| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Salararius 
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
 Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 21:29 |
 Starry wrote:
We would like to hear from the opposition alliance leaders in the war. |
Hi Starry,
Alliance leaders have contacted H? (AFAIK some talked to you). If H? is worried about the far flung cities of H? getting sieged from the game, then why did H? declare war against EE, and simultaneously make the implication that H? believed there was a vast conspiracy (of former Consone members) to continue the Trove war? Wasn't that a recipe for getting your isolated members attacked (by former members of Consone)? IMO, no alliance is going after the cities of individual H? player. Alliances are going after H? cities near them that can launch short warning attacks against dozens of targets. If those cities are from the same player, that was a stupid thing for H? and that player to do. H? is smart enough to look at a map and see who is vulnerable. H? players are smart enough to know who was on which side in the last war and predict the risk of their location. Why not contact those alliances you are threatening (because you feel they are part of a conspiracy against H?) and give assurances before attacking EE. At least order your members to exodus before voluntarily declaring against EE?
Personally, I want to put as much space as possible between myself and H? and any of their allies or anyone that I feel may attack me. After HM's post, I'm not sure the map is big enough. Will H? really never stop? Is that how H? would like to assure us to stop attacking their players? How is that an assurance? Personally, I don't feel comfortable at all after HM's post.
Maybe we could all agree that your team stays on your part of the map and other teams stay on their parts? Perhaps that is a solution to this never ending war. I'm not a big fan of alliances spread everywhere. It's a recipe for misunderstandings and war.
So, to be succinct. If H? is worried about their members, H? should either fight for their members or H? should negotiate for them. Either there is a carrot or a stick. Threats of future violence will probably encourage increased present violence, not less. What idiot alliance would stop fighting H? if it meant allowing H? to continue, survive and fulfill HM's promise? With HM's post, H? all but assures a continuance of (or increase in) the attacks.
Sal
|
 |
Binky the Berserker
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 257
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 21:09 |
|
I've been sieged down to 0 population many times and I never left the game. If you're scared of losing your towns keep out the war I'd say. Or step out while you have the chance.
I don't know much about the current war, but I doubt players allready lost all their towns on 2 accounts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 20:39 |
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
Edited by Starry - 10 Nov 2013 at 20:57
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 20:31 |
Salararius wrote:
Soon (less than 2 months), anyone can have the choice of living in complete safety in TBL and everything will change. Peace and harmony will reign. ;-)
|
In that one spot where sieges won't be allowed...but will they all fit?
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 19:48 |
HonoredMule wrote:
It is with sadness that I have watched the events unfold leading to what is now quickly becoming the largest war Illyriad has ever seen. It is the turning of friends that causes my sadness, but the complete lack of restraint in the execution of this war that has forced me out of hiding today, making an announcement I wish for all your sakes I did not have to make.
[...]
- We will capture/destroy no more than the highest percentage of a player's cities that the enemy does to any of our own. (Examples: If the enemy never takes more than 25% of any player's cities from us, we will take no more than 25% of any one player's cities from them. If they destroy an entire account - even just once - we shall take free license to completely destroy any of their accounts.)
[...]
In this, we are quite happy to let you take the lead down this dark path. Wherever it takes us, rest assured it will hurt you more than it hurts us. Heck. I probably won't even be around paying attention, so knock yourself out. We don't mind rebuilding. Its time for us to stop minding whether you can rebuild. Enemies can be replaced, after all.
|
It's best if KP responds to this:
KillerPoodle wrote:
Seriously? You guys need to take a step away from the computer and chill out.
Why do you associate maturity with peace in a game designed for war?
Folk may spew all the biased rubbish they want on this forum as long as it doesn't go against the forum rules. In a war, however, their cities will have to cash the checks their mouths are writing.
We usually save it for the worst spin doctors though. |
While pawing through that thread I found this gem from Kumo:
Kumomoto wrote:
The interesting thing about you Soup folks is that you profess to believe H? is out to crush anyone who approaches our size or strength (or at least that is the story you have told and you are sticking to it). The complete debunking of this false argument is that the Crowalition has been larger than us for years... And you know what? We get along great! (except for my occasional disagreements with Rill ;) ) |
Given the combatants in this (the very next war), that quote made me chuckle.
