1.  Siege a member of the alliance you are at war with, even though they have not attacked, nor have they sent diplomats against your alliance?  They have not participated at all.

2.  They left the warring alliance without taking any action against another alliance.

3. They wrote you after you stated a siege against them, and they told you "Hey, I had a death in the family, I have been inactive for months, and I did not participate in the war.  I only want to continue playing the game, please stop the siege against me."

4. You write back:

Do your duty and be a good distraction so that your alliance can kill more! Waaargh!

Didn't you hear Kilotov, Rorgash? "H are the masters of Illy". When masters speak, kobolds stay silent. 

Do your duty and go and wash the car. (just kidding!) 

>1. I can't verify that you are not a sitter.
That simply does not matter or justify continuing an attack imho. You cannot prove that they are a sitter either. In reality you are attacking a player who left the war. Whatever justification you make, the burden of proof  to show that they are still participating in the war is on you. If the are providing substantial aid to the group you are at war with then yeah, it is imho right to continue the war on them. Otherwise the attack isn't a war effort - it's an unjustified attack on that player.

All of that said, I do not know any specifics regarding Rhea/Yahweh/Denve or what situation this may pertain to specifically. If the aggression toward the player is really about the player multi-accounting and being a spy, then imho the aggression is justified. I loathe any player who multi-accounts in order to spy on another group as I loathe any group that condones that kind of thing. However if that is the reason the attacker is justifying the attacks then he should say so and not try to justify it by accrediting to a war the person is no longer involved in.

that's my nickels worth. - M.

It was hard I think for personnal friends( Silver ?) of her to see her sieged when they knew she wasnt even around just sayin'.....

Wich is why H? drop her in the hope she would stop being a target....and then well....she lost another city today even in a neutral alliance....

P.S. Rhea said she put the siege behidn her but she is human to all her friends why dont u igm her :) she will enjoy that :).

Edited to try to have control over the typos (yeah I Know I'm hopeless over that :( )

I was responding to Silverlake, not to Rhea/Yahweh or to the question when a player should or should not be attacked. I mentioned the previous incidents because Silverlake seems confused, as to what has been happening in the war so far.

Fighting H/DLord/Dark/BSH/TCol/CoK/~N~/NC/NA/RES/Curse is busy. Once the war is over and we survive, I will be happy to answer any questions to folks for record keeping (or for their curiosity) 

And thanks EvilKatia, for clarifying things for the sake of everyone

Denver was in Dark when the war began. He was inactive. ahaliel was active and in the middle of Dark's stronghold in The Western Realms. Dark made a deal with Vicx leadership according to which both players will leave their alliances and remain neutral and unharmed. Denver was kicked out of Dark. Then, while Dark was fighting Vic in The Western Realms, ahaliel went against the agreement and without any warning attacked our siege camp in strength. Dark then chased him out of our territory. 2 of his cities were razed and he exodused the 3rd. In my view his actions were dishonourable and he paid for that. 

1) I don't believe this should have been aired in public.

2) While I appreciate the attempt to give me yet more credit for successful sieges, the game merely signed me as the "in charge" commander due to having the oldest commander there.  It was another member's engines that completed the siege for RHY against vty.  My siege armies were on the way to a different target but did not arrive before RHY was able to complete the raze. (http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/-501/-83).  I actually thought that my target city was exodus'd at first.  

3) Thes Hunter's actions prior to the war are a part of the many reasons that lead to H?'s response and determination.  

@all H? players: If you don't want to be part of this war then you have to leave H? and join a neutral alliance. But this won't work while being under siege.   

@Silver: I guess I'm supposed to be defend my honor here. It's sad that we can't discuss anymore. Your "you have no honor" igm did really hurt. 

Some simple facts:

1. An agreement was made with Vicx that ahaliel remains neutral in the war. Ahaliel attacked Dark without provocation after the agreement.

2. Dark had a confidential confed agreement with H? well before the war started. Dark was not ready or getting ready for any war. We participated in the tournament and lost at least 200k troops if not more before we had to recall our troops and abandon the tournament because the war began.

3. Dark's war against NC was only declared because NC attacked Steel. Dark had no special love or hate to NC before or after that war. Dark is not confed with NC even now. Dark is fighting because we are confed and friends with H? who always treated us with honour.

4. Dark has never broken any agreement with any alliance and will do its best not to do so in the future.

Yahweh is apparently her son, so we find it strange that when she changed alliances her son did not do the same.

BTW, I am a troll and not related to the account RugRat, which came into being some months after I joined this forum, so have fun with that.

Oh for goodness sake. Why does everything on this forum have to be taken as personal attacks. There's a war going on. Mess happens in war.

Rhea was messaged at the start of the war, Oct 23rd to be precise, by me personally. She wasn't advised to exodus or leave H? I simply asked whether she intended to participate in the war, I recieved no answer whatsoever, she remained in H? - an enemy alliance.

When she went innactive H? kicked her out - so I fail to see why Silverlake is even involved in this discussion or started it in the first place.

We sieged innactive ex enemy accounts in our heartland. Anyone see anything wrong in that?

Timing on the last one when she reappeared was unfortunate but hardly something to get all worked up about - unless anyone expects players to be on line 24/7 and then immediately respond or even read every message sent. 

I have personally spoken to Rhea several times since and I have also spoken to the leader of the alliance she is in now. 

Nothing to do with anyone else.

Nevertheless this entire issue is hardly worthy of a forum thread started by one of the leaders of the alliance that kicked her out in the first place...which makes me wonder how much of this is concern for an ex comrade or an attempt to make propaganda out of her misfortune.

It is nobody else's business, apart from the leadership of Vicx, the leadership of TO and Rhea herself.

It's everyone's business since Rhea came on to GC asking the community for help.  At the time, she was unaligned, had not participated in war, and just returned from a period of inactivity to see that was she was being attacked.  When Rhea advised the attackers she had just returned from inactivity, fresh attacks were launched against her city.

Rhea was not actually inactive, she had simply been away for a while.  Inactives do not actually resume play.  However, these sorts of mistakes in identifying inactives do happen and most attackers immediately stop attacks and offer assistance to the victim.  As I saw, Consone accelerated attacks against Rhea upon learning of their mistake.

"ex-H? player" is irrelevant in this case since Rhea had taken no action in the war.

Unfortunately, H? did not have a sitter to watch the account.  This makes it pretty much impossible to defend or save a city when it comes under fire due to their locations and travel time involved.  Before Rhea's inactivity there was a request to assign a sitter and/or even leave the alliance during the war.  Due to the abruptness of RL, this was not accomplished so it was decided to keep the account with H? as long as possible so that it wouldn't be immediately besieged out of existence for assumption of "inactivity."  

When the account came under fire, it placed us in a damned if we do damned if we don't situation. We could no longer let the account idle.  After further discussion, we decided that if we kept the account in H? it would be the more harmful course of action since there would be almost no way to mount any effective defense.  And, remaining a part of H? while that vulnerable would probably draw a more concentrated and focused series of attacks on her cities.  

I will state again just so that it is clear:  The only reason Rhea was kicked from H? was due to the belief it would be the most beneficial to her account since we did not have a sitter to help defend verse a siege.  As it stands, I believe we made the correct decision kicking Rhea from H? and I, personally, thank both Vicx and T-O for their quick negotiations ending the attacks against Rhea.  

Stupid .?. What exactly is stupid about not harming people that can do you no harm or cannot really retaliate .?. 

Is a war to be used as an excuse for EVERYTHING .?. 

Personally, when settling a new city recently, I asked for the permission of a nearby ABSA member, and took the trouble of getting the V level sov needed when, in fact, I could have actually sieged him and taken the plot in a much faster and efficient way or taken his town and save me even more trouble. But I did not, because I find attacking smaller player's towns repulsive and I do not use as an excuse that I have been attacked by people that have 40000+ population than me (ergo I cannot really counter-attack).

Also, when at some point it was raining blights at one of my cities I attacked the most possible culprit and when his sitter said that he didn't do it, I didn't ask for any "proof" and what-not, but I believed him because it was the right thing to do. Maybe it sounds "stupid" to you too, but later I discovered that he was telling the truth ... imagine if I had been "suspicious" and continued ... how would I have repaid the damage and how "nice" would my neighbour feel after the war was ended to be attacked only because he showed red in the map and someone else was being sneaky about his spellcasting .?.

If people want to hide behind their alliances and shout like kids "niah niah niah, but you did this and that" and have no shame of their OWN PERSONAL actions, this is not anyone's problem, but everyone should be reminded that the players and their alliances (leadership excluded) are not one and the same and you cannot hold one player accountable for whatever a whole alliance does and that you shouldn't attack others simply for their color on a map.

So, if some of you feel good about themselves about winning over a player that wasn't even there to use its own defenses, then what can I say other than suggesting you similar "entertaining" and "challenging" activities like : stealing candy from kids, playing basketball  against people on wheelchairs and maybe stomping anthills in your back-yard. 

Congratulations for your victory over a missing opponent :p 

Well, I do not know about spies and what-not Anderrent, but imho a smart spy wouldn't break cover like that and a clever alliance would have planted said person aaaages ago and without any suspicious previous affiliations (preferably none). 

 

But this is a game, not a James Bond film ;) 

It was simply sieging innactive cities in our heartland, the owner of them happened by chance to be an ex member of an alliance we are at war with who had never responded to previous enquires as to their stance on the war. If no one of your friends or alliance mates has ever sieged an innactive then you have a right to say something on the matter -  I doubt that is the case. As I explained originally the timing of the last siege was just unfortunate as Rhea became active again, but the situation has now been resolved.

As far as i can see this thread has totally changed tack and is just being used for propaganda purposes - with the exception of Anjire's post.

Therefore i will no longer bother to explain a perfectly justified siege on an innactive player and wish you joy of your attempt to blacken our alliances name.

First Rhea, Yaweh and Denver are not the same person Denver is Yaweh's alt and Rheas alt is in a neutral alliance not involved in this war.

Secondly Vicx acted immedately in ending the attacks and sieges against Rhea for that we are grateful 

As for Aha I will not get into a debate about his honor or his reasons on this forum but I will say I think he acted without his alliances sanction in continuing with the siege (that is only a guess) And that he had sufficient information well before the siege was concluded that should of in my opinion been enough to recall his siege.

Last I want to thank Mahaut for her help in resolving this issue as quickly as she did.

Rhea holds no ill will against anyone and only wants to rebuild her account in peace. I ask that she be allowed to do so and this debate be put to rest.

I never said ANYTHING about your alliances, but I spoke about the people that were involved presonally and I think that I was crystal clear on that. So, try a bit better if you want to avoid answering by shouting "propaganda" "propaganda" (another easy solution to many problems lately).

Also, that account was innactive temporarily and of what I see from the posts, many people knew why. 

It is totally different sieging abandoned accounts or inactives that will not return and sieging people that declared publicly a RL problem and said that they will be back whenever they resolve their issues.

EDIT : 

Once, during this war, I made the mistake of attacking an innactive neutral (haven't seen a pop chage for a long time and my IGM was unread for weeks) and when the person came back he IGMed me that he plays sporadically and asked to be left in peace even if he is 3 squares away from my city. I did so respecting his playstyle and I paid back in double for the damages (I had stolen some basic res and sent back lots of T2 res). 

Imho paying some compensation for making a mistake and respecting other people's playstyle and issues, is not "stupid".

If you think that such a belief "blackens" your image then that is your problem.

Those forums have been made for people to express their opinions and feelings about game events and thus I will not say I am surprised this pop up. I hope it will serve its purpose and help those who need to vent,  inform those who need to know, and cool things down a bit for the rest.

As I say in my other post, all of you who feel concern please send Rhea an igm, to lose your mother is a very difficult part of life and message from her friends might do her some good at this point

P.S. I am NOT making a case against some alliance or players here. It is not my role as I am not implicated in this war. I think the only case I am trying to make or should be made is Rhea's. She's the one to have suffer in this and since T-O is NOT in this war we will let those at war argue over who should be blame or not, and help our new member rebuild instead. 

Edited : cause my english grammar is shaky at best 

Yes, and you are missing my point ... MISTAKES HAPPEN ... the point is what we do AFTERWARDS to rectify our mistakes and be as happy as you can be about ourselves and our behaviour ;)

Have a great new year everyone :)

I lost 4.5. The 0.5 is for San Yerivf who was the initial siege. Before this attack on San, I had never been Leadership in EE, never diplo'd, blighted, attacked, or farted in the direction of any H member.

Afterward, that was another story. 

Anjire, would you care to elaborate what my actions were before the war that lead to H's "Response and determination"?

Because here are all the dealings I had with H prior to Mid-September:

1) Being a newbie, I landed a settler near an occupying army of Lloyrns. This was my third city, and I was very fresh from exodusing my Capital. I had missed the army when looking for sweetspots, and was unaware that Lloyrn was holding the spot. Lloyrn and HonoredMule gave me resources to relocate my City (San Yerivf), which I did.

2) I had asked many H members if it was ok for me to harvest basic resources on their sovereign land. Many said it was ok.

3) Soon after the New Trade resources came out, Lucens and I sent armies to the same unoccupied rare herb square. After some initial confusion, where I had thought I had been on the square first, I recalled my troops and allowed Lucens to take the Square. He then decided to settle a city within 10 squares of the then Si Wolfenstien. (Which was not near the herb square in question). Before the war, I had been told by Hath that Lucens had agreed to exodus his city away (Though he remains in that spot).

4) Deathdealer and I bumped each other from some harvesting spots. Interestingly, Deathdealer repeatedly sent his harvesters to the same spot 5 minutes before my harvesters landed, with impressive regularity. Such that I was thinking maybe I should send out some synchronized caravan dances to entertain him. Though this bumping was eliminated when I started parking armies on my kills. 

5) Mid August Kumo sent me 2 messaged titled "Move" and "Get Out" informing me that I had settled San Yerivf in an H hub and they would provide me resources to move. My alliance leader Hath messaged him back asking why I was being asked to move a city that wasn't within 10 squares of any of their cities, and that I had already moved this city for them once before (3 months prior). Kumo messaged back saying "I recounted, it's outside of ten". So seemed to me, problem 'solved'.

Mid September, I begun getting my cotters killed, and other annoyance attacks. I shrugged them off, but one time Empress Olivia killed off an army I had overlooking my elemental kill until my skinners could get there. I asked in GC what was up with that, and got Kumo ranting about how I spammed my cities all over their area. (I can provide the log if anyone is interested) but basically that I had used their 10 square rule against them (Since I had never settled within 10 squares of any of their cities), and the only reason that I would have settled in Azura was it was a Consone conspiracy to push H out. 

For the record, I had all my cities settled before I had even known what Consone was. And after Trade V.2 came out, I was now very interested in having cities anywhere but Azura.

So, There's what I know about my own involvement in inciting H to war. I personally am not seeing much, but heck, I could be missing something.

So me saying that after the war had been in full gear for quite some time, makes your point how exactly?

So if H wishes to make their point on how my actions were part of the 'many reasons that lead to H?'s response and determination' Some one from Harmless is more then welcome to start their own thread, since the evidence provided thus far has been lacking.

Also, I would like to offer my condolences to those effected by loss and tradegy.

Anjire wrote: A few points: ...  3) Thes Hunter's actions prior to the war are a part of the many reasons that lead to H?'s response and determination.

 Luna can we possibly close this thread since it derailed way off subject before it goes to 50 pages ? 

I am sure the numerous interested party can start another thread and jump on it to argue. 

+1 LoJ

There was a goal?  What was it?