Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement
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=5316
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 04:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement
Posted By: HonoredMule
Subject: Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 04:02
|
Greetings all, It is with sadness that I have watched the events unfold leading to what is now quickly becoming the largest war Illyriad has ever seen. It is the turning of friends that causes my sadness, but the complete lack of restraint in the execution of this war that has forced me out of hiding today, making an announcement I wish for all your sakes I did not have to make. From the beginning, Harmless have upheld wartime standards that - like our peacetime standards - focused on fairness and preservation of a healthy game where people would feel safe to stand for something...even if it meant standing against us. We fought tactical wars, targeting active combatants, decision makers, and members who actively supported their alliances' war efforts. Even among those, we limited any one man's losses both from wartime action or postwar retribution. Throughout our history, I can think of only one account we sieged out of the game, and only because it unshakingly threatened to plunge the server in unending darknes back in a time when that was a very real possibility. We preserved our own enemies, ensuring they could rebuild and fight another day, for their sake and ours. No doubt a few voices will chime in here regaling you on our offenses and their unthinkable grievances contrary to these standards. Be sure to note how the accounts behind those voices in fact still here, healthy and thriving. I must exclude of course the ragequitters, who simply cannot bear the slightest consequence for their own actions - I cannot bring myself to apologize for their departure. We always strived during both war and peace to nurture the game itself, and most recently even humbled ourselves and sought peace where none was deserved, to prevent the fallout a server-wide war would inflict. Our opponents had no such concerns. Thirst for glory and revenge for past grudges so vastly outweighed the consequences to the game itself that peace was not even an option to consider. Instead, when resolution seemed imminent between the supposed catalysts of this war, higher powers intervened to prevent it. Never before have we faced enemies who so overtly demonstrated a common cause universally rooted in jealousy and greed. But I digress. Here, today, we are at war, and it seems the rules have changed. Our opposition has no thought for the server-wide consequences, or even what they will do with themselves once they become the new warlords of Illyriad. They will be satisfied to rule an empty wasteland, and no matter how Harmless and our allies restrain ourselves, a wasteland is what their scorched-earth policies will create. The standards to which Harmless hold ourselves are now but a liability only to ourselves, failing to preserve the server-wide diversity and autonomy they are designed to promote. Some of our members, even those who are away or otherwise inactive, are going to be sieged out of the game for the cardinal crime of being vulnerably located according to the current battle lines. Not that we're surprised. After all, Harmless is in this war in the first place because someone was tired of being embarassed by a smaller yet more capable alliance, wanted to obliterate it without restraint, and expected its allies to stand idly by and just let this happen. Perhaps I've become a little calloused, because I watch my enemies targeting inactives, engorging themselves on targets of opportunity, wiping players out of the game over the slightest perceived offense from the last war (or piling in against us with no greater cause than having lost a war 2 years ago), and I think to myself so be it. If the victors of this war are to rule over a wasteland, better for it to be OUR wasteland. It's actually a rather easy stance to take. I've been inactive for nearly a year and stopped truly caring about the game's future long ago. It is our enemies who should care whether there's anything left when we're done, while Harmless members are languishing away in boredom that could be easily solved by taking one fling of wanton bloodlust and then leaving the pickings for whatever vultures survived our onslaught. Harmless no longer needs a future-minded endgame. Yet neither I nor my fellow Directors wish to sacrifice the standards and honor Harmless have so long upheld quite so easily. If for no other reason, then for the sake of tradition we are here making one last appeal to reason, and in so doing leaving the blame for this ultimate outcome squarly in the hands of our enemies. I have always liked the idea of mutually assured destruction. The civilization that chooses destruction over peace deserves the result it creates. But to our opposition I say this: the decision will most assuredly be yours. As of today, Harmless is adopting the following new policies for this war:
In other words, Harmless shall seek to uphold the same quality of standards we always have. But only if our enemies extend the same decency to us. For every act of depravity to which they descend, we shall step down with them, and it will be they who set the new standard. You may think Harmless are most talented at war, but this is only secondary. Our true talent is in record keeping. In this, we are quite happy to let you take the lead down this dark path. Wherever it takes us, rest assured it will hurt you more than it hurts us. Heck. I probably won't even be around paying attention, so knock yourself out. We don't mind rebuilding. Its time for us to stop minding whether you can rebuild. Enemies can be replaced, after all. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Replies:
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 04:40
|
Sadly, you have already done the very things you say you won't. You sieged and razed the town of an inactive player who was isolated and in an area of h control. The player had no part in the war, no decision making position, nor had they taken any kind of action in the war. He was solely an easy target of opportunity for Kumo to announce in the GC bragging conducted by himself and SB over the number of cities razed...so apparently your policies, at least prior to what you claim now, were the same as those you now decry.
------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 04:43
| For the rest of us, that player was... ? |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 04:49
|
That player was dantes...I will leave it at that. I did not post to start a flame war, just to point out that the actions mentioned have already been carried out... ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:00
A simple list of changed policies would have done quite nicely instead of the few paragraphs of propaganda that went along with it. ------------- Eternal Fire |
HonoredMule wrote:Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:01
|
Exactly, how many of those "25 towns already razed go us!" towns were simply unfortunate players stuck behind battle lines and barely active and not a military threat what so ever? Give it a break H?, no one believes a word of that holier than though spouting that you do. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:03
Oh... An active large member of EE who was defended by over 100k T2 Cavalry was an inactive member? Really? Why did 100k T2 cavalry + assorted other troops rush to fruitlessly defend him if he was a gone player? |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:07
|
Probably because it was a good chance to kill your troops Kumo, and when does 61k population classify as a "large" player? Scared of his 10k troops? -------------
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:10
|
Stop trying to make lies stick. Nobody spends 150k troops on an abandoned city... |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:13
|
Apparently lots of people send that many troops to an innactive city when a scouting report shows your troops doing exactly what you said above that you never do and everyone hates you for it and wants to make you pay. Not a single lie in that statement. -------------
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:16
|
except for the fact that the city counterattacked us... figure that out, einstein if it was abandoned? |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:17
|
You mean the 100 man blockade that the account sitter cleared? Oh noes, I can't believe that scared you sooo much. -------------
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:21
So you admit it was one of your sat accounts! NOT ABANDONED AT ALL! Thank you for validating our choice! |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:23
|
So let me get this straight, a 61k population player who has very little military is a prime tactical choice because of why? Oh wait, you don't pick on people and only target important folk. Of course, better get just a few more of those little guys, gotta add to that epic 25 city razed total you all brag about. But wait, you are better than everyone else. I forgot about that, and I just waded through 6 paragraphs of it, how did I miss the point. But then again, I better stop talking since I really don't want to be on this "list" of yours. But then again again, you are better than everyone else and wouldn't fight dirty like that. -------------
|
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:29
|
In the consone war, H ignored the senior members of Absa and specifically targeted our smallest players. GreatDane of H constantly attacked a 3 city player of Absa until he quit. H's policy of attacking small players were even questioned in the forum, but they didnt seem to have any policy problems at that time. http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/rhyagelle-responds-to-absaroke-aggression_topic4306_post55923.html?#55923" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/rhyagelle-responds-to-absaroke-aggression_topic4306_post55923.html?#55923
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/training-alliances_topic4330_post56002.html?#56002" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/training-alliances_topic4330_post56002.html?#56002
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 05:49
|
What we will do is track the % by the Alliance who ran the Coalition person out of the game. The percentage of cities you take of any Coalition Member will be held against your entire alliance. Let me restate that: The percentage of cities you take of any Coalition Member will be held against your entire alliance. So if you take 5 of 10 of a single enemy's city total, you will be held to that level. If you take 2 of 10, likewise.... It is an alliance choice what % you choose to take. If any of your troops partiicpate in a single attack on that alliance then you are compliant and then are part of that %. We believe that there are a lot of alliances that do not subscribe to the total war ethos that some of the alliances are espousing... I suggest that you all discuss whether you all want to be in a total war or if you want to be in a normal Illy War... If you are willing to back out now, of course, we would understand... Otherwise, well... We'll be talking for a few years on this... |
Posted By: Dr.Phoenix
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 06:18
|
