Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - And when the going gets tough......
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

And when the going gets tough......
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Salararius View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Salararius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 16:04
I felt that the H? surrender terms after the last war were unreasonably harsh.  I believe that H? members have stated numerous times that they do not accept that belief nor will they accept that belief.

Short of removing the H? players from the game (which isn't really possible), is there another solution than to keep attacking?

Given the rhetoric, I don't want H? cities near my cities.  I'd be willing to accept a retreat by H?, along with some sort of agreement that the earlier surrender terms were too harsh.  I don't need H? resources, I don't need to see H? cities destroyed.  I just don't want to feel forever threatened.  If there are players actively seeking to destroy H? no mater what (I'm sure there are).  Then H? could isolate those players by realizing that most of us have no overriding reason to push anyone from the game and agree that they went too far.

I notice that one of the players first held up as being "sieged from the game" is re-building in H? territory.  Despite losing or being forced to relocate every city, Eurik is still in the game and already has 6 moderate size cities grouped in more H? friendly Tallimar.  H? players can't re-build and cry wolf that they are being forced from the game.  It seems like a never ending threat given the rhetoric and facts.
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: 27 Feb 2014 at 16:28
Originally posted by Salararius Salararius wrote:

I felt that the H? surrender terms after the last war were unreasonably harsh.  I believe that H? members have stated numerous times that they do not accept that belief nor will they accept that belief.

Short of removing the H? players from the game (which isn't really possible), is there another solution than to keep attacking?

Given the rhetoric, I don't want H? cities near my cities.  I'd be willing to accept a retreat by H?, along with some sort of agreement that the earlier surrender terms were too harsh.  I don't need H? resources, I don't need to see H? cities destroyed.  I just don't want to feel forever threatened.  If there are players actively seeking to destroy H? no mater what (I'm sure there are).  Then H? could isolate those players by realizing that most of us have no overriding reason to push anyone from the game and agree that they went too far.

Hmmm ... is it just me or is this another contradiction .?.

Originally posted by Salararius Salararius wrote:


I notice that one of the players first held up as being "sieged from the game" is re-building in H? territory.  Despite losing or being forced to relocate every city, Eurik is still in the game and already has 6 moderate size cities grouped in more H? friendly Tallimar.  H? players can't re-build and cry wolf that they are being forced from the game.  It seems like a never ending threat given the rhetoric and facts.


Are you saying that since everyone can rebuild even after losing all (or most, or many) of his cities, then it doesn't really matter how many cities they lose and so leaving the game because you lost too many cities is an invalid reason for quitting or even feeling annoyed about it .?.





Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
scaramouche View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 432 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scaramouche Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 17:40
I, as well as others from the last war are proof that taking only two of your enemies cities is not enough...I lost two in the Consone war yet here I am six months after that war.. back to ten... and fighting again.
Then again this depends on your outlook:
1. I wasn't destroyed enough to the fact that it took me out of the game, therefore I can thank the Coalition for their leniency?

2. I am now once again a reasonable threat in that I now participate again in full on battles much to my enjoyment and maybe...the coalitions regret?

to summarise...Geoffreys point about annialation is correct...only if you want to ensure no further retaliation from past enemies...whether annialation is right or wrong is open for debate, and even the word can be interpreted as you will.
OFC the dictionary meaning of the word is complete destruction, but you could also take it as destruction to the point where your enemy cannot take part in any retribution for a very long time.
Another downside to doing this ofc is the possibility of ppl quitting the game.. a touchy subject

Seroiusly...I do not want to be fighting in wars of this magnitude every six months or so...I have neither the will power or time to keep this up indefinately.

Edited by scaramouche - 27 Feb 2014 at 17:55
NO..I dont do the Fandango!
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 18:01
When faced with the loss of many cities, some people will choose to leave the game.  Others will surrender and plot revenge.  Some might surrender and seek reconciliation.  Some will fight to the last breath and continue fighting from a single 0-population city.