I think in some ways KP is right, this is a game. It's really not possible to siege anyone out of the game. The gloom and doom tone sounds really silly from an alliance whose members were actively trolling for the start of war (do you want more links or you can read the first dozen taunts from KP in the Trove war thread above).
The silly "rules" established above have no boundaries. Most sieges are multi party (usually an entire alliance). Even the zealous scribes of H? will never know who established most blockading forces, who assisted defending a sieging force, etc... As such, if an alliance were to siege out any inactive (one city) H? (or NC or TCol) account your rules allow for the complete destruction of every account within that alliance (or perhaps even loose affiliation of alliances). If H? already has players who are "going to be sieged out of the game", how are these rules? IMO, H? enjoys the pretense of rules but the reality is that those rules boil down to "we'll do what we can/want, if we win". No one thinks H? isn't dangerous. We know that. IMO, that's why so many are in this war. Everyone saw that H? did everything they felt they could get away with to every alliance with any connection to the last war. It was a laundry list of (give us this or else) demands. We all saw how the last war began with RHY, H?, NC and secret confeds sieging cities and Consone accused of aggression for breaking sieges. Players of any consequence or size have their own perspective on the score and the price.
So, I hope H? learned some lessons. As KP states, this is a game designed for war. Either fight it that way (current conflict, total war) or build structured wars between willing participants with solid boundaries. Threatening everyone with scorched earth stories seems juvenile. Doing so, because the consequences of the way members of H? and it's allies have actively pursued their own select limited wars seems exceptionally so. To the extent you feel these facts are flipped on their head, you should try to siege others out of the game. You should do this to change the dynamic of the game. I think that's why the devs built the game as they did. Every player always has the choice of leaving the game or creating new accounts and starting over (hopefully with a new attitude).
Soon (less than 2 months), anyone can have the choice of living in complete safety in TBL and everything will change. Peace and harmony will reign. ;-)
|
|
Bartleby
New Poster
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 19:13 |
BellusRex wrote:
One last attempt to clear up Kumo's spin, and then I am done with this...the player sieged was not abandoned, nor permasat. He was busy in real life and was not able to log in. He logged in long enough to send an iGm asking for a short term sitter until he got back. Within a day or two, Kumo was sieging his capital, which was his only city of size. The player is a crafter/trader, with an almost non existent military. The sitter appointed logged on to find the siege long under way and the city about to fall, and sent out all the troops he had, which cleared a 100 man blockade before the city was razed.
I do not complain about the siege itself, perfectly valid strategy in a war to pick off vulnerable players. Foolish to attack in to a stronghold. My objection is to the hypocrisy of claiming not to do something they did quite thoroughly. |
qft
|
|
|
|
Kompanion
Greenhorn
Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 18:31 |
twilights wrote:
....wheres my shovel? |
Do you need a shovel to spread some fertilizer? I am fairly certain that is what peaceful farmers do.
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 18:28 |
|
maybe this should be called the permasat war...I know several alliances are feeling overwhelmed by the few memebers that they have left playing so many accounts...it makes u wonder what is actually consider inactive...good luck to everyone and remember its a game, life doesn't end with illy..I love the spin even though I didn't understand its meaning....wheres my shovel?
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 18:00 |
EF, I want to congratulate you on finally being the grown-up in the room. I realize that can sound condescending, but honestly I've watched you mature over years in the game and gosh darn it if you haven't turned out to be a fairly interesting person. (Even though we still might not agree on many things.)
Kudos to you.
|
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 16:40 |
Kumo,
That was not what you meant by that naming of the war. You were deliberately issuing the same threats over and over again (about nine or so hours ago at the time of this reply). You grew exceptionally cocky and started encouraging the participants in the "discussion" with you to begin flaming the other sides.
Since you so stubbornly believe that you will win, and that coupled with your behavior in GC only shows that you meant it as an insult for those fighting against you.
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
Tweet
Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement
