discussion to share my own opinions and insights about the Great War and the Grand Alliance. I have no interest whatsoever in accusing anyone and pointing fingers; I'm merely trying to express my own thoughts about the events, and recounting them as I and other leaders on my side experienced them.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Case 5 - looking for the facts
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Everyone in the GA knew the war was won from the very beginning.

In this very forum The Duke himself claimed that he had no idea if GA would win or not - so who's lying, you or him?
I don't know if the duke had any doubts about our chances to secure victory; but I will say that this isn't a black and white situation. Of course its possible that some leaders on our side had doubts about the viability of the war, but that doesn't automatically imply a lack of consistency or decisiveness on our part. The fact is that we fought together to the end; fulfilling the pledge we made to each other when the GA was formed.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Conclusion
I think the main issue here is that Tamaeon has been fed a such a steady diet of Anti-H propaganda that he just comes out with a constant stream of whatever he can think of to say that is anti-H? regardless of the fact that is self-contradictory rubbish at best and flat out lies at worst.
I don't have any kind of animus towards H?. Kumo and I used to be quite friendly, until it became clear that our interests were being targeted. We went from viewing you as a natural and longstanding ally, to an actual threat to our continued existence. It's not a personal matter, but rather an issue of geopolitical interests.

Ultimately the choice is yours, to chalk up the war and the events that preceded it as a personal matter... or acknowledge the obvious fact, that you (H? et al) were viewed as a growing threat that needed to be dealt with.

In closing I'd like to invite constructive reflection going forward. Please try to ease up on the Orwellian drama and false outrage; so we can focus on telling all sides of the story. All perspectives are valid, and should provide insight into the reasoning behind each and every faction involved in the Great War.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 18:24
Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

If I learned anything from the Consone war, then it was that each side has it's own facts (honest facts they believe in).
Even if one manages to take away all the "propaganda", you'll end up with two different biased stories!
I couldn't agree more Hora, wise words! Thumbs Up

Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

So why not compare those and tell one story with two sides; without accusing the other side as liers. 
It might be true, it might be vaguely untrue from your point of view. 
And that is even more true for motives and reasons than it is for the facts themselves...
Strongly support this, and I want to second this motion. Perhaps we should attempt to make it the mantra for this discussion.

As I mentioned in my reply to KP; all the perspectives of the war are valid, even if one side might disagree with some of the statements. At the end of the war there was a common sentiment on both sides, that there were important lessons to be learned, and agreements that needed to be made in order to avoid a future repetition of the enormous destruction seen during the Great War.

Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

Just state your view/facts is/are different and don't start another war on history writing Wink
Agreed, I'm all for this!


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 19:52
In reading the original NC-BANE thread, I still have the same question. I didn't see BANE desperately requesting intervention by DARK. They barely even said anything on that thread. That does make Halcyon's statements seem more like a pretext, and less like a genuine concern about fairness.

It always seemed to me like both NC and BANE wanted to fight. Both were trash talking in GC, both were escalating by adding players, and neither seemed to be suffering severe city destruction. I never understood the argument that it was fair for DARK to intervene on BANE's behalf, yet it was apparently an outrage that H? did the very same for NC. Their war seemed to be typical MMO fare--two guilds fought, one was starting to lose ground and thus called in allies, provoking the other guild to do the same. And it did seem very conspicuous that the allies called in for both sides already had an axe to grind with each other over different issues.


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2015 at 23:36
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

In reading the original NC-BANE thread, I still have the same question. I didn't see BANE desperately requesting intervention by DARK. They barely even said anything on that thread. That does make Halcyon's statements seem more like a pretext, and less like a genuine concern about fairness.
I don't think I can recall a single instance in the 3.5+ years that I've been playing, in which a player or alliance resorted to cries for help on the public forums. That said, I've scoured the forums for old threads from the NC vs. BANE war, and some related threads from the early days of the Great War, to cite some of the comments that were made at the time.

Exclamation I've put some three hours into this, so I beg that everyone behave and avoid nuking this thread!

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

It always seemed to me like both NC and BANE wanted to fight. Both were trash talking in GC, both were escalating by adding players, and neither seemed to be suffering severe city destruction.
You're absolutely right about the jabs and posturing from both alliances on GC. However, in the interest of keeping this discussion on topic; I want to quote/reference the events which led to the formation of the GA and what motivated our thinking at the time.

One thing that was particularly shocking to some leaders of the soon to be GA, was the stated casus belli and the reasoning behind NC's war declaration on BANE. See the link below for my own recounting of the facts... (further details can be provided upon request)

 >  http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5299&PID=70801&title=nc#70801" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5299&PID=70801&title=nc#70801

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

 I never understood the argument that it was fair for DARK to intervene on BANE's behalf, yet it was apparently an outrage that H? did the very same for NC.
The issue wasn't H?'s willingness to defend NC, but rather our perception that they were deliberately shielding them from any kind of accountability, for their indiscriminate targeting of alliances that were either unfit, unequipped or inexperienced in the art of warfare.

Here's a comment I made in regard to one of Halcyon's posts, as well as a pivotal moment in the formation of the Grand Alliance. Notice my complaint over the constant talk of escalation...

 >  http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5236&PID=69138&title=ncbane-war#69138" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5236&PID=69138&title=ncbane-war#69138

DARK was trying to end the war amicably, but their efforts descended into war talk when H? made it very clear, that they would not tolerate any DARK involvement.

My own experience with NC's adventurism and my own attempts at diplomacy during incidents prior to the NC vs. BANE war had already led me to view NC as a threat, acting on behalf of H? as their direct (war) proxy. The mere fact that even a member of the Coalition could be threatened with war, for questioning the actions of NC... was the last shred of evidence I personally needed, to be convinced of the inevitability of a massive war. A war which mind you, many in my confederation (Crowfed) opposed vehemently, and some still resent me for.

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

Their war seemed to be typical MMO fare--two guilds fought, one was starting to lose ground and thus called in allies, provoking the other guild to do the same. And it did seem very conspicuous that the allies called in for both sides already had an axe to grind with each other over different issues.
Not really. The NC vs. BANE war ended with BANE's surrender, and the soon to become GA in deliberations and early war planning. We knew a war was coming, we just didn't know when.

uCrow (my alliance at the time) entered a mutual defense agreement with xCKx on September 2nd 2013, about 4 days before BANE's surrender. This proved to be yet another pivotal moment before the great war, as no one could have predicted at the time, that they would become the next alliance on NC's target list.

When NC declared on xCKx, uCrow went into full war prep mode, while the GA decided this would be the moment where made our final stand against H? and NC. We pulled out the scrolls and drew all the battlelines, set approximate war declaration dates and signed an agreement to see the entire war through together, no matter the outcome. Obviously we did not expect, and could not have foreseen... the massive resistance the Coalition would put up, or the amount of destruction that ending the war would ultimately require.

Halcyon's statement about our reasons for fighting, including comments about NC's war against xCKx:

 >  http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5296&PID=70351&title=why-are-we-fighting#70351" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5296&PID=70351&title=why-are-we-fighting#70351

Further remarks by Halcyon regarding DARK's attempts at mediation during the NC vs. BANE war:

 >  http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5296&PID=70441&title=why-are-we-fighting#70441" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5296&PID=70441&title=why-are-we-fighting#70441

And yet another post by Halcyon emphasizing what I've said about the NC vs. BANE war being the pivotal event which ignited the Great War:

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5289&PID=70339&title=discussing-the-current-war#70339" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5289&PID=70339&title=discussing-the-current-war#70339


Hope this long post will help shed some light on the GA's thinking and reasoning at the time. I've stated some redundant facts which are known to everyone who's been playing for over 2 years, but are probably new to players who started in 2014 or later. Hope someone from the Coalition side can provide some insight into their own reasons for supporting NC, and perceptions regarding the GA's careful orchestration of "The inevitable Great War".

Thanks for reading Ying Yang


edit: Date corrections + Spelling & Grammar



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2015 at 02:29
I appreciate the time you took to compile these links and add commentary. It does provide a window into how your leadership team viewed the events leading up to the war.
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The issue wasn't H?'s willingness to defend NC, but rather our perception that they were deliberately shielding them from any kind of accountability, for their indiscriminate targeting of alliances that were either unfit, unequipped or inexperienced in the art of warfare.

I can believe that Celtic Knights was unfit, unequipped, and inexperienced in the art of warfare. They are a casual gaming alliance, by all appearances similar to eCrow. But it does strain credulity to apply that same description to BANE. Military competence is their signature.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

One thing that was particularly shocking to some leaders of the soon to be GA, was the stated casus belli and the reasoning behind NC's war declaration on BANE.

I'd give it a 7 on a scale of 1 to Trove Mine.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Obviously we did not expect, and could not have foreseen... the massive resistance the Coalition would put up, or the amount of destruction that ending the war would ultimately require.

The begs the question, what did the Grand Alliance anticipate as the resolution to the war?


Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2015 at 02:36
You can post all the justifications you want, Tamaeon, but it doesn't justify all the destruction your 'peaceful' confed brought to this game. We lost a ton of vets and by your action have ensured that all future wars are of only total annihilation. Once you break something is nearly impossible to put it back together.


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2015 at 02:52
Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

You can post all the justifications you want, Tamaeon, but it doesn't justify all the destruction your 'peaceful' confed brought to this game. We lost a ton of vets and by your action have ensured that all future wars are of only total annihilation. Once you break something is nearly impossible to put it back together.
I'm not justifying anything Epi, the facts speak for themselves, and no one can deny the massive toll of the war. So far I've been putting considerable effort in sharing the thinking and reasoning which led to the formation of the Grand Alliance and subsequently to the Great War.

