OK, in an attempt to try and bring this thread back to something like the thread title, and to hopefully steer people away from using the forum as a podium for odium....let's try and talk about some positives.
I think an earlier post mentioned how the War had opened peoples eyes and revealed certain elements of the game previously unappreciated.
What do people think these are? What do each side believe the other side did well?
Personally (I was Consone), my involvement in the War was limited - not through lack of desire, but simple geography. I actually enjoyed the War (mostly) because it taught me things about the game mechanics that were not previously obvious to me. It also acted to bring members of our alliance (and other alliances) closer together in cooperation - there were of course some exceptions to this; some players did leave the game/alliance citing the War and its propaganda as the reason, others simply went quiet (which is their prerogative , and I won't judge).
As I mentioned above, the effect of geography was highlighted for me. Simply being located a large distance away from the main alliance hubs has an enormous effect - making you less reactive, and prone to speculative forays into the theatre of war. I would imagine now that most alliances will be looking at the distribution of their players with a view to consolidating where they can. At one point in the War, I did suggest that Consone look to restructuring the constituent alliances into consolidated hubs to make us better able to focus our strength in key areas. Unfortunately, at that point in the War, such a logistically and administratively onerous task was unlikely to happen - but if done earlier on, it might have changed things (IMHO). What are the Coalition's thoughts on this?
Another (now obvious) learning for me (having not participated in a war before), was the role of different troop types. For example, I hadn't appreciated that offensive troops would be used mostly in defensive action and vice versa (i.e. Cavalry to break sieges, Spears/Bows to defend sieges).
The placement of cities also plays a big part. A sieged city surrounded by plains can quickly and effectively be aided by allies with fast moving cavalry. Having a building next to your city is inviting a siege to land there - and can only be effectively removed by slower moving infantry.
As far as the opposition goes, I was impressed by their military readiness and organisation. We were not prepared for a war. Prior to the War, our focus was on trade and learning - most members had a certain level of defensive troops, and perhaps a few more offensive troops with us being in the middle of a tournament. H? did not participate in that tournament up to the start of the War (I think an earlier post from KP gives a reason why) - how much did that help once War did break out, if at all?
At some points, it seemed that H? members did not sleep, with constant activity at all times of the day. Are you all really insomniacs, or do you have an organised system of sitters?
Finally, a lot of people dedicated much time and effort for their respective sides during the War (from my point of view I think of the likes of Sloter), and I think whatever side we're on, we should applaud and appreciate that dedication.
At the end of the day, the War was just a rearrangement of 1's and 0's on a server somewhere. It killed nobody and it cost nobody their homes (unless they really went mad on prestige).
Positive and conciliatory responses to this post are invited.
Tweet
Consone/Coalition War: Peace and Reconciliation
Topic Options
Kumomoto wrote:
