H? Threaten War On CE, Attempt To Extort 250mil
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Elgea
Forum Description: For everything related to the Elgea Continent
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=4500
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 08:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: H? Threaten War On CE, Attempt To Extort 250mil
Posted By: Poopnug
Subject: H? Threaten War On CE, Attempt To Extort 250mil
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 03:58
|
Open Letter Regarding Gunboat Diplomacy **** MOD EDIT: DON'T POST PRIVATE MESSAGES**** Far from being the kind of inter-alliance diplomacy one might expect from the premier alliance in Illyriad, this amounts to no more than a crude ransom, and from those who have historically been the guardians of sovereign powers in Elgea. The assertion, as it turned out in subsequent mails, is that upon a single CE member sending a van to a member of EE, H? now has the right to demand an exaction of 250 million gold pieces or threaten our destruction. The member in question was with our alliance for a mere fortnight before the trading incident, and since he came seeking refuge from a Consone alliance battered by war, the change in diplomatic particulars must not have had time to sink in. Surely allowances should be made when so much is at stake, for the actions of members who are new to the alliance? Does H? consider it just to destroy an alliance over the actions of a member so new they cannot possibly yet represent the stance of the alliance as a whole? If such lines are to be taken, then day-old recruits could drag whole alliances down with them. Why, someone could join H? tomorrow and promptly siege a Crow town, would that make H? as a whole responsible? Since word reached us (and not from H?, which is yet another indication of the lack of clearly defined sanctions for us smaller alliances to tiptoe around) that trading with our sister alliances was likely to be construed as an act of war, we have dutifully ceased all transactions with all Consone members, with the previously explained exception. The terrifying fact is, that despite the trifling nature of the transgression H? claims we made against them, they are able to casually find reasons where they will to destroy us. We submit this to the Illyriad community: CE has never been involved in a war and does not wish to antagonize anyone, but we cannot conform to the dictates of great powers if they do not even take the time to make clear and public their terms of engagement. The way this has been conducted makes it only too easy for H? to use any number of in-game events, related to the war or not, as justification for our extortion or destruction, which are the only options we have been given. This appears to be a simple way for H? to fatten their coffers, at the expense of any sense of honour, or even fair play. Since the demands placed on us are simply staggering, not just the astronomical payment, but further demands that are simply unrealistic for us to administer; such as the command that we remove all members with accounts in Consone. What demands will be levied against us next? Should we assume that trading with Consone members on the open market are grounds for annihilation? Should we trade only with H? to remain intact? Despite the overwhelming menace arrayed against us, CE remain committed to it’s principles as a passive alliance, and will not respond to attacks made by H? alliance. The record shows us to be an alliance of compromise and deference, always we’ve found non-violent ways to deal with threats to us. H? has demanded the following, lest CE be declared on: A) Pay 250 million gold to H? or B) Boot all players in CE, who hold another account in a Consone alliance H? has been informed of the following: A) Nothing has been sent to EE since we were informed it might draw us into the war B) CE has remained out of the war, and wishes to continue doing so C) CE is not par t of Consone D) CE will not pay the 250 million gold that KillerPoodle is attempting to extort from us. E) CE WILL NOT defend any attacks from H?, and will instead bear the full brunt head on. As was said before, CE wishes no part in the war, and if H? wants to attack us, they can do so with no resistance whatsoever. ***In summary***: H? are now threatening to declare war on CE because a single CE member was intercepted sending res to EE (weeks ago, I might add. Nothing was said about it until today, when I, poopnug, said something in GC about CE NOT being part of Consone). CE has been given 24 hours (at time of this post, about 18 hours remain) to adhere to their demands. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhYY1HF48Lk |
Replies:
Posted By: Vibs
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 04:25
|
Trading with alliances involved in this war = War declaration? Since When? Love to hear the H? side of the story though.
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 04:26
| You wont find a better deal than that! |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 04:32
|
I love the spin you guys try to put on this. Several CE members were caught sending resources to aid consone - chickentooth in one specific example while he was under siege to attempt to help him prestige build and prolong the siege until the (somewhat palty in the end) consone reinforcements could arrive. So, for aiding and abetting the enemy, CE can pay a fine or join the war. FYI one of those caught was a member of their inner council. KP P.S. No trading was involved in the making of this exciting new chapter in the war. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 04:35
|
Also - for deciding to post this in the illy forum to try to garner sympathy - the fine just went up. Have a nice day! :) ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 04:38
|
Last FYI. At least two of CE's three leaders have alts in EE - I guess everyone can do the math from there... KP ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Vibs
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 04:46
| I get the logic KP. But still seems a little extreme. But that's my opinion. |
Posted By: monkeyfeather
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 05:32
|
As I recall KP, all you caught was a shipment of weapons I bought, so how exactly was that helping me prestige build?
So that's one. As for the 'several' others - no specifics? noting new there then...
|
Posted By: TomBombadil
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 05:34
| I'm confused... is CE not a wing of the EE-empire? And as such one of their closest allies? |
Posted By: Poopnug
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 06:12
So now H? is punishing people for posting in the forums?...
|
KillerPoodle wrote:Posted By: Vibs
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 06:20
| Quick Question: Can a blockade differentiate between an incoming van due to a trade and a van that's been sent to provide resources? |
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 06:25
| I don't understand how supplying someone is an act of war? It's done all the time in real life wars. Example, the U.S. was supplying Germany before and while we were fighting them in WWII... |
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 06:34
|
Posted By: EvilKatia
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 06:39
|
I think Angrim gave a good piece of advice yesterday. He suggested thsoe who didnt want to get in this war due to the 'but you're supplying ennemies' argument should trade from hubs only. A bit ackward if you have no trader but I heard the price of wine was down due to the war so maybe not such a bad timing to start it ------------- Kat 'They have to always turn a forum post into a badly written book that gives a headache and takes your iq points' - AO |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 07:05
|
Dammit H?, why is it that whenever I start agreeing with you do some ridiculous unnecessary mustache twirling? Any reasonable and fairly unbiased person will realize you're in the right here, why do you care if they tell the world they've been aiding your enemies? Trying to punish them for it just makes it look like you have something to hide. As I said though, Harmless? is basically justified in my view. Obviously they can't just let people send supplies to their enemies unchecked, and since they caught CE(By the way, seriously guys? It's almost impossible to get caught here, unless you do something stupid like send stuff directly from your cities to one under blockade or talk about it in chat.) they clearly need to take action to stop it. this fine is a bit steep, but not all that terrible for a systematic breech of neutrality. And honestly, you might have tried to negotiate it down. I'd bet H? isn't so eager for new enemies they would push too hard. Worth a try anyway. Also, why would you need anyone to inform you that sending weapons and supplies to combatants is a breech of neutrality? It's pretty obvious. I could see trade being justified, if you were trading with both sides, but you're by your own admission not. As far as the player only having been it CE "a fortnight", where I come from that's two weeks. It takes two weeks to tell a new player you're neutral? Really?
|
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 07:47
|
so by extension, every H? member with an alt in T? needs to leave H? as well, or is this one of those "do as i say, not as i do" kinda things? and 250 million??? guys you have been playing to long, us Eagles give most of our stuff to newbs in our alliances, so it makes it a touch hard to come up with that sort of coin! But i do beleive Chosen Eagles are intent on Passive Resistance! ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Trelling
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 08:08
|
Resistance is Futile ... we [H?] are the Borg ... ------------- In a world where data is coin of the realm, and transmissions are guarded by no better sentinels than man-made codes and corruptible devices, there is no such thing as a secret. Dr Kio Masada |
Posted By: R88
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 08:33
|
Ok the only way i can see an agreeable way to get this situation out of the way is for H? not to take on CE (who is Neutral and trying to stay out of the war) is for H? to go for the specific players that helped rather than punishing the entire Alliance. as Aurordan said
this is my opinion so sorry if i offended anyone R88  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 09:51
"The Chosen Eagles are proud to announce the coming together of The Chosen and The Eagles Eyrie Alliance to become the second wing of the Eagles Empire. The Chosen Eagles are not a training alliance" Nope ... the differences are that unlike T?, CE is NOT a training alliance and the most important is that T? is not sending anything to H? as far as I know ... and if you want your alt, your friends or accounts you sit for to help you out with crafting cattle for example (like I do), all you have to do is NOT PUT THEM IN ANOTHER ALLIANCE that does not participate in the war OR do not put them in ANY alliance whatsoever ! Wouldn't you agree that it is a reasonable choice to not involve others in such ventures .?. Also, it is not as if in this game people go around and attack any random fellow sitting idle without alliance affiliation ... too many juicy abandonded accounts exist for those warlike people to attack or steal from. You can attack my friend (considering that you can find him), but hey that is the risk in participating in the war ... So, I think that the matter is quite straightforward here ... having alts or friends outside alliances helping you is one thing and contains a certain risk, but it is a honest enough idea ... placing alts in other alliances NOT participating in the war and hiding behind that "peace curtain" while in fact you are helping them out with resources and shout "I am peaceful, I am peaceful" to gather sympathy, is quite a different concept.
... as for the fine, yes, if you or me ALONE where asked for such a sum it could be an impossible sum, but for a whole alliance .?.
I think the raise was for your failed blatant propaganda attempt, not for "simply posting" ...  Really, they caught you people redhanded sneaking around in sieges with resources and you name war reparations as an extortion while filling your thread with all that lucid mumbo-jumbo ("terrifying", "trifling", "dictates") .?. Naahhh ... I can applaud your richness in vocabulary, but the synthesis was very "poor" indeed.
ehmm that may be ... but are you proud of that .?. I'd guess not ... |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 12:17
No poop, H?'s policy is issues are handled on their Embassy forum, and it stays there. Every time I've seen it spill over from there to here, it became a cluster-F*, and H? folks have 0 tolerance for it. ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 12:41
Whichever side is right here, H?'s letter isn't a too glorious example for diplomacy... If KP would have said something along: "Hey, we have found some caravans belonging to you, please explain, and try to stop that as far as possible." I'm sure CE wouldn't have a problem with that. But bringing along a ludicrious ransom isn't the way I'd choose to ensure an alliance to stay neutral in a war  . Why not trying to be nice, for an instance?! It is said to possible win you some friends...  About forum posting... Yes, there is a lot of rubbish accumulating around the war threads. But for CE to openly declare their neutrality DESPITE nice mails from KP, H?'s embassy would have been the wrong place, I fear.
|
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 13:13
That is one sentiment, but it's just not how H? rolls... ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: EvilKatia
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 13:23
|
[/QUOTE] No poop, H?'s policy is issues are handled on their Embassy forum, and it stays there. Every time I've seen it spill over from there to here, it became a cluster-F*, and H? folks have 0 tolerance for it. [/QUOTE]
 99% of the time anything going in here become a cluster-F* and not just with H? ur all too right with that !
------------- Kat 'They have to always turn a forum post into a badly written book that gives a headache and takes your iq points' - AO |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 13:53
|
Deranzin, i think you missed my point, H? has asked all CE members to withdraw themselves from any Consone alliance, so i am making a comparison that if a T? member has an alt in H?, shouldn't they by extension pull out of H?, because its not a training alliance? You can probably take this all for semantics, (god knows we do!), but the point at the end of the day is you guys either want the territroy CE currently occupies, or you want gold to fund your campaign. So for the sake of clarity, fill in the blanks! ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 13:56
| Or they just want CE to never do it again? |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 14:20
|
theres alot of sneaky stuff happening that the leaders of alliances are probably not aware of, 250 million doesnt seem alot of gold for a whole alliance and everyone should know that u dont send resources to a siege town unless u prepare for what may come back at you..spells should be added to this also, especially when a neutral casts a mana backed geo to protect...alliances act as an unit, the alliance is responsible for all its members..payment is cost of possible wasted time of harm?..and i agree with the increase....sorry but alliances have to be responsible for the play of its members, it sounds like a costly mistake but very fair |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 14:21
|
The idea that H? needs to be nice to make friends is silly. If H? does something unsavory, it is every players right to attempt to put a stop to it. Trading with the (subjective) enemy has a long, multinational tradition. I know it's all the rage to pile on the the U.S. but there are examples all throughout history and it won't stop now. Only thing is, the consequences cannot be sidestepped by saying "but they did it." When you're caught, you're caught. Lest we forget, he who has the weapons makes the rules, regardless of where they were made. ------------- |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 14:28
For the sake of clarity, TOOTHLESS IS A TRAINING ALLIANCE and as far as I know we have not received any help from them and remain neutral as all traning alliances have declared. CE is NOT A TRAINING ALLIANCE and I will re-quote their profile page for you since you ignored it : "The Chosen Eagles are proud to announce the coming together of The Chosen and The Eagles Eyrie Alliance to become the second wing of the Eagles Empire. The Chosen Eagles are not a training alliance, but we will invite new members on a one to one basis. " (this from their OWN profile page) ... plus, CE, despite its cries for neutrality, was CAUGHT IN THE ACT of sending resources to sieges. What exactly is unclear for you .?. Semantics you said .?. Crystal clear situation I say and with very definite and tangible differences. So, please stop trying to equate obviously non-similar situations.
Have a nice day :) |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 14:36
|
Personnaly I would be interested to know the full details of H's claim against CE, before making any judgement on it. So many people here are so quick to explode at a simple post, whilst these posts are so clearly one sided propaganda driven dribble. So did H merely demand payment or war with no other altimatum, if so I would feel this is a little extreme, however still I can understand why H would want to take some action given the circumstance. similar to what R88 posted I feel an altimatum of a war declaration followed by aggresion against only those offenders caught would be proper. If others wished to defend them then they through choice would be defending their actions and therefore would also become justified as targets for H. CE still claim they wish to be a neutral alliancce in the war, but how can this be if their leaderships sees nothing wrong with supplying a warring alliance with resources, yet beleives the opposition have nothing to hold against them.... obviously they are involved... Someone compared this to the US and Nazi Germany, personnaly I feel a better analogy is the US and Isreal. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 14:39
| i am personally going to send 1 million gold to ce so they dont have to be in the war, i urge everyone else to send them gold...no amount is too small....and i hope they spank their offending member |
Posted By: GM Luna
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 15:27
|
Stay on topic. Quit trolling each other. Discuss the issue without insults and off topic nastiness or don't post. Anyone else who continues to drag down the level of discussion on these forums will be banned. GM Luna ------------- GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk 
|
Posted By: Sister Nikki
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 15:39
|
1st 250 million gold is nothing, now if you believe that is reasonable to give or not that is a decision to be taken. 2nd when I do not want to be involved in a war or in any hostilities I do not sell or try to gain profit from the conflict but who can resist on the profit or friendship. Still is risky. 3rd Recently members of a "neutral" alliance have been caught helping in a siege, just thought that they could join an oportunity to sneak helping, sieging and fighting under anonymity. So when you help an alliance in war either by providing resources or participating in battles both are considered as Casus belli at least if we make the interrelationships alliance = country. Now there could be a difference in trade and war supplying when trading is happening every day and hour and war supplying when you support a city under siege which is very obvious from the timing, the numbers of vans and the speed on them. Recently just for the history even the cyberattacks are considered as reason for war from some countries. What I do see unfortunately is that many do not like to get involved in a war clearly, but prefere to participate sneaky on the war. Something more Inappropriate is that althouth the history has condemned as the worst action "Pearl Harbor" many are mimic this action. So as people how we judge this actions and what have we learned from our history is well pesented in Illyriad world. |
Posted By: Sister Nikki
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 15:41
I can also donate if this is the real problem 10mg |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 15:56
Entirely my point. Why demand something like that in the first place then! Write: "Please stop, if you want to stay neutral", and that's it. Simple, direct, honest. Putting fees on it, makes that message look quite arrogant, top-down and more like a blackmailing letter than a diplomatic document. Diplomacy is all about wording and respect, and those letters (if cited correctly) had none of that, I'm afraid.
|
Posted By: Sister Nikki
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 16:06
|
I dont think Hora that gameplayer or I have writen the fist statement but for me at least means: "because you have done so pay the consequences, pay the penalty" Why we assume that diplomacy works after our actions and not before them? Do we have ignorance of our actions or we just try to act and not be caught, so there isnt a big deal ? |
Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 16:48
|
Hora do you really think H? care of 250M? 250M is not much for an alliance but might help remember not to do it again.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 17:10
Hora - if it was one small member doing this then maybe I'd have done it that way. As it is it was one of their 3 leaders - which means they knew exactly what they were doing - it warrants a different level of response. Then there was the lie from Spotem about it being "some new folks we took in from FF" - I mean, if their own diplomats are going to lie directly to me about it why on earth would I try to continue negotiating with them? As others have stated 250mill gold is basically nothing especially for a "peaceful" alliance - but it might help jog their memories next time they think about it - and it might have an impact on everyone else thinking about sneaking some help in. Plus - haven't you guys ever heard of a counter offer? It's also to do with poop's posturing on here and in GC - tbh honest it was kinda fun to take the wind out of his sails from "We have nothing to do with this war" and "no one has been sending stuff to EE" down to "oh shoot, you actually have proof, now I'm gonna have to try to do some damage control because we were caught red handed". Bottom line (and I've said it all along) - If you decide to mess with H? you better hold on to your hats because it's gonna get ugly pretty fast. Finally, to those who are trying to drag T? into this - down that way lies your destruction. I can categorically state that there has been zero assistance in any way shape or form from T? to H? They are completely neutral (unlike CE) and so do not need to be commented about in this discussion. Unlike poop and his spin team I can state that in complete honesty. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 17:20
|
People, War is not some skirmish and the consequenses are/can be more extreme. There are repercussions to actions and you (the offendee) don't get to determine what the punishment will be. If you wish to stay neutral, don't become involved in way, shape, form, or fashion. Anyone who presumes sending aid (whether supplies or siege busters) somehow means they are not involved; 1. doesn't understand what 'involved' means much less entails and 2. doesn't have the faintest concept regarding the mechanics of the established game play during wars. Established as in, it has happened before and is something utilized and though not always the only option, is in fact one of the options used to help others understand the depth of their mistake. Dlord has done this very same thing in past wars and it was tried on us, once. If they truly desire to be neutral, they can pay the price and stay out. If they, as an alliance, cannot come up with the gold, they have other EE alliances that can help keep their Eagles out of harms way. Nothing wrong with that either. |
Posted By: Silverlake
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 19:08
|
Party A does something bad to Party B Party B asks for compensation from Party A Party A lies publicly about involvement to mitigate damages and gain public support Party B calls out Party A on lies Party C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z state opinions Did I miss anything? ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/57338" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Southern Dwarf
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 20:05
|
Well yes, does a war declaration follow or did you only choose to provoke such a discussion here? ------------- Also known as Afaslizo ingame. |
Posted By: Mogul
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 20:15
 As a member of party D my opinion is that first two lines should be: Party A does something good to Party C Party B asks for penalty from Party A because Party B believes it is ruler of the alphabet and Party C is evil |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 20:23
|
I would like to be part of party AA :D And unless we look at the global pop of illy and see it drop we are all fine. Even if all these alliances completely obliterate each other, the game will go on just lots of smaller alliances that we don't mention here will be the big players.
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 21:15
|
FYI - CE have refused to make a counter offer despite my invitation and have decided to martyr themselves - It's nice of the leadership to show so little regard for their members - just the kid of folk you want running your alliance, liars and martyrs. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Poopnug
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 22:06
|
Sister Nikki Posted: Today at 15:39: “I do not sell or try to gain profit from the conflict but who can resist on the profit” What evidence is there that CE were attempting to profit from the war? To prove that, you would have to have evidence of gold passing from Consone to us. And the only way to do that would be to fabricate it, because it didn’t. This is also a little rich in context as we are talking about an alliance that is offering us the choice between total destruction or a payment of 250 million gold. Hang on... that sounds a little like... profiting from the war! Drejan Posted: Today at 16:48: “Hora do you really think H? care of 250M? 250M is not much for an alliance but might help remember not to do it again.” KillerPoodle Posted: Today at 17:10: “but it might help jog their memories next time they think about it” Both of these statements are disingenuous, the fact is, as evidenced by the chat snippet you graciously provided, our leadership were not aware that trading with our sister alliance was verboten until the 7th. The city in question was destroyed by yourselves on the 8th. The mail you sent to us clearly shows that the van was in transit for 1 day and 6 hours. So it could not have left after the point our leadership received word from EE that trading with them might be frowned upon. The upshot of this, is that CE has been fully compliant since the point we became aware of the directive. You have created a sanction which incriminates us retroactively by 15 days. Where is it written that trading with our sister alliance is grounds for annihilation? If you want to dictate the behavior of peripheral alliances in this contest, then the onus is on you to make clear the terms of engagement, we received no communication from yourselves that we were to modify our typical behavior in any way. It’s just too convenient to declare a Casus Belli after the fact, without warning and without proper investigation. “Then there was the lie from Spotem about it being "some new folks we took in from FF"” The van that was intercepted was indeed from a former FF member who arrived in our alliance on the 22 of October; check your outbox. Our member was speaking of this van you referenced in your mail, there were no untruths in what he said. Your assertion that our leadership was supplying EE is based on a chat snippet which you have chosen to interpret in a way which incriminates us. But all that exists in that snippet is a warning from an EE member to a CE member that “those vans might get caught”. The EE member could have been referring to vans containing some herbs or books, ordered by a fledgling eagle on the open market. It does not follow that the statement equals an industrial effort to turn the course of the war. And as we have mentioned, since we were made aware, all trade with our sister alliance has ceased. “and it might have an impact on everyone else thinking about sneaking some help in” A double standard? Unsurprising. It’s hard to see how an alliance which has publicly outed itself as retaining moles in other alliance (as evidenced by the obtaining of a chat snippet from EE ac) can accuse others of sneaking with a straight face . In summary, the justifications you have attempted to make regarding “teaching us a lesson” and “making us think twice” are based on assumptions you have made about