Neither side can control the other's choices in this war.  The main question for both sides is, what sort of future Illyriad do you want to build?  And what are you willing to do or give up to begin to do so?

For some people, this might mean giving up cities, for others giving up pride, for others giving up fighting.  For some people that might mean continuing fighting in the face of overwhelming odds.

I don't think we on the forum can parse those decisions, although certainly we might express opinions about what WE perceive might be best.

I would simply suggest to all sides to keep this thought in mind:  What sort of future Illy do you want, and how do your actions advance or harm that future?
Back to Top
scaramouche View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 432 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scaramouche Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 18:42
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

 What sort of future Illy do you want, and how do your actions advance or harm that future?


Only time can answer this question.
NO..I dont do the Fandango!
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote geofrey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 19:08
Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:

Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:

The intent is surrender. Make no mistake about it. Everyone wants the war over with, except for players unwilling to compromise. 

With one side swearing destruction on it's enemies for all of eternity, the other side has 2 options, quarantine, enforce low military levels, or anihilation. 

In illyriad, quarantine is very hard to do. Permanent blockades are not effective. The only solution is to draw out a boundary line, and say if any of their troops or cities cross it, they will be destroyed. You would have to constantly monitor enemy troop movements and new settlements. 

Enforcing low military levels are also very difficult. Persistent scouting would be required to verify military levels. And you would only respond once the enemy has amassed more troops than you wanted. Meaning you are facing an army that you didn't want to face. 

Annihilation is the simpler solution. Reduce player's cities down to a minimum level. This will at least give you several months of peace while the enemy, who has promised to destroy you one day, rebuilds. 


Considering that a surrender will lead to either of the suboptimal (for the winners) choices, am I the only one seeing the contradiction here .?. Wink

The severity of the above actions are completely negotiable if there is some idea of compromise between the parties. Generally speaking the quarantine that happens after a surrender is the standard 10 square rule. Enforcing Low Military Levels could be as simple as don't attack us, as other peace treaties have stated.  

But reducing the severity of surrender terms down to those levels requires compromise. If 1 side is unwilling to compromise the other side has no choice but to play by their rules. 

And while I appreciate you pointing out contradictions in logic, these forums represent a great deal of brainstorming from players. There are going to be contradictions, loopholes, and logical impurities. That is not to say that the idea is wrong, but that it can be improved.  

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 (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Epidemic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 19:22
I think players need to get their heads out of the sand and actively pay attention to the siege list. Lots of peaceful players have been sieged from the game, lots more have quit in frustration or disgust.
Illy wars have changed for the worse. You need to accept this as reality and then we can try to figure out how to bring Illy back from the brink. If you think you can save Illy after destroying it you're delusional.
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: 27 Feb 2014 at 20:06
Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:


And while I appreciate you pointing out contradictions in logic, these forums represent a great deal of brainstorming from players. There are going to be contradictions, loopholes, and logical impurities. That is not to say that the idea is wrong, but that it can be improved.  


Indeed ... Smile
and this procedure of making an idea better usually starts when someone points small (or big) issues the original ideas might have.



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
The Electrocutioner View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 09 Sep 2012
Location: Arran
Status: Offline
Points: 234 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote The Electrocutioner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 21:50
Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

Lots of peaceful players have been sieged from the game

Really? Who are they?

I'm not saying it's not true, I just don't know of any. I am only personally aware of one player who was sieged back to the newb ring, and that player was the opposite of peaceful.
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 (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Epidemic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 23:10
Originally posted by The Electrocutioner The Electrocutioner wrote:



Really? Who are they?

I'm not saying it's not true, I just don't know of any. I am only personally aware of one player who was sieged back to the newb ring, and that player was the opposite of peaceful.



So basically you've had your head in the sand for all of the war except the last couple of days. Most of the destruction has already taken place and what is left is quickly being mopped up.
I'm not going to bother posting all the players affected, because I don't really have a clue just how bad it is, but i'm sure you can find the answers if you look hard enough.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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