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

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

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Location: Fremorn
Status: Offline
Points: 273 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Kindly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Captain Kindly - 12 Jan 2015 at 22:39
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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."
Back to Top
Epidemic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epidemic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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."
Back to Top
Orin View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2014
Location: Real - life
Status: Offline
Points: 101 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Orin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. 
Back to Top
jcx View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 09 Oct 2013
Location: Tallimar
Status: Offline
Points: 281 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jcx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Gragnog View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 592 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gragnog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. 



Edited by Tamaeon - 13 Jan 2015 at 18:40
"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."
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?


Edited by Hora - 13 Jan 2015 at 18:47
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 23>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.