|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 12> |
| Author | ||
ULYSSEUS
New Poster
Joined: 26 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Topic: Dark Empire Writ of Notice-War Declaration ~NC~Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 01:42 |
|
We offer peace based upon Night Crusaders offering of such to STEEL. Our objective was accomplished and we see no need for our troops to remain in the field. However based upon the above we understand Night Crusaders position and will remain in a state of war with them until such time as their concerns are resolved. DARK also has an inbound attack but will not need the resolution of that attack to delay any peace discussions. This is subject to change the moment either alliance launches a major offensive operation. I would expect at that time the gloves will come off for both parties. Our goal is to avoid that and in that spirit DARK will not be launching any new offensive attacks of any type. We trust that NC will think the same concerning this issue. If there is any disagreement with my response Sir bradley, then please feel free to contact me or sisren via IGM and we can discuss in more detail. |
||
|
Some men die young, some men die old, but all men die.
|
||
![]() |
||
Sir Bradly
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 00:16 |
|
|
Dark has asked if we are interested in Peace.
Since DARK declared war on ~NC~ and there are currently over 30 attacks and sieges on the way to ~NC~ cities, we are inclined to wait and see the nature of these attacks. If they turn out to be harmless feints or inconsequential minor attacks we will be interested in offering peace terms. However if they are sieges or full attacks at us we will be hesitant to offer such terms. |
||
![]() |
||
ULYSSEUS
New Poster
Joined: 26 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Posted: 30 Sep 2012 at 22:53 |
|
|
||
|
Some men die young, some men die old, but all men die.
|
||
![]() |
||
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 30 Sep 2012 at 02:18 |
|
I would think most strategic players would not eschew either of these paths to success. It seems rational to build one's cities and one's alliance, but also to create ties with other alliances. As for the second being easier, building trust with a wide variety of folks who have competing agendas, gaming styles and personalities is not something I find to be easy, although the more I get to know many of the folks in the game the more I appreciate the opportunity I have to interact with such a great group of people.
|
||
![]() |
||
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012 Location: PA, USA Status: Offline Points: 446 |
Posted: 30 Sep 2012 at 00:40 |
|
And for anyone to believe other alliances, ~N~Fed included, do not meddle in some way or another in other alliances affairs is folly. We see those points as a waste of text. Empty and meaningless. If ~NC~ wanted to bring something concrete on behalf of ~N~Fed, for we assume it is on their behalf that they chose to isolate the rest of the confederation from the conflict, that would be something more worthy of pause. That they have not is interesting, no? We are Illyriad. We are intermingled, and we are inter-related. So we went to war. At the least effort, y'all will see what we stand for, and what we won't stand for.
|
||
![]() |
||
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 23:39 |
|
|
Well...as I said before, I didn't bring up the point to throw gas on the fire, and people will believe what they'll believe, regardless of what we write here (I highly doubt we'll change any minds). And, I commend them for their conduct within the framework they established (as I mentioned earlier). That said, there's a fundamental difference between saying: "Here is the reason we feel we have a CB with your alliance (a, b, c, d)" (implicit in this would be the idea that other avenues besides war had been explored and exhausted) and "We don't like your face (or, more specifically, we're bored and annoyed) because of a, b, c, d....so the armies are marching." You may call it hair splitting, but there's a fairly important distinction that lives inside those two phrasings, and as with any diplo stuff in the public eye, the devil is very much in the details. It's a distinction worth mentioning, again, IMO Edited by BlindScribe - 29 Sep 2012 at 23:43 |
||
![]() |
||
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 332 |
Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 23:34 |
|
I believe the reasons for their annoyance were attempts by Gim to encourage their members to defect, attempts to stir other alliances to attack them, and attempts by Gim to profit from their efforts and to manipulate negotiations in a third-party conflict on behalf of an ally. Perhaps I don't understand what constitutes casus belli but I don't think any of the first page alliances would just shrug it off either.
It pretty much comes down to whether you believe them or not. Clearly some people don't, or else their personal relationships with Gim are valuable enough that they don't care if he's done it or not. Granted, I doubt that NC could provide much evidence to back up those claims. No one is dumb enough to scheme and plot via IGM. The question is, is Gimardoran more likely to get caught plotting against NC than NC is to lie about it?
Mehhh... flip a coin. It is what it is and I don't care anymore.
|
||
![]() |
||
Halcyon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 360 |
Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 23:30 |
|
|
Regardless of how some posters are trying to paint this conflict, Dark feels that NC chose in Steel a decidedly weaker opponent to attack. Dark is not a mercenary alliance and we do not wish to lose our troops (it takes us, as it does all, a very long time to mass those troops). We saw a weaker friend being attacked by an aggressive,
much stronger opponent and we felt that we have no choice but to step in.
Frankly, we are surprised that more have not done the same. Even at this time, when our armies are marching, we would like to see a peaceful end to this wasteful war. Since NC is the aggressor here, we feel that
it is up to them to say that they are satisfied and are returning to their
barracks. We will immediately do the same. |
||
![]() |
||
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 332 |
Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 23:13 |
|
If they don't like Gim, presumably it is because of his actions. His name isn't that offensive. The fact that they didn't lay out the reasons they dislike him at the start and that you choose not to believe their reasons once they did enumerate them isn't all that relevant, is it?
|
||
![]() |
||
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 23:09 |
|
Sorry, but they didn't. Explaining why someone annoys you =! the same thing as explaining why you feel you have a CB on them (unless you're going to say next that they declared war because they were annoyed with him...in which case, you'll be agreeing with me!...to get a feel for the difference, consider the functional differences between: "You violated our alliance's soveriegnty and refuse to leave...thus, we have a CB on you" vs. "I don't like your face...thus, we have a CB on you.") Two different creatures. IMO, of course. For the record, I absolutely agree with you! It IS perfectly obvious that it's exactly what you said. A clarification as to why they do not like/were annoyed with Gim. It's just that....that specifically ISN"T a clarification on a Causa Belli (unless you agree with my larger point re: the reason for the declaration in the first place!)
Edited by BlindScribe - 29 Sep 2012 at 23:35 |
||
![]() |
||
Post Reply
|
Page 123 12> |
|
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 |