| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
geofrey 
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
 Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 17:48 |
 SugarFree wrote:
Lord, let them slug it out far away from the lime light please...
there is no need for the overprotective community to stick it's brown nose int this. |
Agreed. No reason for anyone to step in unless either one of the parties currently at war request aid from their allies.
|
 |
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 16:03 |
Raatalagk wrote:
. . . they didn't bother to ask if a war would be entertaining for us . . .
. . . there is something a bit unsatisfying about fighting a war you don't really understand the reason for. |
I hope that these can be sorted out. Before this thread, I was under the assumption that his was a mutually agreed upon war.
Have terms been set for duration, what forms of attack are and are not acceptable, who is and is not to be targeted, and under what conditions a surrender might be established?
I will provide examples for these:
Duration:
This war will continue until (1) the beginning of the next tournament (2) one side loses a city (3) one side successfully steals 25k advanced resources from the other (4) one side has depleted all armies...
etc.
What attacks are and are not acceptable:
Acceptable: (1) Scouts, Spies, Thieves (2) Army attacks, Feints, Raids, Blockades (3) Instant Blights
Not Acceptable: (1) Saboteurs, Assassins (2) Sieges (3) Prolonged Blights
etc.
Who is and is not to be targeted:
Yes: (1) Any town that is over 3,000 population (2) Any town that has * placed before the name
No: (1) Any town that is under 3,000 population (2) Towns that have no * before the name
etc.
Conditions for surrender:
(1) The losing side will pay tribute to the winners in the amount of 20mil gold (2) The losing side will give up 3 cities (over 5k population) to be sieged and leveled by the winners (3) The losing side will issue a public notice of the superiority of the winning side (4) The losing side removes, through Exodus, any cities which are within 50 squares of the winning side
etc.
Disclaimer: This is not by any means a recommendation of how you should run your war. Far from it! (^_^) This is just to get the brain juices flowing.
War can be fun with set parameters - or it can be utterly devastating. In the future, I would like to see more alliances engage in mutually consented war - not with the intention of "removing" an opponent, but with the goal of excitement, training, fun, and with a sense of respect for one another.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Raatalagk
Wordsmith
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 154
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 02:58 |
I will also confirm, as Kale did, that Luc and Bonaparta have summed up the facts correctly, to my knowledge as a member of BSH.
There was some confusion for a long while about why LWO chose to attack us, since (as you read) their reasoning seemed vague and, frankly, fabricated. At this stage, though, I must confess that I am beginning to believe their reasons as stated: they started the conflict for the pure entertainment of it, and to gain war experience.
As it happens, they didn't bother to ask if a war would be entertaining for us ... and I think I speak for the majority of our members when I say that we would have preferred to make a decent showing in the tournament, rather than engaging an opponent half-way across Illy. And there is something a bit unsatisfying about fighting a war you don't really understand the reason for.
But ah well, such is life. :) There will be other tournaments, surely, and we will eventually recoup the cost of the war.
Overall, I'm still having a good time, and I hope everyone else is, too.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 02:34 |
|
I would never suggest that confeds should not aid their allies when they are attacked. The degree of response that is appropriate is something that must be carefully weighed; this is a responsibility I've encountered since my alliance has come under attack recently. I am interested in others' thoughts (perhaps in another thread) as to the degree of response that is appropriate when one has been targeted for unprovoked aggression.
|
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 00:52 |
Not sure why CoK are getting defensive about this - I don't think anyone has painted them as villains.
Thanks for the explanations, folks.
|
|
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
|
Kale
Greenhorn
Joined: 27 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 58
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 00:27 |
Bonaparta and Luc have summed up the facts rather succinctly.
LWO thieved BSH, got caught. BSH messaged Zolvon, he admitted BSH was targeted due to unexplained philosophical differences and because of their alliance to CoK. That part was rather specific, actually, compared to the rest. Zolvon states that they want to have a fun war, does not wait for BSH to agree or disagree, before a random member (no idea who, as all members have all alliance options) declares war with Zolvon's agreement. Attacks against BSH are made, repelled, and the count attack begins. LWO would have to give you more, as they have not communicated further with BSH, that I know of, but those are all of the relevant facts. So, there ya go: Thread question answered. Toodles!
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 23:30 |
|
(>.<) I thought this forum thread was only to shed light on the situation without it becoming a "them vs. us" post. *sigh* Well, we will see where the dice land. I wish both sides the best of luck in this.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Luc_
New Poster
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 4
|
Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 22:54 |
Subatoi wrote:
...just because LWO was caught one or two times diplomatically attacking bsh does not mean they were responsible for the attacks prior, theres no proof stating such, you are just leaning on a very strong suspicion. |
I admit there is no proof in regards to this matter. However, when Skull' messaged Zolvon with an inquiry about the thieving, Zolvon did not say that the thieves were not sent by LWO.
Relaying the amount of thieves that were sent was not the primary point of my previous message, though.
I know you are attempting to find little flaws in my statement - little pieces of information that you might be able to use to point fingers at me and my CoK, when clearly fingers should be pointed at your own, alliance.
Cheers. (EDIT: Spelling)
Edited by Luc_ - 11 Mar 2012 at 23:04
|
|
Bonaparta
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2011
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 541
|
Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 22:49 |
OK let me clarify few things.
Before the war nobody in BSH didn't even heard about LWO and we certainly didn't have any conflicts.
In the middle of February strategic thefts happened to many of our members. This were not some random thefts, BSH was specifically targeted. We had our suspects but didn't do anything before one theft failed and thieves were identified. Thieves belonged to Zolvon from LWO. Our leadership contacted LWO, but all we got in response was some incoherent babbling like "you are evil", "you are our natural enemies", "let's see what orcs are good for", "let's have fun"... It was difficult to talk to them, since LWO alliance has no structure and they promote anarchic way of government. We decided to send out our thieves, but we restrained ourselves from military response. Our and their diplo attacks didn't do much damage and we tried to contact them again. This time they simply declared war on us and soon our members outside Mal Motsha found themselves under attacks. Their attacks were indiscriminate, from very small members to rather large ones. After we reinforced our non MM members and effectively destroyed their raiding army and killed their siege camp to Tigre, we went on offensive.
Now their cities are falling, I sure hope that they got what they were looking for - having fun.
This war has kept us out of the tournament which we were looking forward too with enthusiasm...
We don't have many confederacy treaties, but those we do, we trust explicitly. We are grateful to our allies for the response, as they all volunteer to help. I assure them that we would do the same, if they would find themselves under attack...
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
|
Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 22:30 |
Subatoi wrote:
Hello all, just my two cents here..
It seems from Luc's point of view here, that the aggressors should have to bear the weight of more enemies, simply for starting the warish conflict?
it also seems to me that this is a "whats right" stance," i was thieved, you kind of admitted it in a snarky way so we war."
So to me it seems the justice thing in illy is odd.. I've noticed newbs here thieve others and just get gently scolded and sent down their merry way, but when its a diplomatic attack with experienced players all of hells doors open up..
Could just be me, oh and Luc, just because LWO was caught one or two times diplomatically attacking bsh does not mean they were responsible for the attacks prior, theres no proof stating such, you are just leaning on a very strong suspicion.
my two cents..
*places two pennies on the ground and walks off*
|
listen, if you declare war on an ally with confed, you sure bet they are not gonna sit there just doing nothing do you? it's LWO fault for attacking, has petty motives and all in all seems looking for death... seriously who taunts the biggest orc ally with no death wish?
|
|
Tweet
LWO war