| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Deranzin 
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
|
 Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 07:39 |
 DeathDealer89 wrote:
I'm not sure if there would be a way to capture how many exoduses there are. Since 1 exodus may be due to war and another exodus could be to grabbing a better spot. |
Allow me to provide a suitable example as I am in the exodus list count. One of the cities in the score was mine and it was in the "fantastic" position of : - 3 clay.
- Almost no plains around it (!!!)
- 4d away from my other towns and in the newbie ring (it was my second city built almost two years ago)
- Another player's city was positioned right next to it, reducing my possible sov by 1/4
The only reason I kept it was that it had already a high pop and I wanted to reach the ten city count. After that I was planning to move it since it was an obvious liability. Then the war starts, I had just reached my pop goal and that city was a problem anyway. So, I used up most of the troops in there (mostly in defense) and then packed up and left without an attack or a siege incoming. One could argue that such a horrible city was obviously going to be moved (especially if you tried to count it with an automated way), but I declared it in the war loss count regardlessly because it WAS a good target, even if noone seemed keen to siege it. So automated systems might sound nice, but some human intervention on keeping count should be applied imho. 
|
 |
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 12:22 |
Kumomoto wrote:
Did you even read my post before you wrote yours??? Read up... "The Coalition"... those are Coalition losses and wins.
You all really should read stuff before composing your vitriol... I was asked by you and Oozra. And I gave you the data that I have simple as that. And, I have yet to see the 4 that Duke said Shade razed... I can defend every single one of my numbers...
Oh, and as to those who have promised to exodus, I have no way of knowing how many of those are. To my knowledge quite a few on both sides of this thing. I don't think it's fair for either side to go back on our words to not let them exodus just because you want your score to reflect that? Once they exodus, I'm sure they'll be counted...
|
If this is true then I advise you to get a new stat accountant. You are missing our capture for one, several raises and about 40 or 50 exo's, then there are also captures and raises completed by our allies, which I do not have any clue about. Telling me to learn how to read is pretty stupid in the case of my reference to the coalition, you should perhaps learn to read yourself and actually explain why you have lied on the forums about your coalition. You seem to dodge questions about your lies more (yet far less tactfully) that a politician.
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 14:06 |
So, you have a city that is an "obvious liability" but that has survived at least one big war in that location and been there for two years. Then during this war you decide to move it but only because "you were planning to all along"?
That is plausible, but if someone is proposing counting exoduses forced as some type of "victory condition" then the combatants should hold their cities in their current locations in order to count them as "not moved" from the war. Anything else is disingenuous. As you state, the city is in a poor location.
Realistically, doesn't the possibility of a siege of a city in a poor location and another year long wait to again reach the pop limits for 10 cities at all influence this decision? A moving city can't build troops and once moved will only be able to build/support a fraction of the troops from before it moved. In the short term, moving iss not good for a war effort so the only reason to move in the middle of a war are "you aren't concerned about the war effort" or "the city was going to get razed if left".
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 14:43 |
Kumomoto wrote:
Here are my latest numbers. Please let me know if you have any I've missed...
The Coalition has inflicted the following:
1 Capture, 24 Razed, 15 Exodus.
vEElar has inflicted the following:
7 razed, 8 Exodus
|
HM started this thread to warn the Illy community that H? would take "no more" cities from enemies than were taken from H?. Does the "fact" (at least in the mind of H?) that H? destroyed three times as many cities as have been lost from "The Coalition" make it questionable if H? is the irresponsible party showing a "complete lack of restraint" (additional HM quote)?
Will H? post the cities destroyed in these "retaliatory" strikes? For each city destroyed, which Coalition city was that in retaliation for? H? started this thread bragging about how they were staunch champions of fairness and responsibility. The bluster by H? on their supreme capacity for record keeping was evident. Numbers do not lie. Put the pieces on the table, show the community how fair and responsible you are by putting your true talents at record keeping on display.
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 15:01 |
@ Salararius, if you read Brandmeister's post on the previous page you would realize that your 'concerns' are simply due to your own misconception of the policy. Honestly your like the annoying employee who asks a question over a topic that was just explained due to the exact same question being asked by another employee. (Notice how it can create an endless loop)
@Darkwords Please let me know where these 40-50 exoduses had come from? I would believe you in the range of 4-5 exoduses but i'm pretty sure you just added a zero. For that many exodused to have occurred by now, a fourth of the players involved would have had to exodus immediately. So please let me know which cities/players exodused so we can update the list.
|
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 15:40 |
Salararius wrote:
So, you have a city that is an "obvious liability" but that has survived at least one big war in that location and been there for two years. Then during this war you decide to move it but only because "you were planning to all along"? |
Yes, do you want to see a past screenshot that I took because the sov looked funny .?. Here :  The image is months old, but you can see the spot and the sov of my neighbour prior the move and the horrible terrain, here : http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/-292/-80/7
Now, look where my other cities are and tell me SERIOUSLY if you wouldn't have been planing to move that city at some point.  In the last war the battle-lines were in a different position and I had 7 cities, with all the pros and cons of that fact for taking risks. Ergo, I took the gamble not move the city. This time I have achieved my 10 cities goal and the battlelines/battlemap is totally different. Ergo, gambling was not worth it and I moved the city. Your tone makes it sound improbable or unreasonable or that I am somehow lying or whatever, but I do not see that anyone else would have done differently in my shoes.