As far as the game being broken... I think most of illyriad will disagree. As far as I'm concerned, nothing is broken and therefore nothing needs fixing. I see no reason for alarm or any indication whatsoever, that we're worse off than we were 2 years ago, or that we haven't settled into a new stable status quo.

So if I didn't make myself clear before; there will be no justifications and no apologies (both sides of the war did what they considered necessary), only the recounting of perspectives and every now and again a statement of facts. I speak for myself, but hope that others will adopt a similar position in discussing the Great War.


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2015 at 03:01
I The Duke was leader of Shade at the onset of the war. Shade was sided with the GA for numerous reasons but ours were set apart from the other members of Dominion. We had a few mutual issues with those that we fought with, but wasnt entering the war as a group who just was looking for reasons to fight.
That being said two things mentioned already i feel i can shed some light on.
-Hannibal Foul Wind-
HFW has a tendency to become very drunk and belligerent at times and was indeed very vocal about his dis-satisfaction of H?. That being said he was being threatened to have a city removed due to never losing one for his surrender terms. This was in fact not the case. Myself and a former friend who played (Beecks) had done the sieging already. Beecks at this time had went inactive and I am horrible at keeping hard proof around. So it was my opinion that H? was using this as a crutch to threaten HFW. To my knowledge the forceful extermination of the account was never said outright. 
-The_Dude-
Shade had a long history of outstanding issues with The_Dude which started when i was a new player and then recurred when leading my own alliances Knights Virtue and Shade as well as the short stint i was a spokesperson for RMYShankster in WE. Most the GA didnt have issues with RES and it should be noted the alliances in GA in large part didnt declare on them due to having no issues with them. However Shade and Aesir declared approx 1 week prior to the onset of the major war for our own reasons unrelated to the major conflict. At a later date RES would inevitably side with the dominion and if memory serves correctly declared on most of the GA alliances. (To note here at the point of them declaring there had been a lot of diplo incidents and attacks from both sides to "undeclared" parties anticipating the debacle that would unfold assuming all parties would soon be at each others throats anyways. Whether that was right or wrong serves a moot point now and both sides were equally guilty.)

General Events- 
As stated above hard copies and keeping documentation arent my forte' but Ill try to share a touch of history.
Shade entered the war with RES first accompanied by her close ally Aesir. Our main targets initially were Flipper and El Jeffe and The dude. We sent waves of diplo's at these targets specifically and sent alliance mails issuing orders to begin diplo'ing anyone in RES with 4 or more cities. No seiges were landed on RES by us through this first week because we needed to gather intel. We did issue attacks on cities which we found were holding large groups of cav armies hoping to get lucky and catch them defending rather than mowing through our seige engines later. Approx a week after our war was declared with RES it was voted a go for "The Great War" and to each sides credit Im not sure either side knew for sure who all would be involved. It was no secret that I had no desire to fight Harmless, and voiced my opinion on more than one occasion that i didnt think the crows were capable of uniting, and Harmless had squashed any challenger to date when it came to war. Crows and company were relatively inexperienced in such tactics which is something that worried me from the onset. To say that the GA knew from the start we were going to win is not true and I spoke to other leaders who shared the same concern as I did. 
*Alot of speculation has been put into how long GA spent devising a plan of action and what happened behind the scenes leading up to the war and I think this would be interesting to know myself. Dittobite is probably the most knowledgeable but I think Shade was the last if not one of the last alliances to give the nod we would join. If the planning started 6 months prior as eluded to by Tameon, then I had no knowledge of that and only entered the discussion at the very end. 

As the major war took off Shade backed off RES and fwd'd any substantial evidence and operations over to Calq Crow who was staying out of the war for the most part yet had a laundry list of diplomatic issues with RES specifically. So with Calq at war with RES we had a few members work with them to help in hitting some targets in the very dense Hub areas that RES had built in Middle Kingdom and Tor Carrock. Shade then moved its primary focus on Harmless and her  Freemorn hub. 

Freemorn operations- 
This area was where we knew we had to perform or it was going to be devastating to Shade in the long run. Freemorn was a region Shade and H? had fought over previously in tourneys, and it was easily Harmless' Growing hub area second only to Lan Larosh. Kal Tirikan is what is largely considered Shades homeland and neighbors Freemorn. Shade dug in and started planning sieges. First targets being the H? members who were once Colonist Empire leadership- Tordenkoffen, Valin5, Sneaking Ham, John5420. The issue was these cities were so close together they could all mutually defend themselves and each account had 9-10 towns. We ordered attack after attack on these cities from our freemorn Cav players Manochandar and Muykul but hitting them was proving fruitless. Over time we took heavy losses in multiple sieges that either were raided out of engines, were mis timed, or simply destroyed by the opposition. Eventually we were able to start getting sieges to land and be successful and one by one cities fell. After about 15 sieges that were a success it was found out that most if not all these accounts were at the time being sat. After that we pressed forward to other accounts in the area that werent as high profile and many exodused to Lan Larosh. This tactic was one alot of H? members used and probably saved alot more towns in the war than people ever realized. After taking care of most the southern Freemorn area we moved back onto the Northern half of Elgea. Basically hitting 2 sieges a week in Freemorn dedicated to Harmless, while trying to push the other alliances who were in the dominion into a surrender. Some of the most epic battles and sieges in the war Shade wasnt even a part of. Ditto had lured the Colony into attacking him on a mountain full or archers just to purge some of their troops in one battle that comes to memory. He-Man and Hyo were both extremely crucial especially early on in turning the tides of battle with their armies that were unprecedented to date.

Most of the cities left in the freemorn area either exodused toward the end of the war or were eventually deleted due to inactivity such as the four accounts I listed above. Its no secret by looking at the map of H? Shade had its part in clearing entire regions as people in the thread have brought up. The war was rather merciless sometimes and alot of bullheaded tactics were used. The initial couple months were FUN, very intense, and it was still a toss to which side was going to win, even though we were ahead, it was never a "comfortable" lead. After that it became more of a grind and as accounts got hit over and over  losing 75%(sometimes more) of what they had it was hard for alot of people to carry on the orders. 
I think for the GA in the end they wanted to break the will ofthe Dominion alliances by admitting defeat, but to those fighting in the dominion their will had been broken cause they felt like thay already lost everything in that 75%(sometimes more) and it was to the point it didnt make sense to surrender, at least being sieged to 0 you can leave with dignity. Remember this is just my view and doesnt represent anyone but myself and those Ive mentioned of my alliance 


-------------
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives."


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2015 at 15:28
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


Dark was not defending BANE's right not to surrender. They were trying to mediate an end to the war. There was considerable commotion, even outrage over the casus belli and a general perception that the war was unjust.

Halcyon was in fact trying to negotiate white peace as an alternative to surrender. When this failed, he tried to join BANE and eventually offered DARK as a substitute sparring partner.


Um - that's exactly what a white peace is - not surrendering.  NC offered terms to Bane, Bane refused to negotiate so Dark stepped in to try force an end without surrender.

Also, from the H? perspective Halcyon came to us with the decision already made, "NC have to do what we say or we'll join the war against them".  There was no negotiation or even discussion that I was privy to.  Our response was pretty predictable too - if you escalate against our confed we have to get involved too.

You can post all the Halcyon quotes you like claiming they did X, Y, Z but I have all their discussions with us on the H? forum still available and I posted a detailed rebuttal on this forum including dates and times of Dark statements. It's depressing that the same tired arguments are still being made in the face of the facts, backed up by the record of the actual discussions.

I'll also add a quote from you in one of those threads you linked:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


Also, I have to side with Twilights and Deranzin on this; live and let live should be our guiding principle. If these two parties want to got at it, and involve their friends to any end; it should be entirely up to them!


Next HFW:
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


You forget that members of the GA previously had access to the H? embassy, and other coalition resources. I won't name any names, but a convincing case was made that H? directors were saying the game would be quote: "better off without Hannibal Foul Wind".


I'm not forgetting anything - what I said to Hath in IGM is completely consistent with what I said to the The Duke in our embassy (as The Duke has now confirmed). Now that The Duke has confirmed - can you finally admit that you were misinformed/misled? You've already backpedalled from "This is absolute fact" to "A convincing case was made" it's not really that hard to take that final step is it?

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


I don't know if the duke had any doubts about our chances to secure victory;


You don't have to be unsure - it's here in black and white in a post on this forum - why is it so hard for you to acknowledge your sweeping statements are simply not true?

Quote
In closing I'd like to invite constructive reflection going forward.


That's only really possible when you decide to actually post facts instead of posting opinion/slander and trying to pass them off as facts, and when your descriptions and claims are actually consistent from post to post.

-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2015 at 19:12
Late for the party…I will give my own and Dark's perspective of what led to the Great War.

First, I would like to thank Tamaeon for representing my views on what caused the war. Thank you Tama!

Dark's involvement in the war began with the war between NC and Bane. Being a personal friend of Malek of Bane and him being a good friend to Dark we were sympathetic to Bane's peril after NC declared war on them. At the time Dark was a member of The Coalition and Kompanion and myself conveyed our growing unease at the way that war was developing. I'm pretty sure that we have also made our stance public in the forums. This brought one alliance leader who would later be a major part of the Grand Alliance to quarry in GC what exactly is Dark's stance on the NC-Bane war. To my recollection, I have never before exchanged words with the said leader and Dark and his alliance did not have diplomatic agreements. But since he represented a power in Elgea I decided to make my view even more public in the hope that other alliances may get politically involved and the NC-Bane war will come to a peaceful end. I opened the following thread on the game forums (Tama posted a link to it in a previous message in this thread):

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/ncbane-war_topic5236_page1.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/ncbane-war_topic5236_page1.html

While the polemics on this thread raged I became more and more concerned with the fact that players from Coalition alliances – especially TVM – were joining NC while Bane was denied the same because of what I perceived has Bane sympathizers being intimidated by the more than real possibility that joining will inevitably bring the entire Coalition against them. As the thread shows I finally found that if any help is to be given to Bane, it will only come from Dark. Since I knew that if all of Dark will join the battle at least 1 major Coalition alliance will also join, Dark's leadership decided to join with only 3 major Dark accounts. On September 3 I gave Malek the names of 3 Dark accounts (including my own) to be invited to Bane and join the war. On September 4 I was informed that Bane will agree to surrender.

It should be known that while the NC-Bane war was raging the Grand Alliance began to form. To my knowledge there was no intent at that time to initiate a world war, but the example of what happened to Bane made the alliances that in the future will form the Grand Alliance begin to feel the water and seek a balance to what was seen as unchecked Coalition aggression. At this time I began to be contacted by alliance leaders that never spoke with me before. At least one of them was trying to make sure that Dark is no longer a member of The Coalition and that my speaking for Bane was not in fact a trap. I believe that if I did not manage to reassure him that Dark will no longer side with the Coalition in the case of more aggression - he would not have signed up for what would later become The Grand Alliance. Again, to my knowledge there was no plan at the time to challenge the Coalition, but new ties were beginning to form.

Pretty soon after that NC got involved in the war between Celtic Knights and RE. Talks began in earnest again with the intention of halting this war before it expands. It had the same explosive potential as the NC-Bane war, the difference was that the Grand Alliance was almost fully formed albeit hidden in the shadows. When uCrows entered the war things became almost inevitable. I believe that the only thing that would have stopped the Great War from happening at that time was NC surrender, but NC did not have "surrender" in them. I was still trying to avoid a great war, but other alliance leaders felt that we are as strong as we are likely to be and giving way will only allow the Coalition to gather more strength and come against us in the future. When Harmless declared war on The Eagles there was no coming back. We were in it, all together, to the bitter end. On October 30th 2013 the Grand Alliance came out of the shadows as vCrows, Shade, Soon and Dark declared war on Harmless?

In the future I hope to be able to write an account of Dark's war operations.
Halcyon, late of Dark, now of New Dark.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2015 at 23:48
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)
As a connoisseur of pre-war illyriad as well as my own personal reasons and motivations for being involved in the war, you know the above did not apply to me or my alliance.
no, i do not. but if you meant "us" to mean only uCrow (or yourself, in the royal sense) then i have misread your post, which i took to include the "grand alliance" entire. you are certainly not the only former member to make this defence, and it rings hollow regardless of who says it. if it was wrong when done before (
and many ex-members of Consone who later fought on your side stated quite publicly at the time that it was), it is still wrong when done again.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.
So you resort to conjecture and unnecessary accusations of bias, while forgetting that you lack both the knowledge and the facts to back up your words.
no, i have the knowledge of the facts. i do not have the ability to back up my words because of the ToS's prohibition on posting personal conversation, and because revealing what i do know is to put certain agreements in jeopardy. but i will ask this: if the "grand alliance" felt that its offers would survive scrutiny, why veil them with oaths of secrecy? you seem very proud of them in the abstract. perhaps it is you who lack specific knowledge.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I just want to say that I would very much appreciate it, if you would stop baiting and harassing me Angrim.
i have never baited you. if you feel harassed in the sense from which illyriad policy ought to protect you, you should report me and we shall see what GM Rikoo will make of the situation. but if you refer to my dogged correction of your misrepresentations of facts that you forget or do not realise i know, timelines that i was involved in, plans that i was a party to, and meetings that i attended, i think we will find that all of that is entirely within the ToS. indeed, one might think with your casual attitude about facts that you intend to bait me. thanks in part to you, i have no allegiance in this other than to the truth. if you have made it your enemy, you should expect to face me as well.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

You did not participate in the war, nor did you suffer any consequence as a result of its existence.
how would you know what i suffered as a result of the war? more than you, i would guess; one must have attachment to feel loss. but that is no fit discussion for the forum, and i suggest you keep it out of it.


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2015 at 07:01
I was asked to mention other members of the Grand Alliance that I did not mention in my post above. The reason I did not mention them is that I was giving my own and Dark's info on what brought us into the war and I had no part in bringing these alliances into our ranks.
Having said that, some of these alliances fought even before Dark began to fight, some joined later, but all were as significant a part of the GA as we were.
These alliances are:
VICX, Calcr, AEsir, BANE, NAAM, nCrow, XckX, ALT and HEAT.
I also mentioned above though too briefly EE and uCrow.
Hope I didn't forget anyone - it was a long war.



Posted By: Venita
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2015 at 16:21
You forgot Insanity Inc Hal!   Alas for my former allaince, who battled NC several times.  After losing to NC in a war started by Warren G,  I looked to strengthen the alliance.  II was never a large military force, being more eclectic as a group.   However, we needed strength, and to be honest, I wanted to have a more military style play without endangering my alliance.   Therefore , we came to an agreement with Bane to merge,  the fighters go with Bane, the merchants to II to be the trader/merchant.    Can you believe? During the end of our negotiations,  NC declares war on BANE.   WHAT to do ?   We waited a bit, then decided to move ahead with the merge anyway.  II paid dearly for this as part of the surrender, ONLY the II members that joined Bane during the war lost 2 of their cities.   The senior members in Bane lost 1 city.  I also lost a very close member, Shamarra, who NC sieged out of the game...  but that was before the great war.   I still miss her. 


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2015 at 20:54
Shamarra had already quit a year before those events and the account was being run by her RL boyfriend.

He decided to suicide the account out because he disliked NC. and did not want to accept the terms of the surrender.

He informed me of the whole story after he had sent out all Shamara's troops against NC.


-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2015 at 21:06
Enough of this forum bickering, I think its time for another war! Pick your sides and lets get it on.Angry


Posted By: Venita
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2015 at 22:20
Ah I was keeping Shams identity a secret, Of COURSE I know who was playing the account.  What choice did he have ?  NC went after all his cities, every single one.  


Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2015 at 23:14
I remember the Shamarra incident quite well, I rallied to her side and was quite vocal in gc about it. Her towns were near one of mine, when I noticed all the sieges surrounding her cities I messaged her and asked if she needed help. She asked for help and I proceeded to contact NC and a neutral alliance in hopes of letting her bow out of the BANE agreement to hand over 2 cities. Negotiations failed.

It was some time later when I found out she, Shamarra, was a he and he was gifted the account after his girlfriend quit the game. I was privy to an IGM 'Shamarra' wrote where he said he was suiciding out of the game and that it wasn't his account anyways. Needless to say I was quite upset that he tricked me into thinking he needed help and was being 'picked on'.
I don't like gifted accounts, which are illegal as far as I know, stirring up trouble and trying to drag others into it. He decided to go out in a bang on an account that wasn't his on a game he was no longer interested in playing. He should of accepted the 2 city lose and gave the other cities to II.


Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 00:53
As a former Consone member I want to make clear, that this war was no Consone war, though some former allies joined forces with some Crow alliances, and some alliances not being part of any of those blocks.

Where concrete amounts of reparations paid were agreed on to stay secret (and I'll value this contract), the official directive of H? (I guess also posted in the forums...) was to throw us back about half a year. At least for my case (and I'm a slow player) they achieved maybe even a bit less in town growth, and items, well, those were paid and stuff was finished for me.

As I don't know exact data on the new contracts, I can't compare, but if they about achieve the same thing, well, that's live. There's no good or bad in reparations, just wether the payer has the chance to return at a reasonable time.

About players "sieged out"... if those were offered any way to save their towns and they didn't take it => their fault. 
If they had no chance => my plea goes out to all alliances to try to avoid that scenario!

And some players (at least in Consone war) quit because they didn't stand the constant war and bashing in the forums... Maybe the biggest losses to the game... Cry


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 03:52
Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

As a former Consone member I want to make clear, that this war was no Consone war, though some former allies joined forces with some Crow alliances, and some alliances not being part of any of those blocks.
EE is on record (at least for those of us who saw Hath's exposed post) as having justified its entry into the war based at least in part on hostilities with TVM carried forward from the Consone war...my point being that for some, the last war *was*, in some sense, a rematch. but i agree that imagining the last war as a sequel to the Consone war would be a mistake.


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 04:39
EE went after TVM because we were an easy target of revenge, which they knew would bait H? into war. After many telling comments from players on the GA side, it is clear that was their plan from at least the summer of 2013. They stomped on us as a bonus, not as the primary goal.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 05:38
Originally posted by Venita Venita wrote:

Ah I was keeping Shams identity a secret, Of COURSE I know who was playing the account.  What choice did he have ?  NC went after all his cities, every single one.  


So you lied, and if the statement above is true then not for the first time either.

He chose the fate of that account. It could easily have been stopped but he did not want it that way.




-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Endrok
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 10:54

I just deleted my last post as this thread is already starting to drift 'Off Topic' and will probably continue to do so!




Posted By: GM Rikoo
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 16:21
The post isn't doing so bad, considering the topic. Keep discussing it all you want. :)

If I find a post that doesn't work with the rules of civil (mostly) conversation, I will just delete it and move on. 


GM Rikoo 


-------------
Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 17:46
I think it is worth noting that the reparations paid by Consone took the form of cities lost by the alliance, with a small number of adv resources in reparations. This was undoubtedly supposed to hold Consone back by a few months. The reparations paid by the Coalition had the intent of lining the Grand Alliances pockets.


Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 17:55
Originally posted by Nokigon Nokigon wrote:

I think it is worth noting that the reparations paid by Consone took the form of cities lost by the alliance, with a small number of adv resources in reparations. This was undoubtedly supposed to hold Consone back by a few months. The reparations paid by the Coalition had the intent of lining the Grand Alliances pockets.

... and making sure the losing side had less to spend at the same time, I'd say.

I, too, am aware of those so-called 'fair demands'. Like Angrim, I am bound.*  However, the fact that GA refuses to discuss them openly even now should tell enough.

*(although, if one believes such demands stay a secret in Illy, one should think a second time, and a third time)


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 20:18
Irrespective of anything else that this thread is about.
My alliance was in the Consone War, when we sued for peace we were told by H? leadership that all discussions were to be kept secret, all terms were to be kept secret and under no circumstances were they to be discussed with anyone - at any time.

My alliance was part of the Grand Alliance. The references to discussions about surrender were the same

Move on folks - nothing unusual to see here


-------------


Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 21:50
Could I make the suggestion to sum up that one point about reparations? Else we'll circle around the same point for thousands of post without any new input.
________________________________________________________________
A possible note to the history books might be: 
Reparations as part of the surrender terms had been paid in items, gold and cities. While some participants adumbrate tremendous amounts, others state a reasonable relation to amounts paid in the preceding Consone war. As both sides of this as well as both sides of the Consone war decided to remain silent - honouring both terms of surrender - the exact counts of reparations will stay a secret.
________________________________________________________________

I guess we saw some hints at the course of events regarding the beginning of the war now (many thanks for those lenghty posts from both sides Clap).

As this ought to be a history book... would any participant want to highlight some special tactics, legendary battles (maybe even with a short report), tragic losses, etc.?


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 22:31
I would say probably the most epic battle of the war was the one that, alas, never really happened.

That would be the siege of Electrok's city, where a bunch of armies primarily from Crow but including pretty much everyone in the alliance gathered in a large siege camp.  Accounts of the precise number vary, but I lost count around 6 million.

Night Crusaders and Harmless? prepared a substantial attack on that siege camp, but unfortunately timed their attacks so precisely that they broke the server ... literally.  Their armies circled the siege without attacking for days, trapping all other incoming armies in a giant troop vortex.

I think this episode dealt a substantial morale blow to both sides, although realistically they could not have defeated that siege camp even with all of their combined forces. It is a matter for speculation whether this bug prolonged the war because the Coalition did not spend their troops in attempting to do so (assuming they would have if given the opportunity, which the fact that many of the attacks were raids suggests otherwise).  It's also possible that it shortened the war due to the morale effects.

Note that I am not intending at all to speak pejoratively of the Coalition when I cite these morale effects.  To have a potentially epic battle essentially prevented by a server error, which remained unaddressed for more than 24 hours and even after days or weeks was not fully corrected by restoration of armies, is a disheartening thing.  The fact that this happened during the Long Silence of the developers did not help.

In my opinion, if this battle had gone off without a bug, it would have been a lot more fun for both sides, although the result (loss of the city) would probably have been the same.  The fact that what should have been epic and fun instead became an exercise in frustration probably did not improve the general tone of the war.


Posted By: Osu
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2015 at 22:32
Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:


As this ought to be a history book... would any participant want to highlight some special tactics, legendary battles (maybe even with a short report), tragic losses, etc.?


Good idea.  In terms of tragic losses, is there a list of the players who were sieged out of the game by the Grand Alliance?


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 02:39
Originally posted by Osu Osu wrote:

In terms of tragic losses, is there a list of the players who were sieged out of the game by the Grand Alliance?
Been said a hundred times but it bears repeating, here, now: one cannot be literally "sieged out of the game," and everyone posting here knows it. No one was sieged out of the game by anyone; not by NS, not by the Coalition, not by the Grand Alliance.

I know, "but they were hounded so much they wanted to quit" or some such. Quit is the key word. There are only, maybe two cases in Illy history of a player being hounded to the point where they couldn't rebuild and continue (and even then, they could come back in another account). As hard as it is for so many of you to accept, this is a game and no matter how long you play it, the crap you make here could be erased from the server. Tough luck, move on.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 03:39
Here is an illustration of my alliance, TRIVIUM before and after the war. This is only in reference to the Ursor area.


BEFORE


AFTER


The BEFORE image is from April, 2013. At the time our total population was over 1.7 million. Of the members who survived the war and remained in TRIVIUM, every one of us lost at least one city to siege. After the war we were down to around 500,000 population.

The AFTER image is current as of this post. Anyone interested in how we are doing now, please refer to in-game data.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 09:48
Originally posted by Captain Kindly Captain Kindly wrote:

I, too, am aware of those so-called 'fair demands'. Like Angrim, I am bound.*  However, the fact that GA refuses to discuss them openly even now should tell enough.

Having missed the war, I'm surprised to learn of this. So, the terms of surrender stipulate that the terms of surrender are not to be stated publicly in the game? Am I reading this correctly? If so, then I'll say this...

In a game where over the past few months many veteran players have railed against what they perceive to be a lack of transparency in how the game is moderated, I'm surprised that the gaming community has allowed this, and not demanded that the terms be made public. As the Captain suggested, the fact that they are being held from the public eye only adds weight to the opinion of those who feel that they were draconian.

Now that this war is over and that it is being discussed in this forum, I think it's time for the victors to post the surrender terms. Certainly, what harm will it bring? The losers of the war accepted them and paid them, and there are obviously a lot of hard feelings about them already. No further harm can come from making them public, but there can be some good. 

As someone who was not in the war and not bound by any "gag order," I'm calling for a full disclosure of the Great War's surrender terms 1) in the interest of full transparency, 2) so that the entire gaming community can get a clearer sense of the consequences of this war, and 3) so that we can learn from this war, which will undoubtedly inform how future wars are prosecuted.

 


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 10:48
I'm sure they'll get right on that.  

On a serious note, talk to your alliance if you want to know more, the knowledge is in there.  There is literally no reason to dredge up this whole mess again months later.  Plus, alliances accepting surrender usually agree to keep the terms to themselves as well.  I doubt they'll be interested in breaking their word there. 


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 10:49
Originally posted by The Duke The Duke wrote:

Crows and company were relatively inexperienced in such tactics which is something that worried me from the onset. To say that the GA knew from the start we were going to win is not true and I spoke to other leaders who shared the same concern as I did.
I have to agree with you. The reality is that we couldn't have known whether we would actually win the war. Our confidence in believing that the war was won from the onset, was due more to hubris than actual fact; as most of us (i.e. those who believed this) were new to warfare and didn't really know what we were getting ourselves into.

Saying that we "knew" the war would be won from the onset, is more an honest admission of pride, arrogance and our personal expectations... rather than an objective assessment based on the facts. It's obvious that we couldn't have known, since wars are often unpredictable. That being said, I am quite happy that we did win, despite the high cost of the war.

Originally posted by The Duke The Duke wrote:

*Alot of speculation has been put into how long GA spent devising a plan of action and what happened behind the scenes leading up to the war and I think this would be interesting to know myself. Dittobite is probably the most knowledgeable but I think Shade was the last if not one of the last alliances to give the nod we would join. If the planning started 6 months prior as eluded to by Tameon, then I had no knowledge of that and only entered the discussion at the very end.
I want make a small correction here, as I did not say that the war was planned so far in advance. It was Epidemic who made that allusion, as quoted below...

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

8)The war between I think uCrow, Alt, Celtic Knights and RE unleashed the game plan that the 'peaceful' alliances coordinated at least 6 months beforehand.
It definitely wasn't 6 months beforehand, but I will not deny that there was some premeditation.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 11:24
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

I appreciate the time you took to compile these links and add commentary. It does provide a window into how your leadership team viewed the events leading up to the war.
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The issue wasn't H?'s willingness to defend NC, but rather our perception that they were deliberately shielding them from any kind of accountability, for their indiscriminate targeting of alliances that were either unfit, unequipped or inexperienced in the art of warfare.

I can believe that Celtic Knights was unfit, unequipped, and inexperienced in the art of warfare. They are a casual gaming alliance, by all appearances similar to eCrow. But it does strain credulity to apply that same description to BANE. Military competence is their signature.
Cheers Brand, I totally agree that xCKx cannot be compared to BANE in terms of military capability. This was probably the main reason why it took a few more weeks and another war before the actual Great War broke out.

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

One thing that was particularly shocking to some leaders of the soon to be GA, was the stated casus belli and the reasoning behind NC's war declaration on BANE.

I'd give it a 7 on a scale of 1 to Trove Mine.

hahaha +1! LOL
I like the idea of applying this logic to all future wars. We could call it the "Trove Continuum".

To me the NC vs. BANE war would rank 8.5 on the Trove Continuum, although I'll be the first to admit that my opinion is not devoid of bias.

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Obviously we did not expect, and could not have foreseen... the massive resistance the Coalition would put up, or the amount of destruction that ending the war would ultimately require.

The begs the question, what did the Grand Alliance anticipate as the resolution to the war?
I can't speak for the entire Grand Alliance, but a few leaders (myself included) made a pretty elaborate analysis, anticipating how the war would unfold.

Most of our predictions were wrong, but we got some of the crucial ones right. For example which alliances would join the coalition side, and how that would define the makeup of the battlefield. 

One thing we were dead wrong about, was our mistaken belief that the Dominion could be "forced" (for lack of a better term) out of the war early on. It would ultimately take 7 alliances, a lot of destruction, and a substantial amount of diplomacy before they agreed it was time to bring that stage of the war to an end.

As far as the general campaign, I think we expected the war to last some 2 to 6 months max.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 11:40
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I like the idea of applying this logic to all future wars. We could call it the "Trove Continuum".

Since some here are trying to push back against propaganda, I'll do my part with the flippant little joke above. In spite of the propagandistic talking points that Consone Scum somehow managed to make into a fact, the Coalition/Consone war did not begin over a Trove mine. The Trove mine incident was a pvp conflict between an RHY and Skeleton Boar player; RHY declared war not on SkB, but on ABSA who jumped in and attacked the RHY player as a "third man in."

I know the losers of that war like to minimize its casus belli to make their loss seem more like an atrocity, but in fact, any other alliance would have declared war under the same circumstances. In fact, Indeva showed incredible restraint. T http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Forums/453/-2/5944" rel="nofollow - hose who forget should read the addenda to the RHY casus belli on the old RHY public forum .


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 12:27
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I like the idea of applying this logic to all future wars. We could call it the "Trove Continuum".

Since some here are trying to push back against propaganda, I'll do my part with the flippant little joke above. In spite of the propagandistic talking points that Consone (censored) somehow managed to make into a fact, the Coalition/Consone war did not begin over a Trove mine. The Trove mine incident was a pvp conflict between an RHY and Skeleton Boar player; RHY declared war not on SkB, but on ABSA who jumped in and attacked the RHY player as a "third man in."

I know the losers of that war like to minimize its casus belli to make their loss seem more like an atrocity, but in fact, any other alliance would have declared war under the same circumstances. In fact, Indeva showed incredible restraint. T http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Forums/453/-2/5944" rel="nofollow - hose who forget should read the addenda to the RHY casus belli on the old RHY public forum .
Just so you know, Brandmeister and myself were never members of Consone alliances.

I see nothing wrong with using a little humor to help lighten up the discussion, and I would kindly ask that you avoid taking things too personal, or resort to pejoratives to express your dissatisfaction. Some of us are putting considerable effort into this conversation, and would hate to see it degrade to partisan bickering.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 12:38
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Just so you know, Brandmeister and myself were never members of Consone alliances . . . and I would kindly ask that you avoid taking things too personal, or resort to pejoratives to express your dissatisfaction.

I'm aware that both you and Brandmeister were never members of Consone, which is all the more reason for you not to accept the "Trove War" talking points, Tam. My pejorative use is a result of the frustration that the characterization of the start of that war is built on what I believe to be a falsehood. And for as long as people continue to propagate it in the forums, I will seek to counter it.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Some of us are putting considerable effort into this conversation, and would hate to see it degrade to partisan bickering.

I don't know if the Great War aspect of this thread can be characterized as "bickering" or not, but from an outsider's perspective, it is already certainly a partisan debate.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 13:10
Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


Dark was not defending BANE's right not to surrender. They were trying to mediate an end to the war. There was considerable commotion, even outrage over the casus belli and a general perception that the war was unjust.

Halcyon was in fact trying to negotiate white peace as an alternative to surrender. When this failed, he tried to join BANE and eventually offered DARK as a substitute sparring partner.


Um - that's exactly what a white peace is - not surrendering.  NC offered terms to Bane, Bane refused to negotiate so Dark stepped in to try force an end without surrender.
As I recall BANE did not refuse to negotiate, they refused to surrender because they were offended by the fact that NC declared on them; even after they agreed to cave to NC's & NS's demand that they rescind sovereignty around the town of a newly spawned player.

DARK was not the only alliance that was dismayed by the absurdity of the situation, but as a member of the Coalition they were in a unique position to negotiate a reasonable end to the war, which would be acceptable to both sides.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


Also, from the H? perspective Halcyon came to us with the decision already made, "NC have to do what we say or we'll join the war against them".  There was no negotiation or even discussion that I was privy to.  Our response was pretty predictable too - if you escalate against our confed we have to get involved too.
Given your explanation I can understand H?'s reaction to some degree, though I'm still somewhat puzzled by the threat of force against an ally. Would you say that H? could have shown more tact in discussing the issue with DARK?

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:


You can post all the Halcyon quotes you like claiming they did X, Y, Z but I have all their discussions with us on the H? forum still available and I posted a detailed rebuttal on this forum including dates and times of Dark statements.
I've never had access to the H? forums, so I'm not privy to the details of what was discussed there. My knowledge of DARK's involvement in the discussions surrounding the NC vs. BANE war stems only from my personal conversations with them, and the information available on the politics & diplomacy forums.

You can claim to have more details/facts than are currently public knowledge, but I'm sure you understand that most of us won't simply take your word for it.

Halcyon has joined the discussion, so I'm sure the two of you can work out the details going forward.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

It's depressing that the same tired arguments are still being made in the face of the facts, backed up by the record of the actual discussions. I'll also add a quote from you in one of those threads you linked:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


Also, I have to side with Twilights and Deranzin on this; live and let live should be our guiding principle. If these two parties want to got at it, and involve their friends to any end; it should be entirely up to them!
I'm glad you're quoting this, as it speaks to the zeitgeist of many in that moment in time. When I made those remarks I was already convinced of the inevitability of the Great War. My own experience as well as that of other leaders, showed that reasoning with H? regarding NC's behavior was pointless. H? had become a force that would resort to any means to defend an overly belligerent NC that was indiscriminately targeting alliances all over the server.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Next HFW:
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


You forget that members of the GA previously had access to the H? embassy, and other coalition resources. I won't name any names, but a convincing case was made that H? directors were saying the game would be quote: "better off without Hannibal Foul Wind".


I'm not forgetting anything - what I said to Hath in IGM is completely consistent with what I said to the The Duke in our embassy (as The Duke has now confirmed). Now that The Duke has confirmed - can you finally admit that you were misinformed/misled? You've already backpedalled from "This is absolute fact" to "A convincing case was made" it's not really that hard to take that final step is it?
Nope, I stand by what I said. And just as a refresher, I'll quote what The Duke said:

Originally posted by The Duke The Duke wrote:

To my knowledge the forceful extermination of the account was never said outright. 
To be clear I am not backpedaling from anything, and I want to point out that I did not say "absolute fact" but rather "confirmed fact". I'm obviously not going to get into the semantics, but there is certainly a difference. I'll concede that I should have chosen my words better, to avoid triggering a debate over fact vs. fiction.

I want to point out once more that my interest in this conversation is not to engage in endless debates over the facts or merits of the war, but rather to share some of my beliefs and information about the causes of the Great War with the broader community. Obviously I'm also very interested in learning about your side's perspective as well as the many invested players who remained neutral during the Great war.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


I don't know if the duke had any doubts about our chances to secure victory;


You don't have to be unsure - it's here in black and white in a post on this forum - why is it so hard for you to acknowledge your sweeping statements are simply not true?
The Duke has offered his thoughts on this, please read my reply to him regarding this point.

Originally posted by KillerPoodle KillerPoodle wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:


In closing I'd like to invite constructive reflection going forward.


That's only really possible when you decide to actually post facts instead of posting opinion/slander and trying to pass them off as facts, and when your descriptions and claims are actually consistent from post to post.
In my opinion the only facts that really matter are those which are public knowledge. For example the fact that a number of alliances grouped together to form an ensemble that would later come to be known as the Grand Alliance. We rose together for different reasons, though in response to what most of us perceived as an existential threat in H? and particularly NC. This event would come to be known as the Great War, which raged on for nearly a year and caused much destruction etc etc.

What lead to the war etc is largely a matter of opinion. Many perspectives and opinions exist... and it is my opinion that these subjective accounts are and should remain at the core of this discussion. Facts may be relevant, but I don't think we should reduce this particular thread to partisan bickering about facts. Hence my invitation for "constructive reflection".

edit: improved grammar


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 13:23
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Just so you know, Brandmeister and myself were never members of Consone alliances . . . and I would kindly ask that you avoid taking things too personal, or resort to pejoratives to express your dissatisfaction.
I'm aware that both you and Brandmeister were never members of Consone, which is all the more reason for you not to accept the "Trove War" talking points, Tam. My pejorative use is a result of the frustration that the characterization of the start of that war is built on what I believe to be a falsehood. And for as long as people continue to propagate it in the forums, I will seek to counter it.
Cheers Jejune, I can't speak for Brandmeister but I personally do not subscribe to the "Trove War" talking points. I'm aware of how that war started, and the only thing I find questionable was H? involvement... though that's a subject for a different thread Wink

That said, a little facetious humor shouldn't be too bad some 2 years after the end of that conflict. However I do understand your point of view, and appreciate that you posted a link to its respective thread. It's certainly an interesting read for newer players seeking to learn more about the geopolitical history of Elgea.

Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Some of us are putting considerable effort into this conversation, and would hate to see it degrade to partisan bickering.

I don't know if the Great War aspect of this thread can be characterized as "bickering" or not, but from an outsider's perspective, it is already certainly a partisan debate.
Touche; I just hope we can keep it civil to avoid nuking the entire discussion LOL



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 15:15
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I like the idea of applying this logic to all future wars. We could call it the "Trove Continuum".
...In spite of the propagandistic talking points that Consone **** somehow managed to make into a fact,
.. the Coalition/Consone war did not begin over a Trove mine.
 
That is probably why it is 'sometimes' 'accidentally' considered it as an example of a bogus reason behind a war. Tamaeon and Brandmeister were not part of consone.
 
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

 The Trove mine incident ... Those who forget should read the addenda to the RHY casus belli on the old RHY public forum.
 
That addenda is an example of half truth. An SkB mine 2 squares near their city was occupied by RHY (you?). SkB was bullied for a month by RHY(you?)(those 'mails' are missing in the addenda apparently) and then the 'addenda things' happened.
 
I have great respect for Indeva State and all other RHY players who made peace with us in a difficult situation. You-the-former-RHY-diplomat left RHY and joined NC to continue the war with us. No need to drag RHY/SkB/Absa into the current diatribe - none of these alliances took part in the last war.
 
PS:
Both the language of your post and the publicly posted addenda are examples of violations of ToS. 





Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 17:15
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)
As a connoisseur of pre-war illyriad as well as my own personal reasons and motivations for being involved in the war, you know the above did not apply to me or my alliance.
no, i do not. but if you meant "us" to mean only uCrow (or yourself, in the royal sense) then i have misread your post, which i took to include the "grand alliance" entire. you are certainly not the only former member to make this defence, and it rings hollow regardless of who says it. if it was wrong when done before (
and many ex-members of Consone who later fought on your side stated quite publicly at the time that it was), it is still wrong when done again.
I obviously can't speak for the entire Grand Alliance, though I have made some general statements regarding surrender terms and such. Mainly because we tried to discuss them as a group and tailor them to be less harsh than in previous wars. Whether or not this ended up being the case in every single surrender is obviously doubtful/debatable. Nevertheless, our intent at the beginning of the war was to avoid imposing what we considered to be harsh terms. Particularly the long established practice of demanding towns be forfeited as part of each surrender.

When making statements in the plural sense I'm generally referring to uCrow, sometimes including some alliances of the GA. For example when referring to "our" growing concerns regarding NC's "adventurism" I'm obviously referring to the broader GA. I understand this may be confusing at times, so I would suggest construing any plural statements as subjective opinions.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.
So you resort to conjecture and unnecessary accusations of bias, while forgetting that you lack both the knowledge and the facts to back up your words.
no, i have the knowledge of the facts. i do not have the ability to back up my words because of the ToS's prohibition on posting personal conversation, and because revealing what i do know is to put certain agreements in jeopardy. but i will ask this: if the "grand alliance" felt that its offers would survive scrutiny, why veil them with oaths of secrecy? you seem very proud of them in the abstract. perhaps it is you who lack specific knowledge.
I personally have no issue with making all the surrender terms public post-war. During the war however it would have been dangerous, given that the specifics varied from player to player and alliance to alliance. This could have lead to situations where players or alliances protested or even contested the terms, if they were expected to pay more than others. It would be especially dangerous if 3rd parties external to the war got involved in heated discussions regarding terms.

I'll also note that there's so much going on during a large scale war, that it's virtually impossible to entertain lengthy discussions about anything. Many of us were exhausted and stressing to the point of burnout, already 3 months into the war; so heated public debates about surrender terms would most likely have made things worse.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I just want to say that I would very much appreciate it, if you would stop baiting and harassing me Angrim.
i have never baited you. if you feel harassed in the sense from which illyriad policy ought to protect you, you should report me and we shall see what GM Rikoo will make of the situation. but if you refer to my dogged correction of your misrepresentations of facts that you forget or do not realise i know, timelines that i was involved in, plans that i was a party to, and meetings that i attended, i think we will find that all of that is entirely within the ToS. indeed, one might think with your casual attitude about facts that you intend to bait me. thanks in part to you, i have no allegiance in this other than to the truth. if you have made it your enemy, you should expect to face me as well.
What I construe as harassment is the incessant questioning of virtually everything I've said over the past year. One situation that comes to mind happened about a month ago in GC, where you were throwing jabs, while Sir Bradly and Pellinell hurled insults at me, which I can't even repeat on the forums without nuking the entire conversation. I'd frankly feel more at ease had it been clear that you've been subjecting leaders on both sides to the same kind of scrutiny. However, since this does not appear to be the case, my opinion has shifted to reflect this perception. That being said, if I ever feel the need to report you... you'll find out automatically.

Regarding "The truth", its entirely within the eye of the beholder. You can choose to ascribe to one version or the other, but the fact remains that the truth surrounding the events of the Great War, is relative to each of the different factions involved. Furthermore, if you're unaware of certain aspects, opinions or facts as perceived by alliances on the GA side of the war, it is perhaps a direct consequence of your own choices. If memory serves, you took it upon yourself to unilaterally speak for and define the entire Crow Confederation on the forums. Your post was widely praised by H? and the Coalition, while the broader Crowfed just shook our heads in the background and observed the evolving discussion from a distance.

I could go on and on detailing how you've been overstepping boundaries and publicly airing dirty laundry that we'd all rather keep inside Crowfed. But to wrap up this point; I'll be honest in saying that everything I've written above, speaks to my personal opinion about your reasons for incessantly targeting my every word in public. You know full well, that you've managed to isolate yourself from much of the confederation. So it appears at least to me, that you've been attacking me to build favor with (and/or audition for) other confederations.

I generally enjoy a good debate, but draw the line at deliberate personal attacks and unmerited hostility. If a civil discussion and exchange of information regarding facts isn't possible... then I'd rather we ignore/forget each other entirely, for the sake of sanity.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

You did not participate in the war, nor did you suffer any consequence as a result of its existence.
how would you know what i suffered as a result of the war? more than you, i would guess; one must have attachment to feel loss. but that is no fit discussion for the forum, and i suggest you keep it out of it.
I'm not aware of any losses you incurred, because you haven't felt the need to express anything other than contempt towards me over the past year and a half. I honestly have no problem with your choice to side with the coalition's version of the events, and I'd very much prefer to bring this discussion to some kind of conclusion somewhere far from the forums and the public eye.

In closing, I want to invite those who opposed the war and especially those who fought on the Coalition side to share of their anecdotes and thoughts about what caused the war. So far most of the comments have been focused around contesting other players opinions, rather than sharing new information.



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 17:43
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

In closing, I want to invite those who opposed the war and especially those who fought on the Coalition side to share of their anecdotes and thoughts about what caused the war. So far most of the comments have been focused around contesting other players opinions, rather than sharing new information.


Having been on the same side as Tama on the war it should come as no surprise that I agree with almost everything he posted in this thread concerning the views of many in the Grand Alliance about what brought the war. I also do not feel that our conduct in the war gives us any reason to apologize: we had what we had to do to win the war.
I would also like to hear more from the oposition - those who actually fought against us and those who chose not to join on either side, but watch from the sidelines.


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 18:56
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Kindly Captain Kindly wrote:

I, too, am aware of those so-called 'fair demands'. Like Angrim, I am bound.*  However, the fact that GA refuses to discuss them openly even now should tell enough.
Now that this war is over and that it is being discussed in this forum, I think it's time for the victors to post the surrender terms. Certainly, what harm will it bring? The losers of the war accepted them and paid them, and there are obviously a lot of hard feelings about them already. No further harm can come from making them public, but there can be some good. 

As someone who was not in the war and not bound by any "gag order," I'm calling for a full disclosure of the Great War's surrender terms 

1) in the interest of full transparency 
2) so that the entire gaming community can get a clearer sense of the consequences of this war
3) so that we can learn from this war, which will undoubtedly inform how future wars are prosecuted.
I would personally support and even advocate for full disclosure, provided the coalition agrees to do the same for all conflicts starting with the Valar war. We could in theory open a new thread towards that end, discussing surrender terms objectively within the appropriate historical context.

Otherwise I'm afraid disclosure might be pointless, given that there would be no point of reference to validate the GA's efforts to offer "better" terms than those seen in previous wars.

It goes without saying that full disclosure should also include the many, many offers that were rejected!



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 20:02
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:


Having been on the same side as Tama on the war it should come as no surprise that I agree with almost everything he posted in this thread concerning the views of many in the Grand Alliance about what brought the war. I also do not feel that our conduct in the war gives us any reason to apologize: we had what we had to do to win the war.
I would also like to hear more from the oposition - those who actually fought against us and those who chose not to join on either side, but watch from the sidelines.


Many of those who fought against your 'grand' alliance are no longer playing the game, since you destroyed most if not all of their cities. You razed/forced exodus just about every single player who was on the other team, regardless of if they were aggressive or peaceful, there is no disputing that fact.
And don't say they have the opportunity to rebuild, because very, very few people would even bother to rebuild an account that took 2+ years to create and a few days to destroy.

It is good to see that some of the alliances are ashamed of their conduct during the war, but it is clear that the majority, crowfed, are quite happy.

I wonder how the outcomes of the wars would have changed if permasits and gifted accounts were once and for all taken off the map.

P.S. Does anybody bother to read Tama's long propagnada sermons anymore? LOL


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 20:23
Players were given opportunities to leave the war. If they chose not to do it - it was their choice and they remain enemies.
I do not see any evidence that any alliance is ashamed. They have no reason to be ashamed.

I can't comment on the permasat issue since during the war all the major fighting accounts in Dark were active players.

Your accusations btw take to task our actions, but I see no evidence of any thoughts about the morality of inaction. You chose to sit it out and do nothing - is that such a moral decision?


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 20:53
Epidemic didn't sit out and do nothing.  He was a major supplier of weapons to the Grand Alliance he claims to despise.  He made large amounts of gold during the war, and is constantly trying to create dissension in order to attempt to profit the same way again.



Posted By: Consul Zynot
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 21:17
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Epidemic didn't sit out and do nothing.  He was a major supplier of weapons to the Grand Alliance he claims to despise.  He made large amounts of gold during the war, and is constantly trying to create dissension in order to attempt to profit the same way again.



LOL i must say that was  a funny comment rill good one XD  LOL


Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 21:29
Originally posted by Consul Zynot Consul Zynot wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Epidemic didn't sit out and do nothing.  He was a major supplier of weapons to the Grand Alliance he claims to despise.  He made large amounts of gold during the war, and is constantly trying to create dissension in order to attempt to profit the same way again.
LOL i must say that was  a funny comment rill good one XD  LOL
The irony is that it's actually true, and it went beyond just weapons. In fact we received billions in gold loans. I didn't mention this before, because we were asked to keep this a secret to protect Epi's neutrality, but since Rill dropped the bomb... and Zynot quoted her; Epi's involvement as one of the primary suppliers of the GA during the Great War is now a matter of public record, and therefore open to discussion.

Sorry Epi, you brought this on yourself Dead



-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 21:37
Profiteering is a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 21:44
I'm very much in favour of revealing the terms of DBs surrender. If dittobite and the other leaders of the GA are in favour, I will post them here. However- I have agreed non disclosure so I will need specific agreement to do so.


