Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement

Brandmeister wrote: While this policy superficially seems reasonable, here is the problem that I have with it. Alliance leaders are almost never the ones who take casualties. Didn't you guys figure this out during the Trove War? It's the far-flung players and outposts that get hammered during a war.

I have no job with the rest of the discussion, but Brandmeister you weren't in the Consone war and even though you seem to be totally unaware of the razed-captured-exodused list of both sides in that war, you make such proclamations.

So since you mentioned that particular war I should inform you that the bolded part is totally false.

Oh, and just two notes ...

Brandmeister wrote: But that's only a deterrent if the enemy alliance leaders CARE that you are obliterating some poor player's entire account. I doubt that to be true. It seems much more likely that those leaders would smash that player deliberately to upset and infuriate their enemies.

... an alliance that doesn't care about its members is not an alliance, but a contradiction in terms.

Brandmeister wrote: That at least would be fair, because you're specifically targeting the people making the decision to destroy an account. Your way just punishes random people on their team.

... where in the announcement did it say that any target is "random" as you seem to think .?.

While this policy superficially seems reasonable, here is the problem that I have with it. Alliance leaders are almost never the ones who take casualties. Didn't you guys figure this out during the Trove War? It's the far-flung players and outposts that get hammered during a war. Usually those players don't even realize they are in extreme danger until an alliance suddenly declares war, the map around them lights up in a field of red, and the sieges launch from point blank range. Leaders are tucked away safely in huge alliance strongholds, and rarely lose cities except as reparations at the end of wars, and only if they lost.

A reciprocal annihilation agreement really just says that if an alliance crushes your outlying players, that you are going to crush theirs. But that's only a deterrent if the enemy alliance leaders CARE that you are obliterating some poor player's entire account. I doubt that to be true. It seems much more likely that those leaders would smash that player deliberately to upset and infuriate their enemies.

If you want to make some kind of anti-obliteration policy, I suggest you target it at the alliance leaders. All this one says is that "If you terrorize our weakest links, we will terrorize your weakest links, too." You're just extending the misery to adjacent footsoldiers. A more sensible policy might be to say, "We will monitor the worst damage inflicted on a single account, and if you lose, we will require that many razes against each of your leaders."

That at least would be fair, because you're specifically targeting the people making the decision to destroy an account. Your way just punishes random people on their team.

As I read and think about this, I am curious how "destroy an account" is defined. Anyone that reaches 0 pop? Anyone that has a siege (successful or not) on all cities? Anyone that abandons? I would think this definition to be a crucial part of establishing policy.

The Duke wrote: Starry wrote: Salarius, I'm not going to address all your points but sieging a player out of the game is a reality.   Technically you are correct, a player is left with one city.   For those that have spent years building up their accounts and in some cases spent money to do so, the loss of all but one of their cities causes most, if not all, to give up on the game.    I refer you to the game Evony, if you have not played it, it is the reason why many who have participated in the past wars set limits to the losses each player.   This is a game, a long game and sieging anyone out of the game is not only bad form but never been done in past major wars.    Harmless is not the only alliance that put limitations on loss during wars.   If you are advocating scorched earth policy  then you lack the foresight of what changes it will have in the game.    It is why scorched earth was never fought in previous wars.   Harmless is not threatening anyone with scorched earth, we are, however, watching a trend in this war that we have not seen in others wars; players are under siege in all cities (not fake sieges either).   Harmless is bringing up these actions because it will require a shift in our policy of limiting the number of cities we take from any one player.    We are NOT threatening scorched earth, we stating that we will match the level of destruction imposed by our foes.      So yes, it is the leaders of the alliances, we are fighting,  choice on how this war proceeds, if they want to siege players out of the game, Harmless will change their policy of imposing limitation of losses and meet the challenge in kind.    We would like to hear from the opposition alliance leaders in the war. Edit: spelling Why not tell them to go to your embassy or you dont have time for them? Or is there a another change in H? policy you would like to announce? I'll happily discuss anything you would like in an igm, but the forums are to proper for war talk. Luna doesnt like it.

Lets not kid ourselves here, players have already been chased from the game. Nobody here can claim the high road so stop with the spin.

The only people who can put a stop to this fast is the DEVS.

Devs, if you 'cancel arrangement' on all accounts now and then set up new rules where sitters can't use the troops or caravans of the sat account then this will all disappear quite quickly. The warmongers won't be so much in a hurry to fight when their war machines come to a halt from a lack of unlimited gold, supplies and massive amounts of reserve troops.

Get rid of these permasats so those of us who actually play the game, and want to continue playing it, have the opportunity to do so.