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  <1 3456>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 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
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
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
Ryklaw View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 113 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Ryklaw Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 15:58
Starry is correct. Destroying 3 cities is not the same as destroying all but one city.

And I realize that I may be making the same point that many others (including the previous posts) have made.

The issue is what is the level of force necessary for desired outcome? Would destroying just 3 cities of each alliance member result in that alliance’s surrender? In the case of previous conflicts, that answer was proven to be affirmative. Would that same level of force be effective in this war?

While searching for an analogy, I considered comparison to street gangs, countries, or the military (EBO) and realized all are flawed when compared to a game. But all analogies are flawed. So let me use a very flawed analogy to illustrate what I am trying to say.

If a child exhibits behavior that is unacceptable to others, the parent must decide what level of response is necessary to change that behavior. Choices exist ranging from rewarding good behavior through corporal punishment. When dealing with humans, one is never absolutely sure what level of discipline will result in the desired change. And so the parent makes flawed decisions trying to affect an outcome.

It is also true that parents may exhibit behavior that is unacceptable to others, including the child. The child then must decide what level of response is necessary to change or escape the parent’s behavior but with an entirely different set of tools at her disposal. She can become even more belligerent, report parent’s behavior to authorities, run away, etc. And so she makes flawed decisions trying to affect an outcome.

As both parties seek to stop some behavior (whether real or imagined) of the other, responses continue to escalate.

I leave it to others to debate what level of force is necessary, what desired outcomes are acceptable, and what Illy will look like at the end.

But anyone that attempts to establish expectations or boundaries to frame this conflict that prevents a final resolution are being very unrealistic.
Finishing the Race!
II Tim 4:7,8
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 15:55
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



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
Cilcain View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 106 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cilcain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 15:48

Starry – from my position (a non-leadership role in VICX), I see things slightly differently to you.

 

I do not believe the intention is to siege players out of the game.  I do however, believe that the intention is to siege logical targets (quelle surprise in a war).  Whether these targets all belong to a single player or not is irrelevant.

 

By “logical”, this would typically mean towns closest to our hub – but other criteria might also come into play.  What I wouldn’t deem as logical is specifically targeting towns on the sole basis that they belong to a certain player (e.g. “He’s only got two towns left, let’s go get him”).

 

By “target”, I mean towns belonging to members of alliances we are at war with (de facto or declared) that have not yet surrendered and accepted terms.

 

So, in my view, it is perfectly within the power of each of our adversaries to change one of these parameters;

 

Logical:  Move your towns to a position where they present less of an obvious target.

Target:  Surrender (either as an alliance or individual) and accept the terms given.

 

So, I disagree that we are intentionally sieging players out of the game; but what I do see is players choosing to be sieged repeatedly rather than be seen to surrender – but that’s their choice.


Personally, I would like to see a surrender....but you've made your position clear on that (for H? or for yourself though?)

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 15:24
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. 

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: 27 Feb 2014 at 14:04
 
Originally posted by realist realist wrote:


I say force these H? players out the same way so they know how it feels.


Check your facts, please, the Coalition did not siege anyone out of the game during the Consone war, max cities lost allowed was three (combined taken in the war and war reparations).   The only exception to that was DARK players who decided THEY wanted to siege someone out of the game and we stopped it.      It appears they are now free to continue their original intent and are removing Coalition members from the game.  

No it is not the same, we stopped at three, you guys are not stopping at all, the intent IS to siege players out of the game which is short sighted at best for the future of the game, setting a dangerous precedent for future wars at worst case.   At least be honest about your intentions, you want the Coalition out of this game.   For those that are neutral, consider what this game is going to like should Harmless fall and this group can do as they please.   :D

Hath, we have no intention of contacting you for any negotiations, we are not surrendering and certainly have no faith in the integrity or credibility of the enemy leaders to have any talks.
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
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 13:09
Originally posted by Cilcain Cilcain wrote:

Originally posted by Deranzin Deranzin wrote:

Originally posted by realist realist wrote:


I say force these H? players out the same way so they know how it feels.


Well, finally some honesty in the forum ... +1 from me (for the honesty, not the content )


Deranzin, please do not misinterpret one player's honesty as a consensus.


I didn't think that ... maybe I should have been clearer before so I will elaborate.

What I meant by saying that realist was honest about how he felt about the whole issue, does not mean or imply that there is a consensus towards his opinions, but that he himself was honest about them and that I appreciate honesty overall (I have made similar remarks in older similar posts btw) even when I disagree with the opinion that was honestly expressed.

And I think that clears up any possible misunderstanding. Smile



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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