All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance

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.

Wow this reply format you used makes this quite hard to read and reply, but I'll try anyway :

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 .?.

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.

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."  

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 .?.

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 ...

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 .?.  

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

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.
 

Halcyon wrote: To my knowledge past wars - which had been won by Team A - have always ended with surrender and payment of reparations by the losing side. What has changed and why should this war end differently? Just because Team A is too proud?

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 .?.

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 ...

Jenin wrote: There is the whole concept ushered in by Black and continued by NC; of stealing from non-allied newbs to support huge armies; pushing them to move without telling them how to make the best possible use of their city/game & threatening them, attacking them, etc.

You call for serious communication but at the same time you place NC in the same barrel with Black and claim that they stole resources from newbies .?.

Jenin wrote:  Then as the lines blurred between newbs and 5+ city players, it became obvious that the nastiness of other on-line games had followed those of us who truly admire what H? had done prior to their support of NC.

Alas the forum does not allow the publication of IGMs so as to expose that your side considers those accounts fair game (I called my vCrow neighbor out for such a behavior and asked him to attack someone his size and he told me that small account are ok too ), but I do have evidence on the matter.  So, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be so fast to get on a high moral horse ...

... and unless you consider this account :
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/Towns/164846
a warrior and a "good target" I'd suggest that you be a bit more down-to-earth with your proclamations.

There is a good reason why a lot of small T-O accounts flocked around my cities during the war you know ...

Jenin wrote: and then attacked BANE unmercifully while we were admittedly green horn traders

Has BANE been informed of that change in their alliance's purpose .?.

Halcyon wrote: I will go with JL's terms for both sides: To my knowledge past wars - which had been won by Team A - have always ended with surrender and payment of reparations by the losing side. What has changed and why should this war end differently? Just because Team A is too proud?

The change is that when it came to that point, it was the opposing side as a group that was losing cities and there was a general limit on how many cities a particular member of that side could lose. Anyone citing examples will have to admit that they are few and far between and the rare exception of the rule, so I guess that we will at least agree that this was the general code of conduct of those past wars.

As on why this war should end differently ... it will end differently because of the aforementioned change is now the RULE and not the exception ... and pride has nothing to do with it ...

Halcyon wrote:   I submit that the claim that Team B is after revenge can't be truely tested with Team A stating that they will continue to fight and not surrender. If Team A offers to surrender and is rejected by Team B it may show that Team B is actually after wanton distruction and revenge.