evidence that is gathering dust as we speak and furthermore are a nonsense because since the events under discussion, CE has already made itself compliant, fully 15 days in advance of your cumbersome threats. Attacking us now would be flogging a dead horse. As for a counter offer, Chosen recognizes that our player who sent the van referred to in KillerPoodle’s mail acted outside the intentions of our leadership, albeit before CE were made aware of any possibility of recrimination. As such, to placate the beast, we are willing to offer 10 million gold pieces to make clear that despite the fact that the sending of that van was not known to us, and furthermore, happened before CE leaders put policy in place to prevent it being sent; it has never been our intention to be involved in the war, and certainly not to enrage great powers. As an addendum to our counter-offer, we would ask that H? make it’s policy on the behavior of peripheral alliances clear and public before acting on them, rather than inventing them as they go along in the manner that most benefits their prerogative at the time. What of the alliances that just want to be left in peace, and are willing to comply with goliaths to that end? In closing, some players have mentioned that our first post might have broken forum rules by directly quoting an in-game mail. We’d like to apologize to the Devs and community for this oversight, as we struggled to get the post together in good time. Sorry! |
Posted By: Mogul
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 22:35
 |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 23:23
|
More lies I see. I will not negotiate in public on a forum - cease showboating or deal with the consequences.
------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Darmon
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 01:10
| Out of curiosity, if CE gave H? the 250 million gold - in this example, because they do want to stay out of the war - couldn't that money be used for war-related purposes? Seems like financially backing the enemies of your friends is a bad way to stay neutral (but a good way to lose friends). |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 03:59
|
Darmon - you should also think about the H? troops lost and their gold equiv due to CE prolonging the siege by supplying EE. Let's say (for example) that H? had an extra 50K crossbowmen (which are cheaper than true shots IIRC) destroyed because CE helped prolong that siege until more Soup Cavalry arrived. Based on just the market value of the equipment (100K bows and 100K leather armor) the cost to H? was 130million gold. Then figure in the fact that you cannot buy troops (something Chicken is very keen on pointing out) and the opportunity cost of 50K spears is around 3 months of a heavily bonused barracks production. still think 250mill is unreasonable? ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 04:00
If losing a city or three totally destroys your alliance then it probably wasn't worth much to start. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Darmon
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 04:40
I guess that makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to detail it out for me. I consider it a real treat, since it's probably not particularly beneficial to explain things for every neutral/nobody (of which I am both) that comes along. Hopefully it's insightful for other forum-readers baffled by some of the details of this war business (or newer players, or whatever). Does that mean that the 250 million value that was initially quoted had some basis in the length of particular sieges, as well as the H? (or allied) losses at said sieges? Sometimes when people bring up specific numbers without all the context, they seem like they're out of thin air (though maybe after playing the game long enough, it becomes easier to make rough estimates). Also, wouldn't that imply that even if CE was on their best behavior (not posting this here) that the number would go up during the course of negotiations (if they dragged on)? Let's imagine that until they made a decision and/or adequate assurances of neutrality were made, there was still the possibility that they could be assisting parties involved in the war. Or am I missing something by mentally simplifying the number as (X million gold per hour) as a rough approximation of the costs incurred by H? (and allies) to extend the length of sieges? Maybe it's not a good way to think about it, in the particular scenario where *maybe* reinforcements still don't arrive in time to cause extra casualties. But as you point out, there are still opportunity costs, one of which might be having armies tied up in one siege longer than they need to be, which means they aren't somewhere else doing something else (which I suppose could extend the duration of the entire war).
|
Posted By: Poopnug
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 05:20
|
Update: CE has offered H? 10mil gold in recompense for the van that was intercepted, and 20mil gold for every player that sent res to EE after Nov. 7th, with proper reports of course. KP has declined the offer, asking that we tally a list of every single person in CE who has sent anything at all to EE since the beginning of the war, and pay 20mil for every single one. It really is hard to know policies when they are not properly posted. And saying that we "should" know only implies that you know, and we dont. So I dont think that is an adequate argument. There is nothing "official" about this H? policy that I can tell. It is not CEs responsibility to contact H? and ask questions regarding their policies and punishments. I do feel however, that it is H? responsibility to let the Illy community know EXACTLY what their rules of engagement are. Discussions are being handled out of forum at KPs request. Maybe he doesnt want to tack on more fines in gold for CE using a public forum (something I have never seen in my time in Illy,), which is very considerate. Though I wonder why its ok for KP and other H? members to continue posting here, and CE is threatened with action when we respond, twice now. We will contact KP soon for further discussion. Thank you.
