| Author |
|
Darmon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
|
Topic: Phew Posted: 16 Oct 2012 at 18:04 |
Uno wrote:
The involved parties that first declared war (RHY and then H?) didn't just want "a fight". They wanted much more, specifically the elimination of what they deemed a potential threat. This is what I gathered from KillerPoodle's post. |
That's generally the impression I get as well. Which makes me suspect they won't settle for anything less than the complete dismantling of Consone, one town at a time...
Of course, that also sounds like a lot of work, so maybe they'll just settle for some more strategic victories with regards to essential opponents or regions.
Like I mentioned in another thread, nobody knows what H?'s intentions are, so it leaves a lot of room for speculation.
Edited by Darmon - 16 Oct 2012 at 18:20
|
 |
Uno
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Location: Torino
Status: Offline
Points: 101
|
Posted: 16 Oct 2012 at 17:38 |
|
The involved parties that first declared war (RHY and then H?) didn't just want "a fight". They wanted much more, specifically the elimination of what they deemed a potential threat. This is what I gathered from KillerPoodle's post.
|
|
Eréc of Caer Uisc King of Dyfneint Indomiti Alliance
|
 |
Darmon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
|
Posted: 16 Oct 2012 at 06:53 |
Albatross wrote:
Quick Qs:- Are interested parties being proportionate in their military response?
- In cases of misrepresentation, is it possible for those 'responsible' to retire from their places, or to separate their 'offenses' from the body of their alliances? Would others allow them to rest?
- Can those itching for a fight just have an organised fight to burn off their excess military power, or does there need to be a causus belli having a traceable origin in-game?
|
I've been told that sometimes I use language that is inaccessibly dense, but I'm still not able to decode your inquiries. Are you worried that it's not a fair fight? Are you worried that weaker players are getting the business-end of siege weapons from stronger players? If those sorts of match-ups are happening in the first place, it might be hard to remedy, since compromise on anything seems difficult at the moment.
I do get the last questions though, and I'm guessing the unanimous answer will be no. From what I've read the what-nots and goings-on escalated to military-grade on October 1st, which is when the tourney started (and was at least posted on the tail-end of the previous day). So if people didn't want a full fight, couldn't they have just done what you suggest via the tourney? Or do you think people are reconsidering now?
|
 |
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 14:38 |
Quick Qs: - Are interested parties being proportionate in their military response?
- In cases of misrepresentation, is it possible for those 'responsible' to retire from their places, or to separate their 'offenses' from the body of their alliances? Would others allow them to rest?
- Can those itching for a fight just have an organised fight to burn off their excess military power, or does there need to be a causus belli having a traceable origin in-game?
|
|
|
 |
Uno
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Location: Torino
Status: Offline
Points: 101
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 14:16 |
Rasak wrote:
I tend to agree with a number of others. This topic is no longer valid. We have a situation where a number of alliances have declared war on a number of alliances. This is old news now and I don't believe that it matters anymore. To find peace in all this is above and beyond anything that can be found in this topic. Perhaps a topic with the intent of solving all the declarations of war would be more prudent, or in the least a topic posing bets along the order of: I think alliance x will do Y for 4 mil gold. I might find those more enjoyable and useful at this point :D |
I disagree. When the same thing happened one year ago I thought what you said now, that finding peace was all that mattered. Given that one year later the protagonists are the same, I think it is due that every attempt at clarification of what really happened is important. I also think that it is good to hear both sides of a story is a widespread say accross the whole humanity you can find in pretty much any civilization at any time and even in fantasy worlds. Interestingly a number of players have posted in this thread against this, claiming that hearing one side should suffice. And not surprisingly they consider redudant the story told from the side they oppose to...
|
|
Eréc of Caer Uisc King of Dyfneint Indomiti Alliance
|
 |
Grego
Postmaster
Joined: 09 May 2010
Location: Klek
Status: Offline
Points: 729
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 10:06 |
|
Not going further in explanation...
I must admit that I have failed as leader because didn't use my authority to try prevent escalation of tensions between our alliances, so I am willing to resign. Many will say it's irrelevant but I see it as accepting my share of guilt and one step toward peace solution.
|
 |
Ossian
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 456
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 10:04 |
KillerPoodle wrote:
Juswin wrote:
Siege as a response to lost troops is not a valid response. It is an overreaction. If losing troops over a mine due to miscommunication between the alliances is "first blood", then I would have gone to war with my neighbors a long time ago.
|
In your opinion.
|
In most players opinion, I would have thought. Killer Poodle please state why you think that it is not an overreaction?
Edited by Ossian - 15 Oct 2012 at 10:05
|
 |
Rasak
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 140
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 09:55 |
|
I tend to agree with a number of others. This topic is no longer valid. We have a situation where a number of alliances have declared war on a number of alliances. This is old news now and I don't believe that it matters anymore. To find peace in all this is above and beyond anything that can be found in this topic. Perhaps a topic with the intent of solving all the declarations of war would be more prudent, or in the least a topic posing bets along the order of: I think alliance x will do Y for 4 mil gold. I might find those more enjoyable and useful at this point :D
|
 |
Grego
Postmaster
Joined: 09 May 2010
Location: Klek
Status: Offline
Points: 729
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 08:57 |
Deranzin wrote:
[QUOTE=Grego]You can see that Messer's army sent to occupy Trove mine was defeated by Deimos.
|
"No, we can see that a failed ATTACK was repelled by Deimos, who was already there (since the DEFENDER won) ... claiming to not know good English (while eloquently filling pages :p ) only gives you so much leeway for such "errors" ... ;) " True, Dearanzin. Sorry for my mistake. You can see that Messer's army sent to attack was defeated by Deimos.
Edited by Grego - 15 Oct 2012 at 08:58
|
 |
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 08:40 |
Neytiri wrote:
Yeah. Great, but . . . where is the recipe???
|
eheh I love those
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2mRjqiW-JI&feature=share&list=PLB8388DB4B916F41F
|
|
|
 |