Posted By: GM Rikoo
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 22:03
Originally posted by Nokigon Nokigon wrote:

I'm very much in favour of revealing the terms of DBs surrender. If dittobite and the other leaders of the GA are in favour, I will post them here. However- I have agreed non disclosure so I will need specific agreement to do so.

Again, I am fine with these discussions... in fact I love them. BUT, we cannot allow any posting of private conversations. (I only say this when words like "reveal" are used.) 

Why?

Because people alter them.

Also, they are kept private for a reason. If they were not, they would not be private.

Anyway, if someone wants to post some long list that came across during the war, cool, but let's just say this: if it comes in the form of IGM or PM on the forums, etc, it -- and the post it is in -- will come down and the thread will be closed. 

If posts of screenshots and copied/pasted IGMs or "chatzys" or "Facebook posts" want to be shared, fine, but not on this forum. Sorry. :)

(Not saying you offered that, Noki... just saying.)

GM Rikoo






-------------
Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 23:33
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

In closing, I want to invite those who opposed the war and especially those who fought on the Coalition side to share of their anecdotes and thoughts about what caused the war. So far most of the comments have been focused around contesting other players opinions, rather than sharing new information.


Having been on the same side as Tama on the war it should come as no surprise that I agree with almost everything he posted in this thread concerning the views of many in the Grand Alliance about what brought the war. I also do not feel that our conduct in the war gives us any reason to apologize: we had what we had to do to win the war.
I would also like to hear more from the oposition - those who actually fought against us and those who chose not to join on either side, but watch from the sidelines.

I agree on this

But I would like to ask people to send their stories directly to Orik in a mail, please?
This is getting old real quick. Repetition, repetition and trolling. 

If you want to troll, hit me up in game. I've made a Trolin the Trolls alliance!

-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: Osu
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2015 at 23:45
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

In my opinion the only facts that really matter are those which are public knowledge. For example the fact that a number of alliances grouped together to form an ensemble that would later come to be known as the Grand Alliance. We rose together for different reasons, though in response to what most of us perceived as an existential threat in H? and particularly NC. This event would come to be known as the Great War, which raged on for nearly a year and caused much destruction etc etc.


As someone from the losing side, this is my take on it.  The different reasons included revenge and also moving their alliances up the alliance ranking page above Harmless.  Stopping NC was just the public excuse.  When Harmless suggested NC could be restrained this was dismissed out of hand, I guess because that offered neither scope for revenge nor moving up the alliance ranking page.



Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:


And don't say they have the opportunity to rebuild, because very, very few people would even bother to rebuild an account that took 2+ years to create and a few days to destroy.


The Grand Alliance knew this.  I recall seeing in GC some of the Grand Alliance being particularly pleased with themselves when hitting non-Prestige users - presumably so that it hurt more & they were more likely to leave the game?


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2015 at 01:01
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

When making statements in the plural sense I'm generally referring to uCrow, sometimes including some alliances of the GA. For example when referring to "our" growing concerns regarding NC's "adventurism" I'm obviously referring to the broader GA. I understand this may be confusing at times, so I would suggest construing any plural statements as subjective opinions.
you use "obvious" in a way in the way i've noticed you use several other words ("peaceful", for example, a self-description from the uCrow alliance page even as you prosecuted the war). if it "can be confusing", it is not obvious. semantics, i'm sure.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

What I construe as harassment is the incessant questioning of virtually everything I've said over the past year.
when i see you say something in a public space which i know to be misleading or untrue, i am compelled to correct it. by doing this as a former rook, you colour the public perception of the crows in way which i do not care to share. the remedy is "obvious": if you do not wish to be corrected, do not make false or misleading statements about information i have in places where i will see you do it.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

One situation that comes to mind happened about a month ago in GC, where you were throwing jabs, while Sir Bradly and Pellinell hurled insults at me, which I can't even repeat on the forums without nuking the entire conversation.
my "jabs" are not repeatable? (i hope you're not saying i must be responsible for Sir Bradly. even Myr couldn't be that, and she is ever so much more disciplined than am i.)

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I'd frankly feel more at ease had it been clear that you've been subjecting leaders on both sides to the same kind of scrutiny. However, since this does not appear to be the case, my opinion has shifted to reflect this perception. That being said, if I ever feel the need to report you... you'll find out automatically.
i think with very little digging you could find many players, perhaps even whole alliances, that have been unhappy at one time or another because i remind them of something they said, or did, or promised; they're just not usually prepared to derail a forum thread to draw attention to it. to your point, though, you will recall that i was not on the other side, so i can't really be expected to know how things formed up there much less correct them about it.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Regarding "The truth", its entirely within the eye of the beholder.
i hope your allies are comfortable with your theory of the infinitely malleable truth. it would seem to make you very difficult to pin down in issues of loyalty and such.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Furthermore, if you're unaware of certain aspects, opinions or facts as perceived by alliances on the GA side of the war, it is perhaps a direct consequence of your own choices. If memory serves, you took it upon yourself to unilaterally speak for and define the entire Crow Confederation on the forums. Your post was widely praised by H? and the Coalition, while the broader Crowfed just shook our heads in the background and observed the evolving discussion from a distance.
i did not speak for the confederation, but yes, i did attempt to define it in the wake of Kumomoto's verbal attack on its right to exist. you have so little idea of the reaction from either side that i will not pain the forum readers further with a rebuttal to yet another mischaracterisation of events.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I could go on and on detailing how you've been overstepping boundaries and publicly airing dirty laundry that we'd all rather keep inside Crowfed...You know full well, that you've managed to isolate yourself from much of the confederation. So it appears at least to me, that you've been attacking me to build favor with (and/or audition for) other confederations.
i'm sure the forum audience would be quite entertained by the seemingly endless list of my indiscretions vis-à-vis a code which is, afaik, unwritten. i am overstepping boundaries that you set? is that the royal we again, or does it refer to that group of crows which can be confusing but is simultaneous obvious? really, this sort of speculation is petty even for you. you can be assured that you yourself have generated any reason i have to involve myself in your discussions (and so "unmerited" becomes another word you seem to use in reverse).

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I honestly have no problem with your choice to side with the coalition's version of the events, and I'd very much prefer to bring this discussion to some kind of conclusion somewhere far from the forums and the public eye.
the false dilemma again? my "version of the events" that started the war preexists the revival of the coalition, probably because the events happened before the revival of the coalition, so i don't think the coalition ought to be held responsible for it. why must you insist on the variety of reasons why vCrow allies may have joined the conflict but you insist on one monolithic "version of the events" for "the coalition"? the war is over. there is no longer any reason to demonise your former opponents...unless that is only so you can equate me with them.

as i am a player in the game, i have an igm account that you could have used at any point. i think you know what it's called.




Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2015 at 01:10
Originally posted by Osu Osu wrote:


As someone from the losing side, this is my take on it.  The different reasons included revenge and also moving their alliances up the alliance ranking page above Harmless.  Stopping NC was just the public excuse.  When Harmless suggested NC could be restrained this was dismissed out of hand, I guess because that offered neither scope for revenge nor moving up the alliance ranking page.


It's impressive that you could fit so much in here without having any of it be remotely true.  


Posted By: Osu
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2015 at 01:31
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

Originally posted by Osu Osu wrote:


As someone from the losing side, this is my take on it.  The different reasons included revenge and also moving their alliances up the alliance ranking page above Harmless.  Stopping NC was just the public excuse.  When Harmless suggested NC could be restrained this was dismissed out of hand, I guess because that offered neither scope for revenge nor moving up the alliance ranking page.


It's impressive that you could fit so much in here without having any of it be remotely true.  

None of it is true?

1) "As someone from the losing side" - I was on the losing side
2) "this is my take on it" - I do agree with what was said
3) "The different reasons included revenge" - really? - you saying revenge never featured? - forgive me if I can't stop laughing at your suggestion that it was all done for 100% noble reasons
4) "moving their alliances up the alliance ranking page" - I'm sure that never entered anyone's head - although hasn't someone recently artificially set up a large kill of 1 million troops to be top of some list somewhere?  But I'm sure they weren't involved in the GA
5) "Stopping NC was just the public excuse" - I received IGMs from GA players saying this was the reason for attacking me - so that was all lies was it?
6) "When Harmless suggested NC could be restrained this was dismissed out of hand" - I was not involved in the discussions on this as not senior in an alliance - but there was some forum post on it - it seemed very plausible at the time but I see all sorts of things on the Forum so who knows.

In any case "without having any of it be remotely true" - I beg to differ.


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2015 at 01:50
Originally posted by Osu Osu wrote:

It's impressive that you could fit so much in here without having any of it be remotely true.  

None of it is true?

1) "As someone from the losing side" - I was on the losing side
2) "this is my take on it" - I do agree with what was said
3) "The different reasons included revenge" - really? - you saying revenge never featured? - forgive me if I can't stop laughing at your suggestion that it was all done for 100% noble reasons
4) "moving their alliances up the alliance ranking page" - I'm sure that never entered anyone's head - although hasn't someone recently artificially set up a large kill of 1 million troops to be top of some list somewhere?  But I'm sure they weren't involved in the GA
5) "Stopping NC was just the public excuse" - I received IGMs from GA players saying this was the reason for attacking me - so that was all lies was it?
6) "When Harmless suggested NC could be restrained this was dismissed out of hand" - I was not involved in the discussions on this as not senior in an alliance - but there was some forum post on it - it seemed very plausible at the time but I see all sorts of things on the Forum so who knows.

In any case "without having any of it be remotely true" - I beg to differ.

Ha, alright, touche, you where on the losing side and this is something you said.  I'll give you those. 

