| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The_Dude 
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
 Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 21:58 |
Is it just me or is the forum suddenly posting wierd formatting?
Hmm...looks like it was just the last 2 posts on page 3 of this thread.
Edited by The_Dude - 06 Mar 2011 at 21:58
|
 |
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 22:06 |
 Baldrick wrote:
If you put the sequence together, you will see I hope, why I have reached this conclusion. DB was in a war with Cala - half way through this when it was clear they were losing, they decided to accept a merge into Crows which they had apparently been discussing for some time. Crows then became involved and commenced mediation backed by attacks, this lead to a NAP being agreed (we enjoy the challenge of a good fight, but we aren't crazy enough to take on the combined Crow alliances). Before 'the ink was dry' on the NAP agreement, attacks commenced from Champs with no warning on DB members, Champs being in a confederation with Cala, latterly Calcr. DB responded only to find Calcr supporting Champs, namely Tinuviel - who, let's be honest, is Calcr.. |
But it was 3f3 who contacted Cala in the first place, offering support, not the other way around. It's not like Cala was like "Uh oh! We're gonna lose, lets contact some big alliances and see if we can get some support". So that sort of hurts the whole "you guys are being used, Cala only joined to win against DB" argument, since they never asked for assistance to begin with. At least, that's how 3f3 explained it.
|
|
Baldrick
New Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 22:07 |
Nope, it's not you Dude, although it may be something to do with my last post - there was a ']' mark which I couldn't get rid of, hence the editing attempt 
As for your question. I scouted two cities, one which was being seiged at the time, and another closer to the DB area, on both occasions I found troops from Tinuviel there.
Those in the besiged city were reduced as a 'sally forth' had been used by the time my scouts arrived. I will be quite happy to forward those reports to anyone ingame if asked.
|
|
Baldrick
New Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 22:10 |
Brids17 wrote:
But it was 3f3 who contacted Cala in the first place, offering support, not the other way around. It's not like Cala was like "Uh oh! We're gonna lose, lets contact some big alliances and see if we can get some support". So that sort of hurts the whole "you guys are being used, Cala only joined to win against DB" argument, since they never asked for assistance to begin with. At least, that's how 3f3 explained it.
|
If that is the case, then I apologise Brids - I was not privy to those conversations of course so I can, as I did say, only say it as I see it 
|
|
King EAM
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Nun'ya
Status: Offline
Points: 272
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 22:12 |
Brids17 wrote:
Baldrick wrote:
If you put the sequence together, you will see I hope, why I have reached this conclusion. DB was in a war with Cala - half way through this when it was clear they were losing, they decided to accept a merge into Crows which they had apparently been discussing for some time. Crows then became involved and commenced mediation backed by attacks, this lead to a NAP being agreed (we enjoy the challenge of a good fight, but we aren't crazy enough to take on the combined Crow alliances). Before 'the ink was dry' on the NAP agreement, attacks commenced from Champs with no warning on DB members, Champs being in a confederation with Cala, latterly Calcr. DB responded only to find Calcr supporting Champs, namely Tinuviel - who, let's be honest, is Calcr.. |
But it was 3f3 who contacted Cala in the first place, offering support, not the other way around. It's not like Cala was like "Uh oh! We're gonna lose, lets contact some big alliances and see if we can get some support". So that sort of hurts the whole "you guys are being used, Cala only joined to win against DB" argument, since they never asked for assistance to begin with. At least, that's how 3f3 explained it.
|
I can confirm that is how it happened.
|
|
"It's hard to know until you're a Crow"
|
|
Baldrick
New Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 22:28 |
Thank you for that bit of clarification guys, it is appreciated. I cannot, and will not, dispute what you say there, so I offer my unreserved apologies for drawing the wrong conclusion in that particular part.
Alas, it does not answer all of the questions. Namely why would an alliance leader risk an entire alliance by attacking another twice their size, and known for their aggression to boot, without prior planning and full knowledge that they would be protected? Then another, similar alliance, doing exactly the same thing? All without provocation, warning or reason if they were not being given instructions or at least being coordinated, buy a larger alliance?
Again I aslk you all - would you, as a leader of your alliance, embark on such attacks and do that to those members you are responsible for if no arrangement were already in place to make sure you would be alright?
I don't think you would. So, although my initial conclusion was wrong in the way things transpired, it is still valid I'm afraid.
DB is not crying for help here, not in the sense that has been suggested anyway. All we would like is either Crow to make their position clear so we can deal with the support issue, or if that is not permitted directly, we would like help to break down the resistance from those responsible in Champs and possibly LWO so they can be forced to rethink this underhand plan.
I use the word 'permitted' for a very good reason, as I mentioned we like a good fight, but we are not crazy
Personally speaking, all I would like is a bit of honesty and, hopefully, some clarification about the stance of Crows so we can't be accused of breaking our given word having agreed to a NAP.
Is that an unreasonable request?
