NC

Redfist wrote: Gragnog wrote: Ok, another futile attempt at a factual thread. Guess all of you are more interested in spinning your spin than actual facts. If any of the GM's cruise these threads please close this one as the topic has deviated into a hash of opinions again of people trying to justify their actions. All I asked for was facts, not a 4 page hash of old issues repeated so often in every other thread. How can you say that? In your opening posts you ask for evidence of NC aggression and it has been provided, in the form of examples of their conductnot only from the  CK/RE affair but also during and after the Bane/NC war.  Moreover, the NC leader's ,  Sir Brad's post linked to this thread is just about the boldest aggressive statement an alliance leader can make in this game. That in itself is evidence. In the end though the most compelling evidence is the case of Shammara which shows the depths of "nastiness"  to which they prepared to go. Cast aside KP's poor attempt's at denial and later his excuses - This thread shows with evidence that: 1. Celtic Knights, EE, Ucrow, Vcrow are not the aggressive alliances that KP  deliberately tried to portray them as; 2, Night Crusaders are an aggressive military alliance. Not only do they fight wars but they will aggressively provoke them. They are even capable of destroying accounts during peace negotiations without a second thought. (Big problem there!) 3. H? do not treat there allies with equal respect. Indeed they treat some of them with contempt; To my mind KP has deliberately misrepresented this whole CK/RE affair for his own ends and entertainment but the Illy community has seen through his poorly veiled lies and threats. I think people are running out patience and tolerance of KP as leader of H? They want to see a change. A big change.

Again with the opinions. I clearly stated I only want facts

keeping it short for the Moron.....love him or hate him Sir Bradly is good for the game...if you like spice

Sisren wrote: Kompanion wrote: Gragnog wrote: Seems a lot of people have issues with the tiny little pitbulls. My perception is a bunch of players playing a war game and then getting complaints about them playing a war game. Perhaps some clear facts laid out here would help. As far as I recall NC only ever declared wars on equal sized or larger alliances (My memory may be a bit hazy due to working in the field so much lately). How this makes them bullies is above me. Their methods of diplomacy are also different to what others view as correct but this does not make them bad. I myself tend to resort to launch first and then talk. Now if someone has facts, and not opinions, just list them here and then everyone can make their own decisions. I keep hearing equal or larger sized alliance. What does that have to do with a fair fight or just grounds for starting one? If I weighed 145 lbs and was a professional boxer would anyone who weighed 145 lbs or more be considered a fair fight for me? How does experience, commander levels, lands claimed etc weigh into the scales when determining fair? There might be some who drink h? Kool-aid, I am not one of them. It's a metric that is visible to everyone.  Is it perfect?  no.  Is it an overall gauge of how much someone with a pair can push?  yes. You don't like it, then ignore it, a large portion of the server actually uses it.  It's been used before you started playing, and will be used after you quit. And comparing a single boxer to the potential of a player of certain matrices, that is a logical fallacy and I am pretty sure you know it.  That is of coarse if you aren't sniffing glue.

Actually sis, you should consider this to be less of a war and more of a vote. I think that is what the server is saying. Keep drinking the h? Kool-aid


Edited by Kompanion - 01 Nov 2013 at 17:42

blazing arrow wrote: Deranzin wrote: blazing arrow wrote: SB don't be a melodramatic queen...!!! If Beecks could re-inforce/siege ppl till a week back...tell her sitter to have the guts to weather the storm as well .. Disclaimer. This is just me expressing my opinion So, now trying to siege a player out of the game, even if he drops out from the current conflict, is just "a storm to be weathered" .?. Thank God that this is just your opinion ... So you want to say If some player till a week back was attacking/sieging players and now has run out of troops...conveniently tries to wash away the sins by leaving his alliance ....should be allowed to rebuild his troops ...and rejoin later You have been in game for long enough and been part of many conflicts to know what rubbish Beecks leaving and SB being melodramatic all about... so stop fooling around

Indeed and there had been such cases in the Consone War as well, but we didn't siege out anyone in my best of knowledge. Those that I knew to jump ship from the war and then return after rebuilding were still in the game after the war.

So, if you want to be reasonable about it you wait till that player jumps in again, THEN once it is PROVEN that they are not really leaving the conflict, then you clear his towns from troops even when he predictably drops out again, so this way he cannot jump aboard a second time and maybe siege a couple of cities to seal the deal.

But all of them .?. Come on ... When did you guys in vCrow become so bloodthirsty .?. 

Imho any player deserves a chance to surrender, unless he is known to do such double-deals in the past so you can say that they had their chance once and didn't honor their deals. What is more reasonable than that .?.

i like the H? kool aid..it tastes good and makes me smile...