To list "revenge" as a real motivator is silly, most players in the GA weren't involved in any sort of conflict with the Coalition alliances to avenge, and even the ones who were didn't all care.  I guess you could probably find a couple people who were looking for a pound of flesh, but it's untrue to say that was a decisive factor.  

I'm pretty sure literally nobody would ever start a war to move their alliance up on the rankings page. Certainly not the leaders of major powers. That is just the worst idea.  Killing of a bunch of troops you don't need for fun is in no way comparable.  

No, none of it was lies.  Stopping NC and the philosophy they represented was a real concern.  That's probably why they mailed you and said that.  There's not always a shadowy conspiracy.  

Harmless? party line for months was that they wouldn't influence the actions of their allies, just shield them from the consequences of these actions.  This was a major grievance against them.  They absolutely never offered to rein in NC actions in any capacity until the war was well under way.  


Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2015 at 01:51
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Epidemic didn't sit out and do nothing.  He was a major supplier of weapons to the Grand Alliance he claims to despise.  He made large amounts of gold during the war, and is constantly trying to create dissension in order to attempt to profit the same way again.



Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The irony is that it's actually true, and it went beyond just weapons. In fact we received billions in gold loans. I didn't mention this before, because we were asked to keep this a secret to protect Epi's neutrality, but since Rill dropped the bomb... and Zynot quoted her; Epi's involvement as one of the primary suppliers of the GA during the Great War is now a matter of public record, and therefore open to discussion.

Sorry Epi, you brought this on yourself Dead



Not true, I supplied all sides of the war openly in Centrum and through private transactions, but I did not loan out billions in gold, no respectable dwarf ever would.

I considered it an honorable duty to supply the goods players needed to protect their towns from the revenge seeking, bored and/or mean spirited players that were razing accounts left and right.

I take offense to being accused of trolling or creating dissension, but that is nothing new to me and i've dealt with it ever since I came out vocally against the amount of carnage being unleashed.


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2015 at 02:21
Oooooooooh, the plot thickens.


Posted By: Osu
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2015 at 02:29
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:



Ha, alright, touche, you where on the losing side and this is something you said.  I'll give you those. 


Very kind of you.


Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:



To list "revenge" as a real motivator is silly, most players in the GA weren't involved in any sort of conflict with the Coalition alliances to avenge, and even the ones who were didn't all care.  I guess you could probably find a couple people who were looking for a pound of flesh, but it's untrue to say that was a decisive factor.  
 

I recall EE continued to attack TVM after most of their troops were spent.  How was attacking near-troopless towns in the north helping the war effort against NC in the south?  You joined EE for the war - perhaps you could explain?


Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:



I'm pretty sure literally nobody would ever start a war to move their alliance up on the rankings page. Certainly not the leaders of major powers. That is just the worst idea.  Killing of a bunch of troops you don't need for fun is in no way comparable.  


I'm not so sure, but not something I could ever prove, just what I believe.


Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:



No, none of it was lies.  Stopping NC and the philosophy they represented was a real concern.  That's probably why they mailed you and said that.  There's not always a shadowy conspiracy.  


Fair enough - but it wasn't the only motivation.


Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:


Harmless? party line for months was that they wouldn't influence the actions of their allies, just shield them from the consequences of these actions.  This was a major grievance against them.  They absolutely never offered to rein in NC actions in any capacity until the war was well under way.  

So when I said "When Harmless suggested NC could be restrained this was dismissed out of hand", that was true too then?  It just happens war was already underway, but still early enough on to prevent the devastation it did.  Perhaps you could share why if NC was the concern the offer of restraint was not taken up.



Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2015 at 03:24
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

When making statements in the plural sense I'm generally referring to uCrow, sometimes including some alliances of the GA. For example when referring to "our" growing concerns regarding NC's "adventurism" I'm obviously referring to the broader GA. I understand this may be confusing at times, so I would suggest construing any plural statements as subjective opinions.
you use "obvious" in a way in the way i've noticed you use several other words ("peaceful", for example, a self-description from the uCrow alliance page even as you prosecuted the war). if it "can be confusing", it is not obvious. semantics, i'm sure.
Well, the uCrow alliance page does not have, nor has it ever had (to my knowledge) the word peaceful anywhere on it. Its obvious that I'm referring to the broader GA when referring to NC's adventurism, because most of us on the GA side have been repeating the same thing over and over for the past 18 months. 

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

What I construe as harassment is the incessant questioning of virtually everything I've said over the past year.
when i see you say something in a public space which i know to be misleading or untrue, i am compelled to correct it. by doing this as a former rook, you colour the public perception of the crows in way which i do not care to share. the remedy is "obvious": if you do not wish to be corrected, do not make false or misleading statements about information i have in places where i will see you do it.
And what is it exactly that you know to be misleading or untrue? You've had numerous opportunities to elaborate, and yet you've simply limited your comments to allegations and vague verbal assaults.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

One situation that comes to mind happened about a month ago in GC, where you were throwing jabs, while Sir Bradly and Pellinell hurled insults at me, which I can't even repeat on the forums without nuking the entire conversation.
my "jabs" are not repeatable? (i hope you're not saying i must be responsible for Sir Bradly. even Myr couldn't be that, and she is ever so much more disciplined than am i.)
I'm alluding to your choice of moments to engage me with your empty commentary. Particularly the instance where swear words were being used against me. I could repeat them, but then I'd be instantly nuking the conversation... and I won't give you that satisfaction.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I'd frankly feel more at ease had it been clear that you've been subjecting leaders on both sides to the same kind of scrutiny. However, since this does not appear to be the case, my opinion has shifted to reflect this perception. That being said, if I ever feel the need to report you... you'll find out automatically.
i think with very little digging you could find many players, perhaps even whole alliances, that have been unhappy at one time or another because i remind them of something they said, or did, or promised; they're just not usually prepared to derail a forum thread to draw attention to it. to your point, though, you will recall that i was not on the other side, so i can't really be expected to know how things formed up there much less correct them about it.
Ok, now I'm getting confused. So you don't know enough to question others... but you pretend to know everything needed to question my every word? I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Regarding "The truth", its entirely within the eye of the beholder.
i hope your allies are comfortable with your theory of the infinitely malleable truth. it would seem to make you very difficult to pin down in issues of loyalty and such.
Angrim, no offense... but you're the last person who can speak about loyalty. Especially after you took it upon yourself to unilaterally define Crowfed, secretly plotted behind our backs to remove the Crow Chapters involved in the war from the confederation, spewed a bunch of vitriol (again) behind our backs and openly wished for our destruction by the Coalition. Make no mistake, we're all very much aware your of where your loyalties lie. Wink

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Furthermore, if you're unaware of certain aspects, opinions or facts as perceived by alliances on the GA side of the war, it is perhaps a direct consequence of your own choices. If memory serves, you took it upon yourself to unilaterally speak for and define the entire Crow Confederation on the forums. Your post was widely praised by H? and the Coalition, while the broader Crowfed just shook our heads in the background and observed the evolving discussion from a distance.
i did not speak for the confederation, but yes, i did attempt to define it in the wake of Kumomoto's verbal attack on its right to exist. you have so little idea of the reaction from either side that i will not pain the forum readers further with a rebuttal to yet another mischaracterisation of events.
I know more than you think.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I could go on and on detailing how you've been overstepping boundaries and publicly airing dirty laundry that we'd all rather keep inside Crowfed...You know full well, that you've managed to isolate yourself from much of the confederation. So it appears at least to me, that you've been attacking me to build favor with (and/or audition for) other confederations.
i'm sure the forum audience would be quite entertained by the seemingly endless list of my indiscretions vis-à-vis a code which is, afaik, unwritten. i am overstepping boundaries that you set? is that the royal we again, or does it refer to that group of crows which can be confusing but is simultaneous obvious? really, this sort of speculation is petty even for you. you can be assured that you yourself have generated any reason i have to involve myself in your discussions (and so "unmerited" becomes another word you seem to use in reverse).
Crowfed has existed for over 4 years; and yet you've been the only one who's had the audacity to jump the gun and speak for all of us without consulting your fellow leaders.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I honestly have no problem with your choice to side with the coalition's version of the events, and I'd very much prefer to bring this discussion to some kind of conclusion somewhere far from the forums and the public eye.
the false dilemma again? my "version of the events" that started the war preexists the revival of the coalition, probably because the events happened before the revival of the coalition, so i don't think the coalition ought to be held responsible for it. why must you insist on the variety of reasons why vCrow allies may have joined the conflict but you insist on one monolithic "version of the events" for "the coalition"? the war is over. there is no longer any reason to demonise your former opponents...unless that is only so you can equate me with them.

There was no revival of the coalition, it always existed. Surely haven't forgotten the thread in which "secret confederations" were discussed. I really don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm trying to demonise them; though I've come to accept that its more of a manifestation of where your real loyalties lie.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:


as i am a player in the game, i have an igm account that you could have used at any point. i think you know what it's called.
And I could say the exact same to you. If you had concerns you could simply have addressed them to me, rather than making it a public show for the viewing pleasure of your coalition friends.


=========== DISCLAIMER ===========

My debate thus far with Angrim might seem off topic, but I can assure you that its very much 'on' topic. As some of you may know, Crowfed went through somewhat of a political crisis during the month leading up to, and the first weeks of the Great War. Some of the people we consider(ed) to be our friends and allies, actually conspired against us. Angrim was one of them, but thankfully dissent within his own ranks allowed us to become aware of the plot which eventually failed. The entire plot arose due his (and others) dissatisfaction with vCrow, nCrow, CalCr and uCrow's decision to pursue war against the Coalition. I would rather have avoided this disclosure, but Angrim has left me no choice. It will certainly make for an interesting chapter in the history books Wink 

edit: pressed the post reply button prematurely, completed the post on edit.


-------------
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net