Edited by Baldrick - 06 Mar 2011 at 22:46
|
|
threefoothree
Greenhorn
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Location: tampa, florida
Status: Offline
Points: 88
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 23:01 |
|
i would like to bring up a few facts.
the first is champ attacked before peace was agreed (though peace talks were well on their way) on and way before the 3 week delay upon when we stopped attacking to the point it took db to pass out naps.
second thing is around the nap was agreed upon carl mailed me and asked about the champ calcr confederation which i replyed i would expect the same treatment we gave US. you can reinforce cites and attack sieges but can not dip, blight or attack offensively militarily.
third the nap prevents you from attacking reinforced champ cities but it also prevents calcr from attacking your siege directly and siege warfare is unaffected, which was a courtesy we extented to US while they were defending DB.
this saves troops since it limits calcr ability of attacking a siege only using sallyforth rather than sending armies to your sieges directly.
i think the nap is a fair trade some tit for some tat.
i dont see how calcr has done anything wrong unless they have dipped, blighted or reinforced a sieged against db, which i have heard nothing about nor seen any reports
personally i had never even heard of champ before they attack. i think they saw opportunity and didnt know about our peace agreement that was being put together is my guess. though i have been very intrested in watching it play out.
also calcr never asked me for support. i say the sieges in the hearld and we have always had a good relationship with cala, we share a lot of land together and have coexisted peacefully for a long time. i have never had a issue with cala, yet we have had many small pass incidents with db.
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 23:14 |
I was composing the following while 3f3 posted above...so the below comments do not reflect 3f3's comments :(
_________
Baldrick,
It is dangerous to try to think for your opponent or assign motives to his choices. And frankly, it does not matter. All that matters is the current state and your goals, not the history or motives of anyone.
Here's what I recommend:
1) Decide now what DB's goals are for this conflict. Do you simply want everything to end? Do you want reparations? Do you want revenge? The more you want, the harder it will be to get. Right now, it sounds like CHAMP essentially wants complete destruction of DB, which is not reasonable. I doubt Crow is interested in seeing things go to that extreme.
2) Select a single member of your alliance to handle all discussions. One voice is always clearer than several voices.
3) The spokesperson should mail both Tinuviel and 3f3 regarding CalCr supporting CHAMP. This communication should be polite and respectful. The focus should be on preserving and strengthening your existing NAP w/ Crows. Not allegations of betrayal or underhandedness.
4) Once you wrap up this problem, DB should consider developing broader relationships throughout Illy. It is easier to establish NAPs and Confeds when you are at peace. Once you are in the thick of war, it is very difficult to make new relationships. I notice that DB has lots of War Bosses but I do not see a Foreign Minister...this reinforces the perception that DB is war-mongering and not interested in peace. :)
Edited by The_Dude - 06 Mar 2011 at 23:19
|
|
Baldrick
New Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 23:54 |
Hi 3f3, a little more clarification has been given which is a good thing, so thank you.
I hope you will not take this in the wrong spirit as I got the distinct feeling from my brief contact with you previously that you are what I would call a 'decent player'. Be that as it may, I still have to respond to your post
There is a small point about your facts though which I hope you don't mind my mentioning, and actually do form the major reason for this thread when you think about it.
The first point is that you may recall the reasons for the delay in the setting of our peace agreement - namely the leader of DB was M.I.A and nobody had the authority to change any diplomatic stance. A ticket was raised to change this, and on the day it might have been done, our leader logged on briefly, thus locking anything for a further week. So in effect the agreement was made in January as you may recall? Given that everything was in place aside from the formal change in the alliance status I am sure that all concerned were aware of the NAP agreement, even though we couldn't actually set it at that time.
The second point is, although I regret I cannot offer the evidence of this any longer as the system mail was deleted, Champs sent the attacks about two or three days after the one, and so far only time oddly enough, I looked at GC, posted and spoke to you - you might recall that I used exactly the same words as you have in your post regarding Champs.
This brings us to the third, and main point of this thread really.
You have confirmet what I have been saying all along in my posts - the hands of DB are tied behind their backs as we are not allowed to directly attack those who are supporting, leaving those attacking to do so with impunity as we cannot retalliate. Do you truly think that is right, honourable or fair - whichever word you choose to use? Also, by your definition, DB could be accused of breaking the NAP if they did not have the sense to scout first - even if they did, if the support was not there prior to the attack, how are they supposed to know?
So, once again, I would ask the question - what is Crows position here? Are DB allowed to defend themselves or is the view of Crows that unfair and unjustifiable that you believe you are right to say we cannot attack any supporting members directly? If it is, then I stand guilty of a great misjudgement of character, something which I don't ofen do, and certanily not 3 times in a row! I base this on what I have seen of yourself, Ector and King.
Lastly my friend you have once again fallen into the trap of the past - I can say with certainty that nobody from DB has done the slightest thing to Crows since I have been with them. So, why is the past such an issue? I have not been on Illyriad as long as you and many others, so I was not here in the beginning. I would be very surprised to learn though that none of you, and by this I mean every player who is now in the top 100 or so regardless of alliance, did not have some sort of 'run in' during those early days. Or is that, if you are viewing things in that light, a major battle the the whole of Illyriad will be able to watch with awe? |
|
Baldrick
New Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 00:13 |
Ehem, sorry for the double posts Mods, but it can't be helped 
Thank you TD - you are right in most of your comments there, maybe even to a degree the war mongering bit  , but they aren't that bad really, at least not so far in my experience of them.
I wasn't acutally thinking too much for my opponent, but I do take your point
As for the one voice - well, there are two actually, Norigen and Carl. I can't really comment on the 'War Boss' titles, although I can see they might give the impression that you see. So althought I can do little, I am hopeful that your constructive comments will help a bit as they, and others from the alliance, will see them.
All of my posts here are those of a peasant member of an alliance (gravedigger is actually the tital) which is me. I am just posting really to see that the truth is put forward and I would also wish to see a bit of fair play in this current situation. Points were raised, some of which were inaccurate, so I felt the need show the other side of the truth - as I mentioned in an earlier post, I always try to look a things from both sides. The reverse of that being that if I saw our DB diplomat stating an inaccuracy, I would also point that out too - ah well, nobody is perfect!
|
|
Tweet
ETERNAL CHAMPIONS