Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 04:32
Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:

Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:

 
This is only true in my past experience because we were willing to surrender before it got to this point.  Before finally surrendering to the Coalition at the end of the Consone war, we were told that we would continue to lose cities until we were destroyed unless and until we surrendered.  This came from both H? and it's allies, all constantly sending IGMs stating as such.  Just because your enemies had the sense to surrender before it came to that point does not mean that it would not have progressed to the same final point that this war is coming to.  It would have and in fact has been stated as much in the past.


The day when words would count more than actions has come and noone sent me a memo .?. LOL

I have a small question ... let us say that these warnings were indeed told ... at the time they were given, was anyone violating the rules I mentioned or not .?. This is the answer I'd like to know the answer to and not what "might" have happened, because noone knows that ... for all we all know they might have been bluster to make an war end faster and with less destruction ... or can you tell me that the possibility of a bluff is so outlandish ... Wink

That is not true Deranzin.  You caused 'more destruction' after the surrender of Consone, not 'less'. Instead of counting words and actions, just count the number of cities you razed during the war and after the surrender. You will understand who is bluffing.

There is merit in the argument that the winner should not destroy her enemies completely. But its really up to the enemies you are fighting. When you come up with these kind of arguments, it only looks like you are insulting their intelligence.
Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Deranzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 09:48
Wow this reply format you used makes this quite hard to read and reply, but I'll try anyway :

Originally posted by Jenin Jenin wrote:


I was ordered to attack a player and after I realized how small he was & that he was part of my neighbor Praetor Augustus' alliance, I asked to be excluded from TO action. 


So .?. Do your actions reflect your whole side .?.

By that measure I broke the truce with my vCrow neighbor over this exact matter (him attacking small accounts) ... so should I then claim that everyone from my side had the same ideas like you do .?. I think that such an idea does not hold water ...

Plus, you said that you were ordered to attack a small player and asked to be excluded from it ... I find this honorable for you, but doesn't this imply that someone else carried on with those orders .?. Wink

Originally posted by Jenin Jenin wrote:


we also have a 3 city player called Aramis under attack right now by H? player(s?), so Idk to whom you are referring with regards to "high moral ground" - perhaps you might ASK what is going on so that the smell of blood doesn't turn us all into sharks...after all speech is a human gift, one i think we should not waste...try for facts, please - we don't need to inflame things with conjecture, ok?


Maybe, but I didn't claim that no small account was ever attacked by my side because I do not know that for a fact.

You, however, did falsely proclaim that. Wink

Originally posted by Jenin Jenin wrote:


Yes we have been now, so please don't be snarky over this


BANE was, and still is iirc, this game's only military force for hire ... since when they are traders I know not, but your own alliance profile page says :

"Current status:  Hired, under contract."  

Originally posted by Jenin Jenin wrote:


then sandbagged when we had sold 75+% of our troops


Unless you meant that you were selling troops ... but that expands a bit the concept of this game's trading, wouldn't you say .?. LOL

Originally posted by Jenin Jenin wrote:


Deranzin, pray tell me why you are making such a connection about 'facts' such as that...this is NOT even about H?, it's about NC and anyone foolish enough to think that the nasty tactics some (not all) of their players got up to that was spoiling the fun of this game - that's all, plain & simple, please stop assuming you know what's going on here when clearly you don't.  and if you are going to make such a claim, show me proof at least... instead of the snarky little laughing face...


If you are not aware of the pre-war Hathaldir's post calling for revenge and having gathered many people with him for it, then this is not my fault.

Apart from that, if it was "about NC" I would like your explanation why NC are amongst the last people standing and others (even in map positions unrelated to NC) where attacked first and foremost, like TVM for example.

Also, calling people ignorant just because they happen to have some different facts from you, is a bit of a bad form imho ... Tongue

Originally posted by Jenin Jenin wrote:


I do hope you come to recognize that this whole war is about supporting nastiness which we think needs to be stopped and that it got ignored until it built up to unacceptable levels...


So, you went to stop the "nastiness" by taking it to new unprecedented levels .?.   LOL

I'll keep that in mind while my account is reduced to rubble Big smile (I am not being ironic, I really find that comment amusing)

Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:


That is not true Deranzin.  You caused 'more destruction' after the surrender of Consone, not 'less'. Instead of counting words and actions, just count the number of cities you razed during the war and after the surrender. You will understand who is bluffing.

There is merit in the argument that the winner should not destroy her enemies completely. But its really up to the enemies you are fighting. When you come up with these kind of arguments, it only looks like you are insulting their intelligence.



That "destruction" though was part of the whole agreement, not "just because we could" ... this is an important difference.

Also, we talked about that thing in a previous topic and imho the current war proves that the prediction of those terms (a setback of two months) was indeed accurate, else all those former consone members wouldn't have had the troop levels they exhibit in this war.
 



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 10:30
Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:


That "destruction" though was part of the whole agreement, not "just because we could" ... this is an important difference.

Also, we talked about that thing in a previous topic and imho the current war proves that the prediction of those terms (a setback of two months) was indeed accurate, else all those former consone members wouldn't have had the troop levels they exhibit in this war.
 

That "destruction" was part of the agreement, "just because you could" impose it - not because the other side considered it fair.  

If you had not placed such terms as destruction of cities on your surrendered foes, they would have stayed away from your next war. 

Even others may not have bothered to make the secret alliance against you. Coalition did certain things that made people very cautious of them.




Edited by Ander - 02 Mar 2014 at 10:31
Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Deranzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 10:45
Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

That "destruction" was part of the agreement, "just because you could" impose it - not because the other side considered it fair. 


Fair or not, I will not be the judge of that ... what I care about is that the whole thing was exactly as it was claimed and it was indeed a general time setback for whole alliances and not destruction of particular accounts.

Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:


If you had not placed such terms as destruction of cities on your surrendered foes, they would have stayed away from your next war.

Even others may not have bothered to make the secret alliance against you. 

This though is just an estimation and I respect your opinion ... allow me though to have a different opinion and thus highly doubt that it would have been so ...






Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
Nokigon View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Historian

Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nokigon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 13:02
There's been a lot of high brow condescending comments from people from nearly all parts of the game that say that Harmless, Dlords, TVM and NC should surrender. I would however like to point something out to "Team B".

"Team A" have already suffered more losses in this last war then any members of the Consone war EVER did. All of them have lost more to this war than any peace terms ever could. I would like Team B to consider a few things... firstly, that the more you destroy, the less they can pay. And secondly, that many of Team A will choose to abandon rather than face total humiliation.

If you are so determined to gain something from the peace terms, you must recognise that atm leniency is your only possible option.
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: 02 Mar 2014 at 13:27
Ehm, Noki...  What would be more humilating?

A loosing side saying: "Damn, we lost this war though we thought we were right (and still think)!"

Or the winning side saying: "We have to stop now, as we trod the other side so far down in the dirt and they still don't get it!"

...?

Loosing is in no way acknowledging you were wrong! VIC lost in the Consone war, still saying we didn't start the war and Consone had good principles. But we had less military, actually underlining the statement. So what, now we're back up and chose to be peaceful, as we were before.

Totally putting away the possibility of surrender either leads to destruction or the other side stopping out of pity! They won't acknowledge your ideas just because you keep fighting... Confused

And for the (possibly) winning side: Perhaps set some sort of limit, when to choose Option 2... would be good PR Wink
Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Deranzin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 14:20
Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

Ehm, Noki...  What would be more humilating?

A loosing side saying: "Damn, we lost this war though we thought we were right (and still think)!"

I make clear that this is my personal opinion, but when you think you are right (or when you think that you did nothing wrong, but it is not exactly the same thing) then you keep fighting for it.

For example supposing that VICX asks for my surrender (they won't and I respect them for that), why would I surrender .?. What did I do specifically wrong that I have to surrender about it .?. Nothing ... so how could I ever surrender if I did nothing wrong .?.

It is as simple as that as far as I am concerned and it has nothing to do with pride or humiliation ...

Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

And for the (possibly) winning side: Perhaps set some sort of limit, when to choose Option 2... would be good PR Wink


Hahahaah it might have been, but they will do no such thing ... not their style. LOL



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
Nokigon View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Historian

Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Nokigon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 14:40
Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough... my point was not that the winning side should just stop, but that they get rid of the idea that they are going to punish the losers in the peace terms because they've already been punished enough in the war. Otherwise this cycle could continue to repeat itself.

Take EE. They said  "Damn, we lost this war though we thought we were right (and still think)!" and then they had to suffer the loss of a very large amount of cities razed. The peace terms made them want revenge, and contributed to the start of this war. They objected to it because they saw it as cruel, an injustice- even a humiliation. This was due, ostentatiously, to the peace terms as opposed to their defeat.
Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 15:41
Originally posted by Nokigon Nokigon wrote:

Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough... my point was not that the winning side should just stop, but that they get rid of the idea that they are going to punish the losers in the peace terms because they've already been punished enough in the war. Otherwise this cycle could continue to repeat itself.

Take EE. They said  "Damn, we lost this war though we thought we were right (and still think)!" and then they had to suffer the loss of a very large amount of cities razed. The peace terms made them want revenge, and contributed to the start of this war. They objected to it because they saw it as cruel, an injustice- even a humiliation. This was due, ostentatiously, to the peace terms as opposed to their defeat.

Again, for the upteenth time, during the Consone War no one in Consone lost more than three cities TOTAL* (that total includes cities lost in the war and war reparations); in many cases, players were allowed to walk away from the war.    In this war, however, we have members/allies  that have lost all but two, one or all of their cities (I don't count the small replacement city put in goodness knows where).   Our enemies are not holding back and all the BS posted here doesn't change it,  I consider most of the posts made by our foes as attempts to twist the facts and paint themselves in a better light.   Check the stats, look at who has lost cities and how many.   Bottom line they want NC, Dlords and Harmless gone from this game.   They could care less if a player has health problems, is stationed away from home serving their country, etc.      To clarify, because I've heard it before they do not back off players....one alliance starts in on a player then backs off stating they don't believe in sieging players out of the game only to have another alliance pick up where they stopped to finish the job.     

Like it or not, warfare in Illy is changed forever, talk all you want, the precedent has been set and you cannot go back.        

*Except the player/players that someone in DARK decided they wanted gone and the Coalition stopped them
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
Back to Top
Nokigon View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Historian

Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nokigon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:28
Originally posted by Starry Starry wrote:

Again, for the upteenth time, during the Consone War no one in Consone lost more than three cities TOTAL
Be that as it may, the terms have clearly contributed to the wave of anti-Harmless feeling; for EE at least. 

My point, if you would allow me to restate it, is that peace is only possible if vCrow et al do not repeat this mistake.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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