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  <1 1819202122 23>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:23
The martyrdom argument would be much more convincing if the specific surrender terms were made public. Then it would be obvious to everyone that those players clearly refused reasonable terms of surrender.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:28
Brandmeister, I received many mails from players, including alliance leaders,  that they would not make peace under ANY terms, so the actual peace terms offered and accepted or rejected are not necessarily relevant to the belief of people like myself who took those people at their word and believed it was possible that they would not make peace at all.

The other side's rhetoric repeatedly stated that they would fight to the last city, never make peace, etc.  Under those circumstances the fact that we were able to stop the war well short of that circumstance is a good thing.  I would have preferred for there to be a lot less destruction, period, but I am glad that it was not any worse.

Edited to clarify that I'm not opposed to the idea of the terms being posted.  I myself don't know what they are and of course I'm curious.  But I don't think the terms offered or accepted are relevant to the discussion of whether people on the winning side believed during the war that continued destruction was needed in order to increase the chance of ever arriving at peace.


Edited by Rill - 24 Jan 2015 at 22:32
Back to Top
Artahm View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: Polska
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Artahm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:30
Originally posted by Mona Lisa Mona Lisa wrote:

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:


 . . . Your 'grand' alliance destroyed entire accounts right from the start of the war, you were the bad guys from the get go, you brought 'all-out war' to Illy...under the banner of being peaceful players wanting to protect Illy from the evil H?, who never actually stooped to your level of warfare. . .


It is fortunate that those opposed to Coalition forces in past wars chose the more rational path and accepted terms without having those conflicts go the distance the Great war did.  Hard for the GA to control that when faced with inevitable defeat, many in the Coalition decided not to accept terms and fight to oblivion. . . it was indeed their choice. . . Martyrdom seemed the preferred path when the prideful could not accept defeat. 

 

From my perspective the key aspect was not the harshnes of terms, but that fact that they were not universal. How can have the audacity to blame somebody for not surrendering even on 'good' terms, when you say to him - "you surrender now and don't bother me and I will then siege your friends out of the game". The terms offered to the player become irrelevant as betrayal is a part of them. Betrayal of friends, of long time blood brothers and of the values they share. How could you expect anybody to accept such terms and say with a straight face that "Martyrdom was theier prefferd path"?

Had the GA wanted to really control the bloodshed they had to know that and take account of it. Im actually pretty sure that this too has been a tactic to entice more people to actually follow the path of martyrdom. And please don't tell me that some players bared the blame for the war as in previous posts you yourself have admitted that the war was GA's idea. It can be debatable had it been a preemptive strike or not, but the fact that the GA was the agressor seems undeniable. 
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:33
We can say with martyrdom was their preferred path because they said so repeatedly themselves.  In mails and in global chat.
Back to Top
Artahm View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


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

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

Becouse you were not offering a way out, but a way to betray their friends. Giving a choice like that is not giving a choice at all. 
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:43
Many people left the war and made peace, knowing that their friends also had the option of doing so.  Making a wise choice and encouraging others to do so is not a betrayal.
Back to Top
Artahm View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


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

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

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

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

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

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 23:16
No, people from our side have NOT stated that people were given no terms or terms that would equate to being sieged out of the game.  In fact, even people from the OTHER side have never claimed that.  Terms were always available, and I sought many times to contact both the leaders and individual players in the alliance to ask to make peace, including asking what terms would be acceptable to them.

Everyone had the option to end the war.

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


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

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

Everyone had the option to end the war.

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


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

Not one of theese is from The Coalition side. 

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

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

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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


You know full well that we ultimately held you and your former alliance responsible for the enormous toll of the great war. It's rather obvious that you wouldn't be afforded the same treatment as the other alliances.



Back to Top
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: 25 Jan 2015 at 00:20
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

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



Nope, that must of been another player you mercilessly went after. Both players did go inactive after your peaceful alliance razed at least half their cities.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1819202122 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.