TRIVIUM

abstractdream wrote: your side thinks NC should not be allowed to make war AT ALL because they are just too good at it.

i don't think anyone on the side in opposition to you believes that to be the reason.  there are some who would say that they should not be allowed to war against an unwilling opponent, and many who would say that their opponent should be allowed recourse to its friends and confeds in its defence--a right H? was widely perceived to discourage during the BANE conflict.  (H? has since denied that their postings were intended to have that effect, but where intimidation is concerned, perception is truth.)

abstractdream wrote: Halcyon I won't speak for NC but I am curious why Bane should be considered simultaneously a softer target and the wrong choice for an easy target.

NC thought that Bane was a soft target because Bane participated heavily in the tournament and was low on troops. When they found out that they were wrong and the war was not going easy enough (NC like easy wars) the NC reserve alliance (TVM) was called in to the rescue. You are now paying for it. Surrender like Bane, or face the consequences of fighting till the bitter end.

Edited by Halcyon - 27 Nov 2013 at 15:07

The Electrocutioner wrote: I find it interesting to see how just like NC you all want to be. You're a vengeful lot, seeking the destruction of players and alliances if they don't surrender. Although I hate to see our friends be the targets of your vitriol, I do find the irony to be delicious. To punish NC, you're actions are the same as the worst of what you ascribe to us. Kudos!

Lol... better vengeful than delusional.

Electro Let me talk you through this as simply as I can, because you have read it before and clearly not understood and you continue to moan about what you imagine to be true rather than reality itself;

We DO NOT consider surrender terms to be a bad thing, we NEVER have.

We think they are a positive thing for a few reasons:

1 - They allow people a way out of the war if those people wish for that.
2 - They enable people that have exhausted their own armies against us to avoid destruction, therefore limiting damage to the player-base in this game.
3 - It means that an alliance leader can not necessarily treat a small member of theirs as cannon fodder.

We DO NOT stand against H because they have used such conditions in the past, we have many varied reasons for this war and most have been expressed (clearly enough for you to understand) in previous posts.

I have 2 questions for you;

If you support such conditions (and ours atm are far more lenient than those placed on consone players) then why do you moan about our use of them so much?

If you don't support such things, then why do you support a coalition that uses them?

Janosch,