|
Posted By: Southern Dwarf
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 09:11
|
I traded a load of clay with beer for fun with twilights. According to H? this beer might help me in the war (I shipped it to newbies instead since I do not push the dogma that this is a wargame which is the ultimate goal of H? in my eyes) so the logical conclusion would be a dissolving of their alliance with Dark Empire and a threatening for war against them because I potentially could have build troops with the beer which would account for possible thousands of gold lost. I am waiting . . . . . . for H? to stop acting silly. ------------- Also known as Afaslizo ingame. |
Posted By: Ossian
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 10:19
I must admit even I didn't forsee this type of action coming from H? and when reading some of the attempts to explain or justify by H? players and supporters, in this thread, I think that some of them will have to admit that they had to tie themselves in verbal knots to do so.
I understand the strategy that might lie behind this, of course, ie starve your enemy of resources and increase your own - but to do it in such a ham fisted and ugly way will only bring negative consequences..
If power and successful diplomacy are the true measure of success in the eyes of the community then sending mails demanding 2.5 mill on pain of destruction to alliances not directly involved in the war is ... a big fail! Whatever happended to finesse?
It was clumsy , brutish and undermines any attempt by H? to remove the label of the "Bully Alliance " that others seek to apply to it.
|
Posted By: hellion19
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 10:27
So here I am going to just put a guess out there. In roughly a week the supplies moved to the city will actually be a conspiracy made up by H? in order to extort 250 mil which will go to the 'club a baby seal' foundation. This should work like a charm as long as none of those meddling kids show up 
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 10:37
No, we won't ... personally the only thing I have tied recently is my shoelaces ... Seriously though, you have to understand that just because you say something, that doesn't make it so and you have to use something called LOGIC and form an ARGUMENT in order to make what you say actually convincing. Start by desputing this logic based on the game mechanics and costs :
And then, maybe, you might make some sense in that proclamation about verbal knots you made ... |
Posted By: Ossian
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 10:38
This word spelt d-i-s-p-u-t-i-n-g. When you get that right then maybe I'll pay more attention to your theories on logic and arguement. Unitl then you are not a qualified H? spin doctor. Go to the botoom of the class and sit next to Lawnie
 |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 10:42
Spare us the epithets and comment on the essense on the matter if you can ...
We all bow to your eloquence and your quality arguments ... I rest my case and thank you for sparing me the trouble to actually have an argument to prove your allegations as unfounded ... apparently you took care of that yourself and degraded your own self ... |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 12:14
| i am sending harm? a few cases of PBR so they can have a big beer party as punishment for sending several beers to my enemies before i kill them, likewise i will continue sending beers to any that gets spanked to lessen the sting, i have been totally exposed and now must put my clothing back on...and please stop telling me to watch my behind, i do butt crunches every morning and u freak me thats it looks big...i totally back everything that happens in this war and maybe people have to realize that the only safe spot is in a training alliance |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 12:25
PBR? seriously? at least send them something that isnt coloured water... I suggest Old Rasputin. ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 14:41
The eyes of the community, glazed over as they are have no bearing on actual success or failure. It's a song and dance that "they" want. Entertain "them" and all is quickly and quietly forgotten. ------------- |
Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 15:13
|
So you really want to say that sending Millions of resources in 24h to help prestiging a city during a siege is not an help? So why are you placing blockades during your sieges? Oh right this is from who pretend attacking sieges is not an help in a war.
