Potential Peace Talks?

Mandarins31 wrote: You have some good points Hellion, but if you want to argue on something, would you argue on what are for me the main questions i brought in my post (and this is adressed to Deranzin as well). If i sum up what you said somewhere in your post, you say that a siege on an active player and during general peace time, is the logical escalation from diplomacy talks in a dead end. I reply to that by saying that at this scale there always is a diplomatic solution, mostly if some 3rd parties propose their help in the negociations, and i re-ask this: Dont you think, from what i explained about the difference between an account (towns, buildings) and short-lived products (units, ressources...) (do you agree with that vision already?), that sieging an active player is in any case an overreaction? And don't you think it should be commonly admitted over the Illy community, that we should break any siege sent against an active player during peace times, as it's a direct attack on his account? And just for those who say that in other games, being destroyed happens all the time, i reply that Illy is a slow paced game, which gives more value to what you do and possess, and also that it seeks to be different and more mature. Im interested in having your or anyone else's point of view on this subject.

If the dead end in diplomacy ends with the other side making personal attacks on you and telling the other side to come at you. Then yes because that is likely their diplomat that is doing their talking at this point. Just from reading the pms that were passed back and fourth from ABSA I would almost say they orchestrated the actual war :P.

Overreaction? No. With any diplomacy if it is to fail then there are consequences which sometimes will be heavier than others. Again looking at the way ABSA dealt with this step of the progression of things shows they obviously didn't care about the fact that RHY would fight them.

There is a difference between breaking a siege of an active player not causing problems and an active player causing problems. Looking back on old threads there are a few wars it seemed people were fine with sieges if they felt the enemy was deserving. Your simply on the enemies side this time.

Destroying doesn't happen all the time actually not as far as cities go. Military is destroyed frequently however. Sometimes when things break down though its easier to renegotiate when things people value are being broken if they continue. If you disagree with how your own alliance handles things then leave. Generally if your looking to play peacefully there are a number of training alliances that are strictly peaceful like T? and HUGS to name a few.

You have some good points Hellion, but if you want to argue on something, would you argue on what are for me the main questions i brought in my post (and this is adressed to Deranzin as well).

It's a good thing all the jokes about noble gasses argon, otherwise I'd be tempted to post one.

Edited by Aral - 31 Oct 2012 at 04:51

The_Dude wrote: hellion19 wrote: ***** Just remember from here on that I am very noble(gas)! That is all. Please pull my finger for Noble Gas.

Very noble

Mandarins31 wrote: Hellion (notice that i refrain myself from making a joke with helium and its explosive properties), I will tell you few things you wont want to understand or acceptate: RHY occupied with a large force on a mine which was clearly under Skb ownership. It was ask to them to gently recall their armies ridiculously placed in the midle of Skb's hub, but they ignored it and didnt move while warned. So RHY violated Skb's obvious property, and they are the first who used their units to make an offensive action. Absa being a confed with Skb, and Skb being smaller than RHY, Absa gave a hand by sending troops on the spot, after many and long warnings. Removing agressive troops from the property of a confederate is a defensive move. RHY, feeling too offended, started to siege Absa, while no personal attacks were launched from Absa or Skb... and sieging a town is an offensive move. Now, i recall that Consone is 1) a peaceful confederacy and 2) is, between many other qualities, a mutual defense confederacy. For the Consone's leaders that i was part of, lauching a siege on anyone during peace time is ALWAYS an overreactiong to something way less important, as it reduces a player's gaming possibilities, by destroying a part of his account... while units, ressources, dilplos, etc... are the short-lived products of your expensively built account, and losing them or gaining them and finding clever ways to moderate all that is part of the fun of the game. SO, sieging someone to detroy a part of his account is an overraction, and from what i know, anyone asking help from Consone to break a siege against him, will receive this help, and Consone would help to negociate terms of peace to balance both sides. A siege against an active player is in any case an overreation that should be dealt the same way as we deal with someone who attacks a training alliance. And in any case, wiping the short-timed units forming a siege is a defensive move, no matter how you spin this. And now, declaring war on someone who defended someone from a siege, which is what H? did instead of talking, is clearly an offensive move. And alliances who join the war to give much support and weight to threatened confederates, that is a defensive move. You or any other H?-side/supporter forum poster will try to spin it out... But a resonable and not logic-hermetic mind may have a similar reflexion than the one above. *Edit for typing faults and underline few things :)*

I will hit on a few points here as I am bored and have nothing else to do atm so I figured this is a good time for a counter wall of text.

Most of the bold I at least partly agree on or figure its such a minor point to argue that its irrelevant to the discussion.

Now thing is from there ABSA moved the troops off of said square and this was considered a relatively even war between ABSA and SkB vs RHY. It seems the best comparison people use these days is that population dictates what is even being that you can't see an alliances military strength in this game.

So lets call it a defensive move (mine issue) though its sort of a matter of debate as it could of been worked out through diplomacy since neither side lost troops at this point. Infact from the early talks in the thread it was already worked out as far as what the agreement would consist of but then were hit as part of your defensive action.

ABSA would of escalated the situation as it was the first loss of troops even after a compromise was met between RHY and SkB. Lets ignore it and say there wasn't a compromise as some may argue that. So ABSA hits RHY which obviously RHY would respond (generally when you start taking hits you hit them back more so when its a completely different 3rd party). This is when ABSA started to get seiged. So ABSA felt then it was ideal to bring even more troops in (VIC) to a fight where it was already relatively even which again escalates a situation that was not needed.

This is when H? steps in (after VIC enters) being that I would define it as being bullied when a fair fight between ABSA and SkB vs RHY is already relatively even and VIC steps in which had almost as much population as the 3 combined (a little less). So tell me should RHY of considered that fair? Lets say that H? did not jump in does that simply mean from here on if Consone disagrees with an action they will bring the full force of Consone in to make it go the way they want? If you want to try and state that your peaceful there is not a single step in this that you tried to pursue peace but rather pushed it further down the hill until you realized you had no more friends to give a major advantage.

RHY vs SkB (argument over a mine)

ABSA hits RHY (to support their confed) (escalated as now troops are involved)

RHY hits ABSA

ABSA calls in VIC (turned a fair fight into a very unfair fight)

H? steps in on side of RHY

H? + RHY vs SkB + ABSA + VIC (even ish likely within a mil or so pop)

ABSA/VIC call in all of Consone (Consone 30 mil pop)

H? brings in their allies to counter Consone declarations (prior to this Consone is ~30 mil pop vs H? 13 mil pop while the rest of the allies on both sides even out so ~17 mil pop advantage on Consone side). This added Dlord, Dark,  and NC to the war (4.7 mil, 1.5 mil and 4.1 mil = 10.3 mil).

So now this means that there is roughly a 7 mil advantage to Consone side while they basically are crying foul. Is that not large enough of an advantage? Consone tried some heavy handed tactics and it backfired painfully. IF Consone was a peaceful alliance it would of sought peace prior to actually pushing what they want with force first.

Mandarins31 wrote: You or any other H?-side/supporter forum poster will try to spin it out... But a resonable and not logic-hermetic mind may have a similar reflexion than the one above.

You had a lot of opinions in your post so I don't feel you were using logic but rather emotion. So by all means you can argue with me of what I stated as its mostly by numbers. If I am wrong on any of those points than by all means.

Mandarins31 wrote: RHY, feeling too offended

Lets say if someone goes and sends an army at your city that is not involved with you in any way I don't think the term they would use will be offended. I also am pretty sure I would react with either asking for reparations. If they insulted me in return after that I would probably seige their cities. Its pretty close to how the actual events went....

Mandarins31 wrote: sieging someone to detroy a part of his account is an overraction

Diplomacy was tried first. These forums have silly rules that I don't really understand but the talks that went on prior to the seige pretty much consisted of ABSA responding very poorly in diplomacy talks and told them to come at them. This was removed by mods because of some random rule I have never seen on a forum before.

The purpose of war is to deal with situations when diplomacy has not worked. That is what happened in these diplomacy talks and it followed the normal path.

Mandarins31 wrote: Consone is 1) a peaceful confederacy

Is strictly an opinion. There is very little proof outside of what is stated on the forums and it being repeated over and over again. Ahmadinejad states that Iran is a peaceful nation also... so did Hitler when he simply wanted to unify his people. Surely they are both true...

Mandarins31 wrote: refrain myself from making a joke with helium

Just remember from here on that I am very noble(gas)! That is all.


Edited by hellion19 - 31 Oct 2012 at 02:37