| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Gaius Rufius Tullus 
New Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 14
|
 Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 18:07 |
 Kumomoto wrote:
Gaius Rufius Tullus wrote:
How about this.. After the 3 H? members finally agree on the terms, then they can open the discussion with EE [again]. |
We are in complete agreement. KP has been leading these discussions now for months... not sure where you thought there was confusion?
|
Apparently HATH was approached or talked to Starry on Chatzy to settle the terms.. The confusion lay in the "there are two parties in H? trying to get a peace out of this" clause. 
But like our honored member and disgusting orc from BSH said, a peace treaty would be in EE's best interests. However if they want to save face and haggle with you guys, let them do so. Give them an extra week to grovel and beg etc, then accept the peace terms or continue attacking.
**Has so totally NOT just done a u-turn in illy politics**
|
 |
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 18:54 |
|
If the devs are reading this post they will better understand how easy it is for a player to lose everything they have worked on for years.
How about changing the siege rules, limiting # of troops, fixing the war mechanics, etc.
I've always said this is the best mmorts social game and the worst mmorts war game. I've played dozens of ruthless war games, I know what i'm talking about.
Is it not enough to just have the surrender terms say 'We surrender'? I'm sure there are more than just this proud, stubborn dwarf playing this game.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 19:09 |
|
its extremely hard if not impossible to lose towns in illy without causing it yourself
Edited by Rorgash - 28 Mar 2013 at 19:10
|
|
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 19:14 |
First of all, at no time have we ever targeted a player to take all their cities, the surrender terms do not include taking all or most of any player's cities. In fact, throughout this war, we set a limit of two cities lost and then on to the next target. No one is getting sieged out of the game, that was never the intention of the Coalition and certainly not what we did in the war.
Second, EE pounded Coalition members in the north for months while we were fighting elsewhere, now the war has come to their turf. The surrender terms included losing cities for their earlier attacks on our members. You don't fight a war and lose then expect to walk away. Again, EE is being unrealistic if they believe this is possible. We owe it to our members and confeds to obtain restitution for EE's attacks. The terms are going up with each attack and they will continue to do so.
There have been enough screwy changes to military mechanics, they do not need to be changed again. If you don't enjoy fighting in the game, there are plenty of other options and alliances that do not involve fighting.
Gaius, that is not what happened, I did not approach HATH, I was pulled into a private chat to discuss another issue with HATH and he went on about being dragged into the war by VIC. The rest of it doesn't need to be posted here, the result was he ran back to Jasche after badmouthing him and VIC.
There is a price to pay for fighting wars, the victor sets the surrender terms, it is well within Hath's rights to refuse them but war will go on.
Edited by Starry - 28 Mar 2013 at 19:15
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
|
Elmindra
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 19:35 |
|
First off, while we pounded away at your towns in the north Coal pounded our towns in other regions where we were unable to defend. Its war, it happens. Second, asking for Lady Eira to sacrifice 5 towns is the exact opposite of what you claim above.
I personally don't mind losing a town or two or three even, after all I did raze some. But the demeaning way you and your allies continue to go about things is the reason we just don't care anymore. People being told to lose towns due to things you read in our AC, being told agree or be destroyed, honestly its not worth the headache any longer.
|
|
|
|
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 19:51 |
I don't know what Hath is telling you but the Coalition has not asked for anymore than one to two towns by anyone except one person (3 for that player). I can view the terms given to Hath and I assure that request was never made. Perhaps you should ask your leader to give you the real terms now? Obviously, there is spin going on in this forum and on EE's.
As I posted above, the terms will increase the longer it takes HATH to accept surrender terms.
Edited by Starry - 28 Mar 2013 at 19:53
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 20:00 |
|
Might makes Right.
|
|
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 20:05 |
No, Right is Right, regardless of Might. It just so happens that currently might and right are on the same side.
(Regardless - :) happy KW)
|
|
Elmindra
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 20:08 |
|
I simply have copied and pasted text which I assume is from your forum. It states that Hannibal will lose 3, Kurdruk 2 + 1 with a snide remark about how he isn't so wise now, Lady Eira 3 + 2, Hath 2 + 1. If that is untrue please feel free to igm me your real terms then. Otherwise I will assume that your offer stands at 40 towns total, to which we politely decline.
|
|
|
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 20:26 |
Elmindra wrote:
I simply have copied and pasted text which I assume is from your forum. |
Which begs the question : What are you planning to do if your assumption is wrong .?.
|
|
Tweet
Just the facts Ma'am
