Peace Offer Rejected

Rill wrote: At the same time I recognize that this topic has wandered rather far from that of the original post, so perhaps if further discussion is desired someone should start a new thread.

Who are you? A person.  This is a forum, which is a place for the exchange of ideas.  Perhaps a majority (or even a minority, or even one person) may not agree with one's opinion, but that should not prevent you from expressing it.

Brand, I guess what I'm saying is that people going nuts over city location is just that -- nuts.  It's possible to be successful in a variety of locations and threatening to siege people who just don't want to participate in a war anymore (perhaps because they have doubts about their alliance leadership) does not seem like a healthy policy.  Certainly it would be very easy to use it as an excuse -- it is so easy to fool ourselves into believing that what is most convenient is the only possible way.

Darkwords, I don't know any more about the situation than what you've just stated.

Rill, a leader almost always put the good of the team over the good of individual members. That's the very definition of being on a team. I didn't say that former members were responsible for anyone getting sieged. I said they could be blocking key exodus moves. Why are the departing players in the middle of a stronghold? Presumably they were placed there as part of the team, to be tightly integrated with their comrades. Being in the alliance core is a privilege extended by your alliance because you are a trusted member. The favorable placement doesn't strike me as some kind of permanent individual right. Quit the team, leave our fortress, sounds like a reasonable demand to me. It's better if that policy is stated up front, but war catches people by surprise sometimes.

City placement is like 40% of defense in this game. Alliance is another 40%. Why do alliances jealously hoard their abandoned cities? Why do they form cores in the first place? Why is map crowding such a polarizing issue? Why do alliances siege members at 45-60 days inactivity, or sometimes even raze at key locations to prevent capture or open up squares for exodus-in of current players? It's because map placement is so key. I wouldn't hesitate to make that demand in other games, and if it seems overly harsh, I think that's because people are underestimating the importance of good placement and overestimating the damage caused by exodus. I've seen enough placement disputes in eCrow to understand that placement is critical in ordinary circumstances, let alone when people are trying to destroy your cities.

I never said it was the same thing BM, but then from what I have heard the ultimatum is you exo or we kill you.  Something that I think is a pretty crazy thing to apply to your own members/ex-members, its the kind of thing I reserve for my enemies.

Anyway it does not really matter does it, as I said it is a rumour, or do you know more about this than I perhaps?