|
Posted By: Spotem
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 16:26
|
Let me first apologise for the wall of text! KillerPoodle, Your calculations (which stretches the definition somewhat) do you no credit. Let us not just say that 50k crossbowmen were destroyed, let us have the actual numbers please. But you cannot give them to us, because you don’t have them. What you are saying is that CE were 100% responsible for every death that occurred beyond a certain point in that siege. For that to be true, those resources you stopped in that blockade would have to have been instantly transmuted into defensive power enough to prolong the siege to the point where you lost 50 thousand crossbowmen. Which of course, didn't happen... because it was blocked. Furthermore, your own argument states that troops cannot simply be bought, so how then could a van that never arrived to the city under discussion have instantly caused enough defenders to kill 50 thousand crossbowmen to sprout out of the ground? Besides, you are flip-flopping now, first it was a punishment, then you ratcheted up the fee because we went public, which can only be described as spite, and now it’s compensation? You cannot form a metric on numbers you do not have. You are assuming that resources from CE allowed EE to prolong that siege, but how do you measure from what point that city was holding out purely due to CE’s efforts? Was that city full of CE defenders from the specified point? Not at all. Were there troops there that had been bought with CE funds? By your own admission, troops take a long time to build, months at the scales you’re talking about. The war has only been going since the 13th of October. Up to the 7th of November, that’s 25 days. What’s more, as you can see from the data, CE were making stringent efforts in the tourney, which ended on the 31st. Now we’re down to a mere 7 days of potential supply efforts, and potential troop building. In your own argument against us, your troops take three months to build up. Why are EE’s troops so much quicker to build, while their city is under siege I might add? You’d also have to factor in the fact that the van you blocked was the exception and not the rule, and furthermore that it carried only 1000 of three mystery goods. How could EE have used these measly resources to prolong the war? Especially since they never arrived? You are grossly overestimating the scale of trading going on between us and our sister alliances prior to the 7th. So yes, 250 million is unreasonable because: A) You didn't engage in diplomacy first, you went straight to the ultimatum before making an inquiry to us. If you had, you would have found out that we were compliant since the 7th, and you know we were, check our alliance mails, which shouldn't be too much trouble for you. B) It is not based on any reasonable effort to actually estimate damages, the van you blocked had a measly 1000 units of three unknown resources in it... How many troops can you build with that when you’re town is hours away from being razed? C) Your language which cites such reasons as “making us think twice” and raising the fine on a whim make it clear that this is not about any wrong done to you, but about might is right. D) Your insistence that we cut off all ties with Consone, including any alts our players have is a bridge too far. If that is your line, then other alliances with alts in Consone are also violating your murky terms of war; will you be declaring war on them now? Not to mention players in other alliances that have alts in your alliance; are they now fair game for Consone? Keep this squabble between yourselves please; it might surprise you, but some of us don’t pay much attention to GC, isn't it conceivable that someone could simply not know that trading with a sister alliance was grounds for war?  |
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 17:00
|
This thread starts to confuse me, quick plausibility check: A city under siege can use prestige and basic resources to rebuild some damages caused by the hourly bombardments. Vans with weapons breaking the blockade are completely irrelevant, lots of vans with lots of basic resources help. Instant building can delay the raze, and reinforcements (incl. direct attacks on the siege armies) might arrive in time.
These late reinforcements could cause a damage of 50K troops on the side of the attacker, it could be also 1200, and both sides can check their battle reports to figure it out. Is that correct  |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 17:15
Stop taking the quote of 50k crossbows so literally. For 1, its highly unlikely there would be a siege, where one alliances just happened to use only human units and only archers. For 2, casualties would be very unlikely to round to the nice 50k number. For 3, The 50k crowssbow example doesn't even equal the 250M For 4, Stop arguing over the details of something that don't even apply. It makes you look ignorant.
|
Posted By: Chaos Armor
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 18:23
| Keep in mind that there is a dice roll when a caravan tries to enter a city. There is a chance that a caravan will get through the blockade and therefore there could have been caravans that H? didn't intercept. Even with eight blockades on a city there is still a chance for caravans to get through. So, "1,000 of three mystery goods" could have been only one of the many supply caravans that entered into the city. |
Posted By: hellion19
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 20:59
Perhaps being that your likely on the other side of said thing you could say I am actually trying to be helpful. The last conspiracy I felt was pretty dull and lacked any real creativity. You have to remember if you want a conspiracy to last you need it to at least sound decent. Either way you look at it I don't see much argument that said alliance wasn't helping people involved in the war. Rather they are just unhappy they were told to pay damages for said help. The rule of thumb I have used in most games I played is that if someone is assisting my enemy then that makes them my enemy. A friend doesn't send aid to your enemy and a neutral usually stays neutral in a war. Perhaps what you call extorting is really considered being nice. 250 mil vs aggressive action is the trade off you get the option of. Its very possible if other leaders found someone doing the same they would not of given the option of 250 mil and just considered you a hostile. |