Salararius wrote:
That is plausible, but if someone is proposing counting exoduses forced as some type of "victory condition" then the combatants should hold their cities in their current locations in order to count them as "not moved" from the war. Anything else is disingenuous. As you state, the city is in a poor location. |
No, and that is why I said that in order to count exodused cities in the score board, you'd need a human factor to weight the facts and not an automated system that simply counts the beans. Another practical example. In this war I declared this city as an "exodus due to war", despite any counter-arguments that could have been made and despite not having an incoming siege. I recognized the value of that target and wanting to be fair I declared the exodus to the record-keepers. In the previous war though, I had moved two cities and had argued back then with the Consone people that were trying to keep automated scores that those exoduses were not due to the war. Indeed correcting newbie mistakes you made a year ago and setting cities too close to each other (if you doubt that, look at my capital. I must move that someday too  ) and exodusing two small cities half a screen away, with no incoming attacks or sieges and no troops and no strategical values what-so-ever was just plain dilluting the score.
Salararius wrote:
Realistically, doesn't the possibility of a siege of a city in a poor location and another year long wait to again reach the pop limits for 10 cities at all influence this decision? A moving city can't build troops and once moved will only be able to build/support a fraction of the troops from before it moved. In the short term, moving iss not good for a war effort so the only reason to move in the middle of a war are "you aren't concerned about the war effort" or "the city was going to get razed if left". |
Didn't you read the part where I said "but I declared it in the war loss count regardlessly because it WAS a good target, even if noone seemed keen to siege it" .?.  I repeat that this was a city that has already been counted in the war losses and I declared it so myself, despite all that pile of data that could have made a good argument for doing otherwise. In that regard I cannot understand what else you are trying to say/imply. So, the whole point is :If you want to count exoduses, you will have to look into them carefully and not just scrape the data automatically from the server.Do you disagree with that .?.
Edited by Deranzin - 15 Nov 2013 at 15:41
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 15:57 |
Salararius wrote:
Kumomoto wrote:
Here are my latest numbers. Please let me know if you have any I've missed...
The Coalition has inflicted the following:
1 Capture, 24 Razed, 15 Exodus.
vEElar has inflicted the following:
7 razed, 8 Exodus
|
HM started this thread to warn the Illy community that H? would take "no more" cities from enemies than were taken from H?. Does the "fact" (at least in the mind of H?) that H? destroyed three times as many cities as have been lost from "The Coalition" make it questionable if H? is the irresponsible party showing a "complete lack of restraint" (additional HM quote)?
Will H? post the cities destroyed in these "retaliatory" strikes? For each city destroyed, which Coalition city was that in retaliation for? H? started this thread bragging about how they were staunch champions of fairness and responsibility. The bluster by H? on their supreme capacity for record keeping was evident. Numbers do not lie. Put the pieces on the table, show the community how fair and responsible you are by putting your true talents at record keeping on display.
|
I'm going to honestly believe that you are confused and not just being deliberately misleading. H? had this war brought upon us. We even, after hostilities began, tried again to discuss peace, but were flatly rejected. We are at war, then. We have never said we will "show restraint" in how many cities we raze. Quite the opposite. We are going to raze dozens and dozens of enemy cities. What we won't do is raze large numbers of cities from a single player unless our enemy does it first. That is "running people off of the server". And I am thoroughly sick of being lambasted for giving you stats that our enemies requested from us. Our stats are true, to the best of my knowledge. I have consistently asked Duke, Darkwords, and Elmindra and any other of our adversaries who like to brag about vastly inflated numbers and cannot back them up with details for data. To date, NONE have been able to supply those numbers. So, fine, ask away and we won't supply them unless you can put some data behind your ridiculous claims. All that seems to happen when we discuss them is that our enemy lies about how many cities they have razed and can't back a single one of their numbers up.
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 18:23 |
DeathDealer89 wrote:
@ Salararius, if you read Brandmeister's post on the previous page you would realize that your 'concerns' are simply due to your own misconception of the policy. Honestly your like the annoying employee who asks a question over a topic that was just explained due to the exact same question being asked by another employee. (Notice how it can create an endless loop)
|
Brandmeister is in a crow alliance. I didn't realize players in crow alliances were now spokespersons for H? Even still, Brandmeister did not post a list of cities razed by H? nor were there reasons posted why those cities were razed. I guess you didn't actually read what I asked, you just hit reply?
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 19:37 |
Brandmeister is in a crow alliance and he was able to understand the h? policy just fine. Funny how a neutral party had no problem interpreting it. However a VicX member has had all kinds of problems interpreting it. There is no need to post a list of cities razed by H? and the reasons those cities were razed to counter your attempt at spin due to blatant mis-interpretation. You have been called on blatant mis-interpretation it by at least two people one of them neutral.
Now if we want to talk just getting an actual list of how many cities has been taken by each side just for the purposes of having a list. That i'm all for, but it seems that anti-coalition have no semblance of such a list. Meaning our only option is to go with the best available data which is the coalition list.
Edited by DeathDealer89 - 15 Nov 2013 at 19:38
|
|
ToWhomItMayConcern
New Poster
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 11
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 19:58 |
HonoredMule wrote:
Greetings all,
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. |
Why is anybody even paying attention to someone who admits he doesn't even play the game? This reminds me of all the other city building games out there that has one dominant alliance at the top that rarely ever logs in and only participates when they decide to go to war.
|
|
Tweet
Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement