Let me first apologise for the wall of text!
KillerPoodle,
Your calculations (which stretches the definition somewhat) do you no credit.
Let us not just say that 50k crossbowmen were destroyed, let us have the actual numbers please. But you cannot give them to us, because you don’t have them.
What you are saying is that CE were 100% responsible for every death that occurred beyond a certain point in that siege. For that to be true, those resources you stopped in that blockade would have to have been instantly transmuted into defensive power enough to prolong the siege to the point where you lost 50 thousand crossbowmen.
Which of course, didn't happen... because it was blocked.
Furthermore, your own argument states that troops cannot simply be bought, so how then could a van that never arrived to the city under discussion have instantly caused enough defenders to kill 50 thousand crossbowmen to sprout out of the ground?
Besides, you are flip-flopping now, first it was a punishment, then you ratcheted up the fee because we went public, which can only be described as spite, and now it’s compensation?
You cannot form a metric on numbers you do not have. You are assuming that resources from CE allowed EE to prolong that siege, but how do you measure from what point that city was holding out purely due to CE’s efforts?
Was that city full of CE defenders from the specified point? Not at all.
Were there troops there that had been bought with CE funds? By your own admission, troops take a long time to build, months at the scales you’re talking about. The war has only been going since the 13th of October. Up to the 7th of November, that’s 25 days. What’s more, as you can see from the data, CE were making stringent efforts in the tourney, which ended on the 31st. Now we’re down to a mere 7 days of potential supply efforts, and potential troop building. In your own argument against us, your troops take three months to build up. Why are EE’s troops so much quicker to build, while their city is under siege I might add? You’d also have to factor in the fact that the van you blocked was the exception and not the rule, and furthermore that it carried only 1000 of three mystery goods. How could EE have used these measly resources to prolong the war? Especially since they never arrived?
You are grossly overestimating the scale of trading going on between us and our sister alliances prior to the 7th.
So yes, 250 million is unreasonable because:
A) You didn't engage in diplomacy first, you went straight to the ultimatum before making an inquiry to us. If you had, you would have found out that we were compliant since the 7th, and you know we were, check our alliance mails, which shouldn't be too much trouble for you.
B) It is not based on any reasonable effort to actually estimate damages, the van you blocked had a measly 1000 units of three unknown resources in it... How many troops can you build with that when you’re town is hours away from being razed?
C) Your language which cites such reasons as “making us think twice” and raising the fine on a whim make it clear that this is not about any wrong done to you, but about might is right.
D) Your insistence that we cut off all ties with Consone, including any alts our players have is a bridge too far. If that is your line, then other alliances with alts in Consone are also violating your murky terms of war; will you be declaring war on them now? Not to mention players in other alliances that have alts in your alliance; are they now fair game for Consone? Keep this squabble between yourselves please; it might surprise you, but some of us don’t pay much attention to GC, isn't it conceivable that someone could simply not know that trading with a sister alliance was grounds for war?
Tweet
H? Threaten War On CE, Attempt To Extort 250mil
Topic Options
KillerPoodle wrote:
