All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance |
Post Reply
|
Page <1 678910> |
| Author | ||
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 612 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 17:23 |
|
|
Interesting, since your posts indicate that you agreed with the Coalition's stance but went on to siege another city. (Starry is thankful we keep all data relating to past wars).
Irregardless, the point of our limit was the continuation of the game; sieging players out the game is short sighted and, in the long run, bad for the game. While I realize that many players have different view about the viability and continuation of this game, others may want to continue playing. After four years of building, starting over and pouring more money into a game with enemies that will hunt you for your game life, is not an option for many players. No, I do not think our enemies will allow H to rebuild, in spite of their claims. Edit: Elmindra, your post is filled with so many falsehoods, I'm not going to bother replying but I challenge you to post verifiable examples of H threatening any player with additional loss of cities once peace was secured. For the general public: We have always consider exodus as a tool to save a city and it has been used by both sides not only in the Consone war but this war too. There is a big difference between rebuilding an exodused city and starting from scratch. If you use prestige and have resources available, you can rebuild completely in days. Edited by Starry - 02 Mar 2014 at 17:30 |
||
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
||
![]() |
||
Halcyon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 360 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:54 |
|
Time to try and put a stop to this myth. A certain Vicx player had cities in Dark territory during the Coalition-Consone war. An agreement was struck with Vicx leadership that he remains out of the war but there was a miscommunication inside Vicx and the player himself was not notified of the deal. As a result he attacked Dark sieges on a Vic player. Thinking that he broke his promise Dark proceeded to siege or capture all his cities in Dark area. I believe that he Exodused one or two cities. Talks with Vicx leadership at the time did not reveal the mixup and the real facts were made known to us only months later after that war ended. H? indeed approached Dark to say to ease up on him, but no one actually stopped us since at the time we were sure that he had went back on his word.
|
||
![]() |
||
Elmindra
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 464 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:54 |
|
We only lost as many towns as we did because of the fact that we were smart enough to exodus isolated towns out of harms way from an early time and because we decided to surrender under the threat of total destruction. Check players like Hannibal or Alagos or Bellus or many others than went from well over 100k population down to almost nothing due to forced exodus and/or more than 3 towns lost. Or the constant threats of "you lose another town because we don't like how you talk in GC or the forums" or "my goal is to get people to leave the game, that's how you win" or "not so wise now huh". I declared early on that the Consone war was not a war we could win, and only because of that realization and our decision to both exodus to regroup into the north and the fact that we decided to surrender before complete destruction is the only reason there is a distinction between us. Sure your side has lost many more towns than we did in the last war, but that is of your own doing. Ask the people who did surrender, no where did we force them to continue losing towns as part of surrender terms. Many of you were given an out very early on with the ability to lose little to no towns as a price. You on the other hand forced us to choose between losing towns daily and an increasing number of towns as part of terms, or to simply accept the 37 towns we were forced to allow you to raze as part of our settlement terms. Personally I have no problem removing your towns one at a time until they are completely gone from history, but don't come on here and preach that you are high and mighty and somehow better. I am here for vengence, that is something that you have created and now have to live with.
|
||
|
||
![]() |
||
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador Joined: 21 Sep 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 982 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:50 |
|
|
I honestly can't see any end to a conflict like this without some kind of mutual, bilateral agreement. We don't have to call it surrender if you don't want to, but I doubt anyone is just going to head off and give their opponents their backs.
HAHAHAHAHAHA But that's the exact definition off... Oh nevermind.
|
||
![]() |
||
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:28 |
|
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 612 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 15:41 |
|
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 |
||
![]() |
||
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 14:20 |
|
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 ...
Hahahaah it might have been, but they will do no such thing ... not their style. ![]() |
||
![]() Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
||
![]() |
||
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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... ![]() And for the (possibly) winning side: Perhaps set some sort of limit, when to choose Option 2... would be good PR
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
||
![]() |
||
Post Reply
|
Page <1 678910> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |