Why are we fighting?
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5296
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 04:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why are we fighting?
Posted By: Halcyon
Subject: Why are we fighting?
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 03:46
|
Why are we fighting? Because ever since the Consone-Coalition war, in which Dark was a part
of The Coalition, some Coalition alliances, especially Night Crusaders, have
been aggressively targeting weaker alliances with the full knowledge that these
alliances will most probably not be supported by their allies due to fear of
The Coalition. Under this atmosphere of intimidation, Night Crusaders were
allowed to act unimpeded against one unsupported alliance after another. It
began with Insanity inc. (some would say with Steel, but this was before the
Consone-Coalition war), proceeded with Bane and now continues with Celtic Knights.
When NC got in trouble against Bane, members of another Coalition alliance,
Trivium were brought in to finish the job. With Bane surrendering, NC went
directly for the next target in a seemingly never ending list: Celtic Knights.
This is the point that some alliances, including Dark, said enough and some
began to fight against NC and Trivium when the last came again to NC's aid (mind
you, without declaring war). Why is Harmless? involved in this war? Because Harmless directors have
never shown any inclination to try and restrain NC's aggression, but exactly
the opposite, always informed that NC will ultimately be supported by the
entire Coalition, never mind whatever they do. Harmless? leaders are now trying to convince the community that this war
is about revenge. They can't rightfully claim so of Crows, Shade, Soon and
especially of Dark who was their ally until recently, but slowly drifted apart
due to H?'s continuous support of NC aggression. All of us just had enough and
this is why we are fighting. Make no mistake. This is not a war of revenge. This is a war between
those who support NC aggression and those who have finally stood up to attempt
and make an end to it. This war will define the future of Illyriad. Either it
will restore some kind of balance, or it will end with all those who are not
H?'s henchmen living in continuous fear of being the next victim of NC and
their allies. We call upon all the free people of Elgea to join us against oppression. We are making a stand. Come stand with us. Come now. |
Replies:
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 03:54
|
Hal, What happened the first time Dark took a stand against NC? Do you actually know? H? did not try to restrain them that first time. I do know. I know who helped bring it to a rather swift end. It was not you, it was not myself, it was not the previous leader of Dark... hum, I wonder who helped with the quick resolution... Are you not just still a little butt-sore over the 2nd time you stood against NC? Let's be honest... EE wanted a war of revenge against H?. They said Dark was with them, as well as vCrow, Shade and Soon. Yet, here we are... Regards, Your friend Sisren PS - whoever is, please do keep casting blights at me... you are barely destroying resources, yet wasting so much mana... ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:01
| OK.. So you are saying that H? has control over other alliances.. and their members? So to deal with Alliance A (NC) you attack alliance B(H?). I am trying to understand the train of thought where that makes sense... Now if all ya all declared on Alliance A (NC) and Alliance B ( H?) joined in and declared on all of you that it a totally different point. So again the reasoning behind it seems like it is a rationalization after the fact not the true reasons for the declarations. |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:12
|
H? declared on EE that was fighting TVM, who for me is NC's reserve alliance. We can't allow H? to break us apart by going only for those you select for punishment. We are in this together.
|
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:14
The NC-Steel-Dark war is a very old story and Dark fought along side NC after this war. This is not the issue. The issue is NC's aggression since the end of The Consone-Coalition war and the full support they always got from H?
|
Sisren wrote:Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:20
That is pretty much exactly what happened. Well said, and best of luck in your wars.
|
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:23
|
the point is... inaction does not mean support. they didn't step in then when asked about it. at the time NC only had 10 people, 1/2 what they are now. steel was much larger then, long before the aesir merge. my experience before leaving dark-wot was that h? was never about policing the server. they did take exception when it looked like 5 alliances vs 1. they did like to at least have appearances of a fair fight. they did not like bullying. what I saw then, is still what I see now. maybe i am blind... or drunk... it doesn't matter. there's a road with some forks ahead. lead on courageously. I won't reply further, i've had my say. I do wonder however, where is your Confed, or even NAP with EE? humma hasta amigo. Sis
------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:23
| Umm Hal based on EE diplo page you have no confed or nap with them... so is this just another rationalization for your behavior? |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:26
Because you declared war. Seems self evident doesn't it?
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:45
And Harmless?, of all alliances, is in a position to criticize people for having undeclared alliances? I believe the last time you guys declared war based on a silent confederation was last week.
|
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 04:46
We have a Confed with EE, it just doesn't show on our diplomacy screen. This too will change in time.
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 05:05
| The first entry in any of these threads is about as close as you are going to get to anything resembling the truth. The first post is DARK's viewpoint, all the responses and counter-responses are like tv commercials, fillers. Thanks Halcyon for your post, the rest I have not bothered with reading. |
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 05:12
|
ohh so the rejection of the one that EE originally offered you was a oops i clicked the wrong button? I have no issue with silent confed behind the door talks.. I just remember Dark/EE have a very very rocky history from when i was in EE. So just trying to make sure it perfectly clear in my mind. Since i stared Illy over 2 years ago I have heard different things from many different alliances and the stuff for the past year seems to be all about a power struggle. I have listened ( and lurked) So many of the people have said they do not want this game to turn into the others where war is all the time. Well wake up smell the coffee that is what is happening. First thing Hal you need to muzzle twilight she has made dark seem like a power hungry alliance. True or not impressions and PR is what matters. The Illy community has been Anti H? since i joined.. that has not changed but remember they helped to shape the game. I found out after i joined H? how wrong all the rumors were. Granted they are closed mouthed and run a very tight ship. ( with a few exceptions) I think that is why everyone is so insecure and afraid of them. You justify and rationalize your actions ( granted every one does) You declared War on H? after you rejected the confed offered by EE.. ( fact) you state the silent behind the scene one is in place. Also we know Dark ( maybe you ) have been sitting the fence to see where you get a better deal. Plus you still have your feelings hurt over the Bane/NC thing. So state it as it is.. you just want in on the action.. you want to take on NC ( maybe afraid to do it alone?) Now i get NC is a very strong military alliance of 19 players. I get you may not like their playing style. But seriously how many almost 100 member alliances would have to declare them before someone steps in? granted H? did not get a chance to step in( not management can not confirm if we would or not).. cause all ya all declared on us first. But i see 9 alliances so the odds are what like 15 to 1 just based on number of players/accounts in those alliances ... Where does that sound like a fair fight? ( just wondering)
|
Posted By: Aral
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 05:24
|
And it's one, two, three, four... What're we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, Next stop is Illy bedlam. And it's five, six, seven, eight... Open up the pearly gates. Ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopie! We're all gonna die... ------------- Aral Llc is not responsible for any grievous bodily harm sustained while reading this signature. No rights reserved. |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 05:32
|
Let's not forget that H? declared war on EE before anyone else ever declared on them. Their rational was that even though there was no Coalition, TVM is part of a Coalition that we are not allowed to attack. Never mind the fact that TVM was not part of the Coalition while it was happily attacking us during the last war but then was part of the Coalition when we surrendered and that means we can never harm them again even though there is no Coalition? So hard to wrap my head around it all, especially when H? is so quick to threaten us with total destruction if we don't stop attacking TVM. ------------- 
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 05:50
Please try to spin a little harder - the only people who threatened to eliminate anyone is CK's leader against RE. Halcyon: H? has been involved with NC's little wars exactly once. When Bane refused to surrender as they should have done and decided to call in two much larger alliances to gang up on NC. At no other time have we told or even implied that we would get involved in NC disputes (other than as a mediator). So all your talk of H? doing this and H? doing that is exactly that - talk with no substance. Regarding the Bane war - you didn't come to us trying to seek a solution, you came already decided you were going to act before you even started talks and your 2nd post was "if they don't do X then we will do Y" . So a pre-decided position and a bunch of threats and then you wonder why the talks did not go the way you wanted. If this was really about standing up for the little alliances (and BTW I love that again you've lumped Bane in as a "weaker" alliance) then you should have encouraged CK to accept that peace offer rather than continuing the war. Regardless if that's really what it's all about then come back to the forum and discuss it. This time without the pre-decided positions and all the threats and bluster - or find someone who can talk in a reasonable way about the situation because neither you, Hath nor Ditto can seem to get over your personal issues with NC to discuss it reasonably. ------------- "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: Elmindra
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 05:55
|
Hmm, well you did declare war on us, and sent us a message yourself that stated we would need to stop attacking and compensate TVM for all losses or else we would find ourselves on the loosing end once more and I quote "we will find ourselves much worse off than in the last conflict." If that isn't a threat then I am not sure what constitutes as one. No spin there, just the facts. -------------
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 06:02
|
ALL-- I don't seem to have the ability to post a new post... I guess Luna removed it, not sure. THIS IS AN HONEST REACH OUT FOR PARLEY. We have had a good conversation in GC and the bottom line is that most of the people in this war have an issue with NC. Ok. Let's talk about how small alliances fight. or Medium ones. Because almost everyone agrees that this game shouldn't stifle the ability for small or medium alliances to have fun wars? I'm suggesting a parley to avoid the holocaust that is facing us. And I suggest Angrim as the mediator. (sorry for not asking you first, but you are the most neutral person I can think of that everyone respects!). If this is truly about NC and people's impression of them as bullies, then let's get this all out on the table. In H?, we've always seen NC as a small ally who is having fun playing the game, and do not understand the huge backlash, but we want to listen to everyone's comments. Can we not come to some sort of agreement where small/medium (and perhaps large) alliances can sometimes play the war aspects of this game without causing Armageddon. Because, make no mistakes... if we go down this path without any diplomacy, we are going to be a perpetual bloodbath for the indefinite future... And I'm not sure that most of us want that... |
Posted By: Vanerin
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 06:23
|
Thank you kumo! Hopefully yall will figure out a way to find peace. I am not involved in the war (so this probably doesn't carry much weight), but I have listened some. One thing that could be helpful in the discussions is not to focus on the size of alliances (small/medium and perhaps large) but to talk about aggressiveness. I personally think that the size of an alliance should not have an impact on the fun it is allowed to have. But removing someone else's sense of fun is not cool imo regardless of size. ~Vanerin
|
Posted By: Binky the Berserker
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 07:43
|
Ok. Here's one thing I don't understand: People keep talking about the number of players in an alliance to show the odds in a fight. Why? There are things more important then the number of members when it comes to fighting a war. It makes a big difference if all your players are active and prepared for war. Let's say 20 prepared players can take on 50 semi-active players without any trouble. Now if those 20 are all prestige buying players and the alliance of 50 has only 10 prestige buyers, that is another advantage they have. 20 players with a few years experience are easier coordinated then an alliance of 50 that have to explain a lot of the warfare to their newer player. An alliance of 50 could theoratically have no experience in war at all. 20 players with strategic located towns on 7 food tiles have a great advantage to an alliance that's spread over spread all over the map. 20 experienced players have more equipment and more experienced commanders then an alliance that needs to help out their newer members with resources. But most importantly is the time one puts in the game. 20 players who are unemployed and can spend all day playing illy have a huge advantage on players who only have time to log in for little over an hour a day. Player numbers and town sizes are only a small part of the things that make an aliance stronger or weaker then another. NC may have small numbers, but we all have seen they are pretty good at fighting wars. I don't see how any alliance of their own size could step up to them. They should feel flattered their opponents only dared to gang up on them with so many, not whine about it. But I didn't hear them whine. I only hear H? players use these numbers to enter the war and to claim NC was treated unfair. Numbers can always be explained in multiple ways. Depending on how you form the sentence and which numbers you choose to use and which numbers you choose to ignore. |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 08:05
|
System> ** News Flash: The Siege of Goodison belonging to Rupe [Soon™] by Rasak [T-O]has begun
Gee I remember Soup copping flack for attacking without declaring, must be okay in reverse.
|
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 09:34
|
Kumo, thanks for your honest and informative post. Though I'm not part of this war, here are my two cents on this: There's a big difference between what seems good for the game, and what each person wants for themselves. Yes, wars are a important factor to this game but most alliances don't want to be in it... the sad part is, that almost all wars in Illy are onesided, means one alliance has fun fighting it (usually the better prepared one declaring/provocing it), the other one doesn't and wants to keep harm from their cities (which equal a huge load of lifetime or even money). Another aspect to all this wars is the forum... suddenly everyone is bending facts to near break (or sometimes far beyond), and most threads don't survive long until Luna has to go down on them because of RL politics (or insulting, as soon as discussion has reached a critical point). Yes, the discussions are fun at start, but tend to turn annoying pretty fast, as noone can rely on the parts of truth the other one believes in, not even the parts of truth people on your side believe in... There had been attempts of forming war alliances, which BOTH declare to have fun in fighting... but they didn't work, as noone of the ones prepared for war actually wants to fight another person prepared for war... no easy targets, no forum slander, where's the fun? So you'll end up with always one side celebrating it as free fun play in a sandbox (usually the attacker), and the other side complaining about bullying. This is one of the first times, when suddenly this swings round to the "war is fun" side to call it bullying, hampering their idea of the game... who is right? This is a question without right or wrong... either way one side complains and wants aid for their cause... and mostly gets it. There's a sharp line... H? did fight White for being aggresive => result: more peaceful server, less forum garbage. Now many alliances fight NC for playing aggressive... is it the same? Is it another kind of aggressive? Would the restriction of NC by so many alliances result in a boring server, or is it necessary limits, an example for not annoying too many alliances at once? As a third option: staying out of those wars... is it better, worse? I don't have an universal answer to this, and I fear noone has. Everyone has unique ideas on it, and the discussions (disguised in huge load of propaganda) fill many many pages in this forums... Good luck to anyone finding a good way... but in the end, it's nothing to be planned or predicted, and Illyriad so far did good, compared to other games...
|
Posted By: Redfist
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 10:38
|
The opening post comes close the information that I have had some time concerning the activities of TVM, NC and sections of the H? leadership. Like Dark , others who thought that H? were their allies will come to realise that is not the way that H? perceives them at all.
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 12:06
|
Why was all of this never preemptively sorted out between the alliances? Out of the half server that has now declared war on NC, surely it would be posible to find a matching number of opponents to give NC their much awaited war, instead of this bs where friends write to you and express their anxiousness at being placed into war with old friends, neighbours and people you haver never had anything but pleasant discourse with. To Halcyon - many in your own alliance feel they have no lot in this war and are merely pawns in a chessgame. This war is unfair to them as well as your allies who have always had your back, all of which you stab in the back with this maneuver. I respect your viewpoint and your right to retain it, I really do, and I would wish this business could have been solved diplomatically, but I dare say that if you are so righteous in your crusade against NC as you let on, you had instead of declaring war, joined another alliance at war with NC for the duration of the war, not dragged a lot of people into this debaucle against their will. This ordeal is just unfair to a lot of people I find. ------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 12:39
Firstly, lol at "Soup". Secondly, I don't think anyone whined on the coalition side, I think it was Consone doing the whining. Post a link and prove me wrong. ------------- "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: Aristeas
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 12:47
|
As a neutral and outside person, I was totally able to follow H? argumentation on why they declared on EE, but I am totally puzzled as to why H? can be suprised about the anger over NC, and more so how could they have kept NC as an ally and still do so. Consone was bad due to pushing others around cause they had so many/big allies in their back, and that is exactly that what NC did since the war, without H? in the back doing anything against it (ok with me) or ending their alliance (there I can´t follow it anymore). Even now H? seems to have their hands over them and instead of aknowleding misdeeds by NC and distantiating themselves from them. As far as I can tell, there are 2 "bad" guys, but funnily one on every side still backed by alliances and confeds, because they can, very effectivly, push the guilt to the other side. As long as neither the feeble revenge-seekers in EE/vCrow or NC aren´t sorted out, I can´t see how the involved parties can get to a peaceful solution, because both have valid points. But as H? fames itself with behaviour in favour of the climate here in Illy (and at least I still buy that), I can´t see why they don´t have the greatness to step aside from their misbehaving ally (like for example mCrow with regards to the involved other crows)...
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 13:53
|
You post is a very good example of a discussion I recently had with Angrim in GC about the value of arguing in GC. When you have one side of a disagreement who are very vocal in GC and forums and you have another side who are not, the argument which supports the former is heard much more often and the collective conscious of the game perceives that argument as "the truth" regardless of it's actual accuracy. It's a direct example of "If you say it often enough, people will believe it". NC did not used to participate in GC banter and forum warfare unless forced and as a result the side which paints them in a bad light is the one everyone "knows". It is true that NC is happy to go to war to support their position sooner than most when diplomatic failures occur and sure enough many folk who dislike war automatically assume that makes them bad guys and diss them in GC (E.g. Rill) even when they have no skin in the game and only a hazy view on the details of a particular issue. This enhances the effect described above so that most people's perception of the guys who don't talk as much in GC is slanted. It's interesting that you mention the mCrow, but fail to see that this is a supporting example of how the situation is as I have described above - E.g. not nearly as black and white as some would paint it. ------------- "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: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 14:01
| And Binky-- while number of players isn't everything, as you said, there is a hard limit on 10 cities/acct and on how much you can produce per city. That means that 40 accts have the capability of producing twice as much as twenty. That's not meaningless. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 14:56
| all this talk is just silly, this is a strategy game...we are suppose to have conflict. just because the top alliance does not like the overwelming odds it is facing they are complaining what is happening...u dont see nc saying anything but playing the game. alot of us were shocked at the demands placed on the consone group to surrender and all these decisions were made by top harm leadership...they were too personal, something that should never be placed on fellow players in a game...harm made its bed, they have threaten and tried to control the game too long...they will have to fight to maintain that position or lose that power...come down to the illy earth with the rest of us....oh by the way remember its a silly game and this message is all in fun...wiggles her behind at harm and nc and now the dlords! run and hide or move to a neutral alliance...we coming to get ur things! wiggles her behind |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 15:00
Dear Aristeas, there were no incidents of consone pushing anyone around. That is why H agents forcefully occupied our allied mines 2 squares away from their city and blew it up to a war. We were declared upon by H for the crime of breaking RHY sieges on our cities. If there were any real incidents of consone bullying, H would have used that instead of such a lame excuse. Since I started playing, this is the third time H gets engaged in war with the second ranking alliance. I am not sure of the causes of this war, but it appears to me as more of a reaction to the politics of H than anything to with NC. Edited for typo
|
Posted By: Binky the Berserker
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 15:07
Still everyone can see most NC accounts are very well prepared and an 40 account alliance never has 40x10 cities. They may have the possibility, but they don't acctually produce twice as fast. That's what I meant with explaining numbers. You can't state 40 against 20 is unfair as a fact, because there's a lot more to it then just the number of players or towns. I wanted to point that out. Offcourse the 40 have an advantage on the 20. Personally I think the amount of prestige buying players is much more an advantage. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 15:07
+1 for that last line.  |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 15:16
Ander-- If you honestly believe that H? has started this war, then I want some of whatever you are drinking/smoking... |
Posted By: Sir Bradly
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 15:28
|
NC's official response http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/nc_topic5299.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/nc_topic5299.html |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 15:43
I'd also like to point out that the Coalition (of Evil?) extorted billions of gold in the form of war reparations from the first part (cause this is the same war?) of the Trove War. I admit I have no way of knowing where all that gold is and what cause it has been used for. With that much gold they can, and have been, going extreme negative on resource production to beef up sov. troop build times. i "know" this by doing my own experiments on the market with food prices and discovering evidence to support my hypothesis. Several alliance members sell excess food on the market. In the past 6 months the market for food sold directly from cities has multiplied. That's right. It did not simple go up, it has gone up in multitudes. 200K of food use to sell for 1.5 to 2 gold per unit. We can now sell it for around 5 gold per unit. Luckily Illyriad alerts you to who is buying your products. Since we sell food, we can see who has more gold than food. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 15:46
I dont think that H started this war Kumo. If you look at incidents that popped up in GC over the last few weeks, you will see some H members asking crows to reduce their sizes or disband some of their alliances. Perhaps they perceived a threat from H and decided to act. I am not privy to the other reasons behind the war. It is only a guess and I wont be surprised if I am wrong. |
Posted By: Aristeas
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 15:53
Well, of course I can only draw conclusions from what I have at my disposal, that makes them necessarily biased, but that´s too why I wrote this post, to get more information. If I would really enjoy blaming others instead of trying to understand them, I would have stayed in DLord and would be fighting at your side right now^^ Mh, maybe sounds rougher then meant, but you get the direction I hope... Let´s say, so I am sure, that I am not on the wrong side... But the question is still, how with "It is true that NC is happy to go to war to support their position sooner than most when diplomatic failures occur " in mind any of my conclusions are wrong? How can an alliance, that tries harder to stick to the diplomatic side, not see NC as a potential threat, especially when they are backed by a big alliance like yours? Consone "only" pushed around, you have an ally even fighting out wars (and doing so very sucessfully). And at least as Halycone percieved it, as long as NC was on the winning side, you did nothing, but as there was only the danger of them getting real contra for their actions, you tried to throw in your wight. You accuse others (probably rightly so) to instigate conflicts, especially through going over smaller alliances, you even seem to surpase them with using a small alliance to always be able to cry "foul!" when they are getting into real problems... That´s probably not what you want, but I can understand why it is percieved as such, and your reactions here didn´t change that (yet)... I mean, I can be wrong and it has nothing to do with NC and only with power play. But why I should only believe you, that you are trying to the right/justified stuff, while all the others are only mean/dumb/dishonourable? (well, very probable power/revenge seems really to have a part in it, but I still think it´s not the only reason for all the ones involved) And to black and white: well, at least I had both on both sides, I don´t see where you yourself would start using even only grey in your description of your own position^^
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 16:45
Rubbish. Food sells for between 2 and 2.5 gold per unit. If you'd like to buy food from me at 5 gpu, I will happily sell you everything I have in my inventories, purchase more, and sell you that as well. |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 17:27
We have several members who regularly sell at 4 gpu, and a few that sell at 5 gpu. Naturally our stats are skewed to the south east region as many people likely purchase from cities closer to them. Please note that since this post there has been an mass increase in food post to the global market, aswell as all of the current buy orders being removed. Whether they were fulfilled or canceled is unknown. Edit: I agree that food has typically sold for 2 -2.5 GPU. But in the past 6 months it has increased dramatically. I am hypothesizing that this is due to a massive increase in gold and a shifting of food sov to troop sov. The players purchasing our food sales reinforces my hypothesis. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 17:42
Ander-- I'm the one who posted questions about the Crowalition getting overly large on GC on October 6th. Nobody else from H? did. And the telephone game has been rampant here. I NEVER asked Crows to reduce their size or disband some of their alliances. Whoever told you this second hand is completely distorting the truth. What I did do was raise an open friendly question about how if the Crows continue to increase in numbers of alliances it could possibly be stifling to the game. Period. All the conspiracy theorists and/or folks trying to justify their hatred and attacks on H? have completely misrepresented that chat. But c'est la vie. If it wasn't that chat, they'd find some other way to try to attack us. The bottom line is that we offered to have a parlay last night to discuss how small/medium alliances can have war with a neutral mediator, and I have yet to hear from a single member of the leadership of any of the alliances attacking us. Obviously their stated reasons for going to war, namely to curb NC's bullying, aren't actually the reasons they care the most about. If all of these alliances didn't go to war to curb NC's bullying, then I wonder why they did? |
Posted By: Tatharion
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 17:50
|
Gosh, this truly unfortunate situation seems eerily familiar. But I can't awkwardly recall the exact circumstances. ------------- Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 17:58
|
Sorry Kumo, maybe I misunderstood what people were saying. I haven't seen your GC chat and I wasn't referring to that. Atleast this time we both are on the same side, wondering why they went for war! Goodluck anyways! |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 18:30
Well - Dark has a bunch but in general the reparations were nowhere near the costs of the war in the first place so no-one ended up any richer in real terms. ------------- "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: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 18:48
Lol. The telephone game is a truism... Good luck as well! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 19:07
If you do not mind, for anyone that doubts (and because I didn't get to reply to Grego in the other topic that got locked, who more or less said that gold and equipment was a gain), some numbers. Over the course of that almost 6 month war an average human player that was very active in the war (let us place them at 8 towns) could have lost the following hypothetical numbers : 50000 T2 pikemen 20000 T2 archers 30000 T2 knights I think that you will all agree that it is a very reasonable (or even low) amount of troops for a 6 month period, but let us take even this quite optimistic example. How much do these units cost. There are of course price fluxuations but back then the cost was 1950 gold for a pikeman 2700 gold for an archer 6190 gold for a knight This makes the cost of the above troops 50000*1950 = 97.500.000 gold 20000*2700 = 54.000.000 gold 30000*6190 = 185.700.000 gold Sum = 337.200.000 gold And this is only ONE players' cost, with the most optimistic of troop loses.  And then people used to say back then that asking for a 150M gold in a peace treaty was "too much", but hey it is easier to be intimidated by a multi-digit number and shout "wolf wolf !", than actually grab pen and paper and do some math so I guess those complaints made sense in some way. If someone claims that those numbers are hypothetical or not correct then I will just point out that the number of troops in most battles were nowhere near so low as in the example, so I can only imagine the billions in cost incurred by the people that did the actual fighting from both sides. So, no, none of us got richer. And, no, obviously, we never had that in mind |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 20:08
Just wanted to say this was a great post on the economics of war and how it affects both parties. I do want to add to your post that while it may of barely let the winners break even or even put them in the red, it likely caused the losers a great disadvantage. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 20:09
missed the awesome edit the first time. Almost got me KP... almost ;) ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 20:51
I am glad you liked it. You are correct on that addition, but it is only reasonable for that to happen after such a protracted server-wide war and the outcome not being a draw or a ceasefire. So, in such a case, in order for a deal to be struck, something had to be exchanged game-wise. If the current situation though, where the whole matter has not yet escalated military in the same fashion that it is totally blown up politically, then IF things can settle down for a peace agreement then I guess that it will be mutual and there will be few talks of such material exchanges, because the actual logistics damage for both side is, so far, extremely minimal and thus can be considered a negligent factor in any negotiations. Or so I think, at least, which doesn't say much ...  |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 21:37
During the NC-Bane war Dark offered NC to end the war by a peace agreement (not surrender) and if they want a fun less hostile war, they are invited to bring some of their friends and war with Dark. The offer was rejected by SB and Electro. They knew they will have a much harder time then they usually do running over alliances that either don't train troops, don't know how to war or are empty of troops because of a previous tournament. After they rejected Dark's offer they proceeded to attack another weaker alliance - CK. Tord, leave H? (only for a few days) and come join us in Dark. We know that there is an H? spy among us (KP has read at least 1 of my alliance wide messages before most of my alliance got the chance to do it), so I don't fear having you in our AC. This is a genuine offer not a taunt. You'll find an alliance at peace with itself and with the decision of its leadership. An alliance that now, in war, work well together because we share the same beliefs concerning NC. During the very end of the NC-Bane war I had a mini uprising on my hands because I wanted to bring only 3 accounts to Bane's aid and my members wanted to go all in. We are a team, not a dictatorship and we opperate by mutual agreement. You claim that H? as Dark allies have always got our back, but I was kicked out of the allied section of your embassy because I was too vocal and active in opposing NC. Dark members were approached by H? directors and offered to leave Dark for their safety (this was before we decalred war) and no H? director but Anjire talked to me since the end of the NC-Bane war. H? did not care enough for our alliance and so it came to a natural end. Come pay us a visit. We don't bite (well maybe Twi does).
|
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 21:49
|
/me smacks Halcyon hands off my tordi /me stamps tordi with property of H?
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 21:58
| Halcyon is jealous of how awesome our Tansi is. He wants her for himself. How dare he! |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 22:11
nah, you can have her
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 22:22
|
Id rather not join you - too long winded to explain, just not in the mood for that kind of experiments right now. If you alliance really stands wholeheartedly by your declaration then I resign myself from making further comment on the matter. I really hoped for a peaceful solution. ------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 22:22
| Excellent. As long as we are claiming other people. Dibs on Twilights. |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 22:28
|
Now that she finally has some use? Forget it.
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 22:33
|
What she has tons of uses before and after war started. Twilights I expect you to turn that into a dbl meaning phrase :D
|
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 23:09
| just give us ur A game, lets match wis against each other...good luck and have fun everyone...prepare to kill or be killed or become my pool boys...omg i forgot harm and nc already wear pink speedos...wiggles her behind at them...eyeballs dlords....yummy treats...this is going to be so kwel...i promise to behave halcyon, please take me back...i am urs forever! goes back to her crypt |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 23:20
I don't know if to rejoice or run for the hills. Any advice?
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2013 at 23:29
| Twilights exodus your towns down south so we may have proper contest! |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 00:58
No - it was clear you were in bed with Malek and therefore a security risk for discussions in those shared forums. Your embassy room is still open and always has been.
And so have people on your side contacted members of our alliance.
You left in the middle of a conversation on Oct 8th and never came back - have you once tried to reach out to any of us since your last post saying you were working on the peace offer and would let us know?
Nope - it was obvious you had switched sides - that's what ended it. ------------- "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: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 01:08
|
o/ Kumo! Here's my personal and honest opinion on your post...
Sorry Kumo, many many attempts were made at parley. It starts with someone taking an issue to H?, then directors either dismissing them as lies, spin or slander. After that a discussion about non-issues follows, and finally you issue a reminder about how friendly both parties are, and close with a thinly veiled threat. This "method" of parley is evident even in this post. We even have a word for it; its called manipulation!
No, lets NOT talk about how small alliances fight. illyriad is a strategy game, and people should be free to pursue their goals and interests without the expressed blessing of the self appointed arbiters of the Elgea. I'm frankly tired of "going to H?" to get your opinion before moving a finger. I'm tired of your PR strategies, and your practice of dismissing everything as spin when it doesn't suit your opinion. If you really wanted to have a discussion about what's better for game, you should have done so long ago. Not when your own actions and policies are finally catching up to with you! You've played the game, and you've made the wrong moves for your own selfish reasons. Now you're staring down a barrel, and you know your defeat is drawing near. There's no use in trying to control the narrative. Just accept your fate, and the inevitability of defeat. You've had a great run as the #1 alliance of the server, and now you're facing your biggest challenge yet. Will you fight like the farmer soldiers you are (lol), or continue these futile attempts at delaying the inevitable?
No we can't, and we shouldn't. Its all in the game, and you need to accept this. You tied your own fate to that of NC. By your own words, you said you would NEVER allow them to go down. You made your bet, and now you'll be "going down" with them!
Well be that as it may, its exactly where you have lead us... oh great H?! I'm sure you know that this war won't take very long, and even if it does... the prospect of chasing each other around the map seems rather amusing!  in closing! THIS IS AN HONEST APPEAL TO REASON. Illyriad is simply a game. Games are meant to be played, sometimes you win, and other times you lose. That is all, thank you for your time and attention!  PS: I do think the community has a role to play in making the game enjoyable and interesting for current and future players, but that's a conversation for another thread! |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 01:21
|
I especially love the fact of cries for diplomacy on one hand, and H? moving to take out any isolated combatants with immediate sieges on the other. Really showing your hand there eh. -------------
|
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 02:10
This is what surprises me honestly. Why do people think that H? exerts so much control over NC or why would people expect H? to annul their diplomatic agreement with them if they initiate conflict. In every strategy mmo that i've played alliances were made so that each side maintains sovereignty - if one ally initiates a conflict without consulting the other then they stand alone in that conflict. Permission is not needed to be sought unless it is a joint venture. I can't imagine the "Coalition" to work differently. That said, I do not imagine for a moment that H?'s influence with NC or lack thereof is the cause of this conflict. I do worry when so many of the many of the players who I consider pillars of the community in this game are in conflict with eachother. Whatever the outcome, the Illy landscape will morph into something completely different than the one I have enjoyed for so long. - M. ------------- 
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 02:50
You mean like the coordinated an concentrated attacks from Dark on our members in the west. Touch of pot and kettle there dude. ------------- "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: ULYSSEUS
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 03:34
|
Actually Sisren I thought we had quite a bit to do with the resolution of the DARK/NC/Steel conflict. I was the leader of DARK at that time and you were the one who approached me with the information that H? was staying completely neutral in regards to the conflict. Are you now telling us that H? was the savior of that conflict? Quite honestly, at the time, you were the one pushing for us to get involved militarily. After looking at the scenario, I eventually agreed that Steel needed help. So we acted, as you well know. My only regret concerning the Steel issue is that we showed too much restraint in dealing with NC. For that I will take the blame. You are part of H?'s propaganda machine now, so I understand the spin cycle is in high mode, but if you seriously believe that H? resolved the DARK/NC/Steel conflict, then why do they now claim that they have no influence to do the same today? I think that is a bit strange. DARK does not fight for revenge. I cannot vouch for the other alliances involved but I can vouch for DARK and it's leadership. We have always fought under the same basic principle of "Is it a just cause?". We feel this is a "just cause". So whatever the consequences, whatever the final outcome, The DARK Empire will fight to the very end, because to us, it is a "just cause". I have always been the last one to advocate for war but it is upon us. I hope all fight with honor and dignity as befits a true warrior. ------------- Some men die young, some men die old, but all men die. |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 04:01
|
[QUOTE=ULYSSEUS]Actually Sisren I thought we had quite a bit to do with the resolution of the DARK/NC/Steel conflict. I was the leader of DARK at that time and you were the one who approached me with the information that H? was staying completely neutral in regards to the conflict. Are you now telling us that H? was the savior of that conflict? Quite honestly, at the time, you were the one pushing for us to get involved militarily. After looking at the scenario, I eventually agreed that Steel needed help. So we acted, as you well know. My only regret concerning the Steel issue is that we showed too much restraint in dealing with NC. For that I will take the blame. You are part of H?'s propaganda machine now, so I understand the spin cycle is in high mode, but if you seriously believe that H? resolved the DARK/NC/Steel conflict, then why do they now claim that they have no influence to do the same today? I think that is a bit strange. DARK does not fight for revenge. I cannot vouch for the other alliances involved but I can vouch for DARK and it's leadership. We have always fought under the same basic principle of "Is it a just cause?". We feel this is a "just cause". So whatever the consequences, whatever the final outcome, The DARK Empire will fight to the very end, because to us, it is a "just cause". I have always been the last one to advocate for war but it is upon us. I hope all fight with honor and dignity as befits a true warrior. Uly, Dark also *had* a method for declaring war... yet you no longer use it. Dark *had* quite a bit to do with the resolution... but it wasn't the only voice. You really believe that NC just woke up one day and said - you know what, we will make peace with Dark... Seriously? Didn't you find it a bit odd? Or should I see if I can find the IGMs from the time to remind you why peace was so rapid after NC said 'no way in hell - you declared war you will get a war'. I'm sure the posts are still here in the Diplomacy area if you need a faster reminder... As far as a 'just cause' - 4 alliances in the top 20 declaring war on 1 is beyond justice. That is not giving to each what they deserve. That is not fair, and it is not what Dark once stood for. When it was Dark and NC, sure H? didn't interfere - they many times said they were not a police force, but they wanted fair fights. When you lot decided to eradicate, eliminate NC, like a bunch of Daleks - that was a trigger points. And I don't ever recall Dark 'fighting to the bitter end' when a solution can be found. How yall have changed... You honestly want to call down a storm? Prepare to feel some thunder I guess... And to say I am part of a proproganda machine... that cuts deep. You of all people know I speak openly and honestly. I guess this rift is now complete between us. I will no longer speak so well of Dark. Maybe a brighter future can change that... Good bye old friend. You are still missed. I lament this. ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 04:58
Not to worry it was just an observation, so attacking without declaring on the target prior is ok now in yours and Hs' eyes then? Goodo, maybe Kumo was right, leopards can change their spots.......oops I mean people and their opinions do change. To suit the situation I wonder.......
|
Posted By: ULYSSEUS
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 05:13
|
Sisren, If there is any rift between us, it is one you have caused. We have always treated you fairly. I have always treated you fairly and with respect. It saddens me to see you take this road but so be it. I never said we were the only "voice" in the conflict. I said we had quite a bit to do with it. Again if H? exerted influence to end it amicably "kudos to them". But why not then act likewise afterwards? Exert a bit of influence, not control, but a bit of big brotherly advice, so to speak, to NC? As too our method of declaring "war" it has not changed and the process leading up to declaration is the same but you would not know that as you are no longer here to observe are you? As to finding the IGMs and or forum posts, sure go ahead and look them up. I think you will find my position and DARKS are and have remained consistent up too and through Halcyons assuming leadership of the alliance. My observation is that they continue to this day. If your referring to a fancy posting in the forums then no we keep it a bit simpler but we still do it As to NC being bullied by 4 of the top 10 alliances. I have to disagree, every alliance declaring against NC knew/knows the power behind them. It is this power that leads to the show of force being seen today. So lets not confuse the issue with melodrama about poor NC being ganged up on. Besides, I really think they relish the attention. As to fighting to the "bitter end"? Yes, we will! it has always been so, this is why I was always reluctant to go to war in the first place, knowing the cost. If you did not know this then perhaps it is best you left us, old friend. A spade is a spade, do you deny you are part of H?'s propaganda effort? Your posts would seem to contradict that position. It is not my wish to injure you, so if you desire to address it in another fashion I will gladly refer to it as such. "prepare to feel some thunder"? Well I do not take kindly to threats, idle or otherwise. DARK does not take kindly to threats, no matter the origin. But I suppose, as food for motivation, you have just supplied some. Thanks. As to speaking well of DARK. We never expected or asked you too. We stand on our own allowing our actions not words to define us. Nor have we ever allowed the actions or words of others to define who, and what we stand for. If we did then we would have already bowed to the dictates others have tried to impose upon us. Take care old friend  .------------- Some men die young, some men die old, but all men die. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 09:47
Wow ! What an honest outburst. I applaud you for doing away with the pretentious stuff about your alliance (I refuse to call what you turned it into by anything having "crow" in it) "protecting smaller alliances" and being "peace-loving" and stuff like that which other people that follow you ACTUALLY believe in. You explicitly declare that you do not care about what happens to others, especially small alliances (bolded part 1). And you clearly state that your goal is hunger/ambition for power driven by jealousy. (bolded part 2) Bravo ! If anyone ever had any doubts about what is going on, you laid it out perfectly. 
Oh come on, do not blame your own need and ambition to have a go at finally "doing the trick", to your opponents. This is just silly.
You will soon find out the obvious fact that facing other players in a good natured contest over the control of specific map spots during tournaments (when everyone piles troops on those spots and nowhere else ) is a totally different process of trying to hit live moving players and their whole alliances. If you weren't paying attention at the Consone War maybe you should ask some of your allies to debrief you on the process. And two things more, since you seem to find the coming war amusing (even if you do not seem to have been in one): One: One has to wonder how the members of your peaceful alliance, which you mostly gathered under the benevolent credo of "live long and prosper and maybe fight at tourneys", will feel and think for dragging them into something that amuses YOU and furthers your OWN agenda. It is a totally different thing to enlist at a military alliance where not only you are expected to tune up for war, but that is exactly the reason you went there in the first place and it is totally different to enlist in a "safe heaven" of an alliance under the wings of the most peaceful (and large) Coalition of the game and just play the game as you like in peace. When I was in Tranquil Vision and Shakyala decided to leave the game in a "blaze of glory", I eventually quit the alliance feeling that they betrayed my peaceful intentions and that a leader leading an alliance called "peace", cannot drag us into war on a whim. But hey, maybe it is just me (but it is a fact that Tranquil Vision never got over that decision). Two: As a person that likes history, you remind me of those total hypocrites that shout for war and more military service, when they themselves didn't serve in the army or do not have children to send to the war. But that is just my impression on your type of leadership. Needless to say that the above are just my opinion, but hey, some people seem to not get it, so I have to repeat it again and again. |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 09:53
And people still believe that H? started this war?
|
Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 09:57
| Full page quote for one short comment? Please don't do that |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 13:00
|
my masters are letting me out of my cage to create mayhem and havoc on our enemies, i will not return until they muzzle me...i advise all u wimps on the other side to move to a neutral allaince and stop all this whinning in the forums...it makes me want to puke puke puke...run and hide...we coming for u...we kill leaders first! and maybe turncoates...remember this is a game, dont take anything i say personally
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 15:23
I won't bother replying to your other invective, but I will address the above. If you are telling your alliance mates and allies that this war is going to be anything less than over a year of bloody slugfest, then you are deluding them. This war will likely never end. It will make the Soup War look like a tea party and be bloody beyond anything Illy has ever seen. Just an FYI-- I think that you are completely deluded if you think that your victory is "inevitable". I put my money on H? and our allies winning this war without a doubt. And I'm not just saying that. I empirically believe that. But I believe it will take 18 or so months of really tough fighting to get there and I don't think that is good for anyone. Trust me, we've been in 6 month wars and everyone is tired. You haven't. War fatigue is real and 18 months will see many players and alliances leaving because of it. H? and our allies will not be amongst those, unfortunately for you. Let the record show that we tried to talk this one out and avoid it, because, mark my words, by the time this war is over, nobody is going to like it... |
Posted By: Tatharion
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 15:46
|
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. Be extremely subtle even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent s fate." But my most favorite quote will always remain: "If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." Sun Tzu ------------- Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 17:46
Actually Uly, the damage happened right here. You are full aware of my thoughts on being truthful, yet insinuate I am either lying, or making of information. This is repugnant to me. Thank you. You are also aware of who helped (I never said resolved) bring that lil spat to a close, and you agreed with it at the time. Remember, Dark may have been run by a council under you, but you had final say in such matters. I am done with this topic, moving onwards. Live on courageously. ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Kompanion
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 18:42
I believe this topic may have drifted a bit off topic. As pointed by Kumomoto, h?'s stength is disproportionate to their size. Despite the numbers they have won wars at odds which most would think would be insurmountable. We have been reminded of this on more than one occasion in GC I think anyone with a reasonable amount of sense (not sisren at this moment in time) would agree that in order for a fight to be determined equal the combatants would need to be of near equal strength and ability. Strength and ability in this game are determined by a great many things. Commander levels, knowledge of terrain modifiers, military sov, the ability to manipulate files and spreadsheets etc. This game has much depth. To say that equally sized opponents make for a fair fight in this game is either naive or something spewed out of the h? propoganda machine, don't buy it for a second. To top things off, NC has been allowed in my opinion to pursue a pattern of aggression through intimidation. Just as Kumomoto has pointed out h? is great a much stronger adversary than their size would suggest and they are already the largest alliance on the server. In summary: To stand against NC meant to stand against harmless if they deemed the fight to be unfair. The performance metrics used by h? to measure a fair fight were inconsistent with how they measure their own strength and incorrect in my own opinion. Dark and other alliances grew weary of this and had spoken with h? on more than one occasion about this matter. Obviously we were not alone in our opinions. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 18:46
|
And equally obviously we're not alone in ours - what's your point?
------------- "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: Sisren
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 18:47
|
Heya Komp, Maybe you should stop including me in your posts chum. I am quite sensible, just find certain actions taken, and certain things committed to text repugnant. ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 18:58
You do not buy it for one second and then you use it the next second .?. ahahahhahha Seriously dude, he who has more population CAN have more gold income. He who has more gold income CAN have more troops He who can have more troops has more POTENTIAL in battles. The above is how the game is designed and this is indisputable. Now, you claiming that population size is immaterial, is a blatant affront for anyone's logic. Do note please the use of the words "CAN" and "POTENTIAL" ... if some people are NOT using their potential in a military way this is their own decision. BUT, for everyone else, this is the common standard of estimating the RELATIVE (note the word) strength of an alliance, since I can remember and it is not something H? came up with, unless you can prove that. Till then please cut the silly things about population metric being propaganda, ok .?. You talk about votes and stuff on the other thread and here you come and ignore one of the most basic and agreed upon convention of the whole server .?. |
Posted By: Kompanion
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 19:40
The strength of alliances to conduct war is not determined by the levels of their buildings. As SB has said many times in GC, he lowered his population after finally smartening up. He has said many times in GC that he feels that the strongest military accounts are not the largest in population. He even goes so far as to give the size which he feels makes for the strongest military accounts. I absolutely, 100% agree with SB from NC regarding that statement. By him making that statement he is also rejecting the notion that population should be used in determining the strength of his military. IF he believed contrary his towns would be larger. I have to tell you, if you feel otherwise, go argue with SB. |
Posted By: Vanerin
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 19:43
|
This is probably a bit off topic, but this "Seriously dude, he who has more population CAN have more gold income " is inaccurate. I ran some numbers and found that you can have waaay more gold production at 18K than at 25K (assuming average sov options). Hmm, notice how players like Sir Bradly don't have cities larger than "Sprawling Cities"? Also physics indicates that a heavier person will be more likely to win a fight. But numbers like that do not account for what the weight (or population) is made up of. 200 pounds of muscle is very different than 200 pounds of blubber. Only considering population for military strength is inaccurate and misguiding. But finding a way to measure military strength is not what this thread really is about. ~Vanerin
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 20:40
This is a reply for both of you. The correct and maybe most accurate thing to write about population and gold is that there is a direct mathematic connection between it and the max gold generated and, yes indeed, it is not directly proportionate (nor linear) all the way but it peaks at some point (which exactly is a large discussion) and then drops off, but not by THAT much. So I just thought to keep it is simple since we seem to have troubles in these forums in agreeing on simplier things than that. So, yes, the OPTIMAL gold is not at the maximum population, BUT the usual convention of the whole server as long as I remember is exactly this. More pop=more gold=more troops and H? didn't create that idea, so noone can blame a particular alliance for a server-wide convention, even if it is not 100% accurate. And that is my point. Pointing fingers and blaming an old game convention on a particular alliance is imho a silly errant. Now, back to the other thing, imho the innaccuracy of that convention is on the level that you cannot compare alliances with small population difference, BUT when things go on a different scale you can safely claim that an alliance with 1.5x or double the population of another one, can (or should have been able to) field more troops than the smaller one. Agree or disagree .?. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 21:07
|
Fine. Population to military/gold isn't directly linear. But the simple fact remains that 100 player alliances with much higher population are far far more likely to have more troops than 20 player alliances with much lower population. # of accts absolutely has a direct effect on troop potential in an alliance. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 23:21
|
There might be non (or lesser) militaristic alliances not living at maximum troop numbers for their size... just saying...
But yes, potential is at the side of more pop... it's up to the players to use it or not, and not my role to estimate military strenght in numbers. The only thing to count for, is the answer to the question: "Would I like/dare to fight against them?" And the answer is different depending on oh so many factors...
 |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 23:31
| i think it all comes down to how crazy u are and how much u drink...maybe how good ur sex life is too...all these have the same importance and the proper mixture just makes u a terror in war....wheres my 40...i going all gangster |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2013 at 23:35
.../me takes out calc... hm... along those factors twilights has very good odds indeed  ...explosive mixture, so to say
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 00:41
|
there is no mathematical way to determine what is a "fair" fight. larger armies can still be defeated by bad deployment, replacement rate matters in a long conflict more than size, which is why land can be a better proxy for military strength in some situations--even better than actual troop count. but the real measure over time is how many players leave one's alliance via fatigue or disgust. cohesiveness, for which illy does not publish a statistic, may be the single most important force influencing the outcome of an extended conflict, and lack of interest is the only way to eliminate a player. i've no idea why anyone would expect an alliance or confederation to choose a fair (by which i think we mean balanced) fight. in a perfectly fair fight, each side has an equal chance to win. part of the game is positioning oneself for advantage; in a fair fight, to paraphrase Innoble, neither side has done its work. to consider only population is inaccurate, but also unrealistic. H? did not stay its hand against St Jude in spite of his alliance's small size, nor did anyone expect them to. he was deliberately provocative. the alliances at war with NC feel that they were also provoked. i would not expect population to be a factor in either case. but since the concern of a fair fight has been raised, consider this: both sides have expressed a certainty that they will win. if the opponents are so evenly matched that they are both confident of victory, that is as near a fair fight as i can measure. |
Posted By: Qaal
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 00:56
Just to add one more wrinkle to the size/military effectiveness question, I think spread on the map is one of the more underrated aspects of military effectiveness. From that perspective, Tcol would be a nightmare to try to attack. "Only" 61 players, but decent average player size and absolutely fabulous focus on the map. Trying to maintain a siege on Tcol's turf would be a grizzly affair. Of course, the trade off is that influence on the far-flung parts of the map gets tough. But 100 players in an alliance isn't enough to ride herd on all of Elgea, no matter who you are. Spread too thin. Not sure what the optimum numbers of player hubs would really be in order to cover as much map as possible. But hats off to Tcol--their security looks as strong to me as any group going.
|
Posted By: Vanerin
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 00:56
|
Excellent post Angrim. Thank you. ~Vanerin
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 02:55
Production (non-farmstead) sov is a decent measure of military production capacity. City size correlates to a certain point, assuming that the city is at about 65% taxes, which means it cannot be over-sized. City size is better representative of what the standing forces might be available prior to a war, and production sov is a better representative for replacement rate. If the war runs long, players will need large stockpiles of gold and items to rebuild units. That implies a good supply from support accounts and perma-sat accounts on the sidelines. Bigger, older alliances probably tend to have more farm accounts and bigger stockpiles. Angrim is right. Alliance factors like clustering, endurance, coordination, and sheer determination are important. Obviously experience with tournaments and sieges helps a lot, too. It's tough to know the fighting abilities of the player except by reputation. There's no good way to look at the numbers between two alliances and make a superficial judgement. However (and it's a big however), you can look through the individual players' cities and immediately get a feel for whether they know how to fight. You'll know it when you see it. 7-10 cities, all around 15-20k population, a few Farmstead V adjacent to each, and then 12-15x sov II. Often they will have claimed several +1-3% boost tiles for a particular unit type, occasionally outside the usual circle-square pattern, and the organized ones will have intentionally put their city near multiple bonus boost squares. Their cities will be placed on mostly plains, where friendly cavalry can rescue them from attack. Some players have have terraformed 7 food mountains. If you leaf through the 50k-150k population players and see a tight clustering of cities like that, with the players having medium-high attack and defense scores, that's a good indicator that particular alliance might have some serious punch. |
Posted By: Hager
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 03:40
|
The question on this forum is why are we fighting. Trivium is fighting because EE declared war on us When we where trying to find out why we found EE's off illy site that stated our war was about revenge pure and simple Hath, Morganwg, Turgor, Firess, Kasko, Kasimodo, BellusRex and Shellaquin where all part of the decision. Only Kasko was against it. The same site also outlined other alliances participation including crowfed in an illy wide war with H as the ultimate target. I know for the first 10 days of this war there was diplomatic efforts to end this war without drawing everyone in. People may notice that Trivium said nothing to add to the debate. We simply squashed every EE attack on us quickly and quietly. Why H finally declared on EE I do not know for sure but they are loyal to those who have shown them the same. I have seen many posts here about H being the problem or NC but EE did not declare war on them. EE's actions and own words tell the truth and the majority of illy is smart enough and not self deluded to see it in them. Thanks for taking the time to read this. |
Posted By: Lwyllyn
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 03:54
|
As a noncombatant, forum reader, and GC denizen: This makes me sad. Suddenly GC explodes into war talk, H?-bashing, NC-bashing, Rill-bashing. Rill, Kumo, Sir Brad; all of you were once the generous newb  loving folks that got me addicted to illy, and GC in particular. now you're screaming hate and war at the top of your lungs!Hypocrites! You say you want to keep players in the game. You want newbies to stay. Show them that illy is different. News Flash! GC looks like Evony! Travian! kill!  kill!kill!My friends are screaming red  faced at each other! Tell me, how many times in the last 3 days have you punched your monitor? It's a game! But it's all too real, in your minds.If YOU were a newb today, just now getting tired of the other RTS games, would you stay? Peek into GC RIGHT NOW- would you stay? Or would you do what Epi is doing, fishin'? (none of the above rant applies to Twilights, the only one i see with the right attitude )I say all this with love for each of you. I refuse to take sides; your wars are yours(you can have them). I don't give a damn if you want to throw siege engines at each other; that's part of the game. But the words you throw at each other; those, my friends, are real! They have real effects on real people. People that you claimed were a part of your community. Remember these?  GC will never again be the same. Illy will never be the same. I am not sure I will play for much longer; and I fear BL will have the same old BS, the same hate, the same grudges. And I expect you will soon see many players, even some well-established players, join the largest alliance in Elgea, (abandoned)
 |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 04:53
|
+1 Lwyllyn Hang around though because it will be alright, Illy has some great vets including those you mentioned and many more to steer the ship to a safe shore.
|
Posted By: Lwyllyn
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 05:42
|
Unfortunately, it's those same great vets who are the cause of all this uproar. A parting thought to those vets(my friends): Enjoy your war. Warmongering is part of the game. But the hatemongering is just you, my friends, acting like assholes.
|
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 08:53
Lmao...definite +1 ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Redfist
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 10:12
|
Most Illy players will agree with Lwyllyn, Scaramouche and others. Those who are responsible for this latest warfest mess will try to fill the forum with arguments , denials, smears and lies but the community is by now wise to them. I think that most players don't want to fight this war but will fight because they are tired of the same old manipulation, threats and distortion. The things is they don't only confine it to these forums but they do it ingame by mails and actively try to put pressure on individual players for their own ends. People are tired of this approach by the same old players in the same old way. Some will fight others will just leave.
|
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 10:47
Evidence please? ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 11:35
Here's another +1 for Lwyllyn... does that count?
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 11:43
Well, there is not mathematical equation for fairness in general, no mathematics in ethics and what not ... apart from the cold numbers, OF COURSE, we are expected to apply some rational thinking and strategy, as well, or we wouldn't play a game or have a tournament, but we would call in the illy accountants and have an audit, compare the figures and declare winners.
I will give you an idea. Because an unfair fight is NOT FUN. This is not a real battlefield where we either use every advantage or we might die ... it is a game. I'll give you an example. In the Consone war, when I was a total battle newbie with 70000 pop at that time, after showing my face in battle with my small cavalry trying to break a siege, a 10 city account came by, crushed ALL my defenses EASILY in almost all my cities (since I got attacked by a total sum of five or almost six digit troops) and then kept sending that cav back some time to loot me of basic res and fund his own towns. I wonder if he had fun with such an easy battle. You aim a huge army that the other fellow cannot cope with, you get a predictable roflstomp result and then rinse repeat a couple of times. BORING ! I did have fun though, plus it taught me some good things about the game mechanics. BUT I understood that most people are not in the "hey it is just a game, have fun whatever happens" attitude so I would never want to play like that guy. So, it comes the day when I am now the 10 city account and I have to hit a nearby fellow who did a bit more than me in the last war. I set out to do the job. I scout him, see he has few troops and send burglars for the runes, and a manageable size of 3000 knights. Small chances for him to win even against that, but at least he would have a nice positive "you did your best" battle report instead of a disappointing "hey you have just been roflstomped" report. I also sent some burglars for the rune and 3 digit T2 thieves, in the same idea that "he just might manage". Guess what ... he did manage that number and my thieves all died  On the troops side, he dodged, parked his troops somewhere, I figured out the trick and hit them when he tried to dodge another round of passing troops. And during all this we exchanged IGMs, had fun with the whole "catch me if you can" and he even gave me battle advices  All in all, GRAND FUN, a FAIR fight and in the end of the day, if you count the losses he actually won that conflict due to the cost of the T2 thieves and I am perfectly happy with the outcome. So, why have a fair fight .?. Cause its fun. It is called "sportsmanship" I think ... Imho the only kind of "unfair" fight that is fun, is when the opponent is your equal and the fight should have been fair, but you outmaneuvered him in the battle in such a way that he never knew what hit them, but this is rare and kinda hard to do. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2013 at 12:22
|
Really not sure why there should be Rill-bashing involved. I have for the most part kept myself out of this thing. As for encouraging new players to join. ... Honestly, I wouldn't, at least not if they share my tastes. Illy is no fun. Find something better to do with your lives. Good luck to anyone who does choose to play though, and here's hoping that you don't get sand in your eyes.
|