Hi Guys, I think H? is not worried about Server, it seems more worried about its status on Server.And if you ask me Its Crows who put the Server in Balance and Kept Illy away from many Wars which were sure in absence of CrowFed. We saved many Accounts in Illy than Anyone Claiming. Signing off Nix  |
Posted By: Vanerin
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 06:20
|
This quote is equally applicable to both sides of this conflict. “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche ~Vanerin
|
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 06:22
|
[06:18]<     Kumomoto> New name! It's the Loser War!Very class Kumo
------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Dr.Phoenix
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 06:28
| Wise lines, hope people understands about it |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 06:30
|
It's like a little koan. "Who can win the Loser War?" Or perhaps a fortune cookie riddle... |
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 06:31
| Who cares if inactives and permasat accounts are wiped out! They're taking up space for those of us who do want to play the game. The devs should of gotten rid of the permasits long ago. |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 07:15
|
One last attempt to clear up Kumo's spin, and then I am done with this...the player sieged was not abandoned, nor permasat. He was busy in real life and was not able to log in. He logged in long enough to send an iGm asking for a short term sitter until he got back. Within a day or two, Kumo was sieging his capital, which was his only city of size. The player is a crafter/trader, with an almost non existent military. The sitter appointed logged on to find the siege long under way and the city about to fall, and sent out all the troops he had, which cleared a 100 man blockade before the city was razed. I do not complain about the siege itself, perfectly valid strategy in a war to pick off vulnerable players. Foolish to attack in to a stronghold. My objection is to the hypocrisy of claiming not to do something they did quite thoroughly. ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 08:42
|
HM, I have no doubt that H?, in the past, has maintained high standards of honour and decency. Unfortunately, over the last months, while the sentiments expressed in your post are all fine and noble, you are unable to hold to these sentiments because you have lost control over your allies, and even your fellow directors and members. Let's look at tourneys for an illustration. In the past, tourneys were a fun opportunity to spend some troops, engage in friendly competition, and have some "war" at no lasting cost to anyone on a server without real war (maybe, about once a year). If the devs were to announce a new tourney tomorrow, even without this server-wide war, among the top 20 alliances who would dare to commit anything but a token force to it considering what happened to Consone and BANE in the last 2 tourneys? over the last few months, NC has been attacking other alliances larger, but less prepared than it, with the only apparent limiting factor being that they don't fight more than 1 war at a time. Kumomoto, a leading member of H? has been strident in his approval of their policies. TCol has been pushing smaller players out of Mal Motsha (sounds similar to 1 of the founding myths of this game, doesn't it?) "War is an integral part of Illyriad", they tell us. "Players should neither be ashamed nor afraid of war in Illy", they say. " The player who wants peace above all else in a fictional game like Illy is not a mature gamer", I hear. And so the "militarisation" of Illy gradually progresses, where war between players becomes more and more common. And now a server-wide war, currently involving 14 of the 20 top alliances at last count, is something we are apparently prepared to countenance when war used to be rare and brief in Illy. The tragedy is that H? (well maybe except for Kumo and his running tally of cities sieged) has nothing to do directly with any of the above. People are only coming after you because you stand between them and alliances who want to "militarise" the server. And as long as this warmongering, E-word like sentiment in Illy stays (which, in defence of H?, they did nothing to introduce), we will never be able to compete in tourneys without a beady eye on the tourney standings to see if certain alliances have or haven't committed. Every little thing, like claiming sov next to a new, 112 pop player which just appeared, could be a causus belli. Soon, like more pvp oriented mmorts, we will have to log in every hour just to see that there are no red armies heading to our capital. I think Epidemic said before in one of the other 1578676163 threads dedicated to this war that many players here are in retirement from that dog-eat-dog, kill or be killed mode of play and want a more slow-paced game, with lore to explore and mysteries to discover. (Epi, if you think I'm quoting you out of context then attribute this to me). In that case, this war was never about power, glory or whatnot. This is a war over the future direction of Illy, whether we continue in the same vein or transit to "more war". Nothing to do with H? per se.
Illy has already gone some way down that dark path. Will H? help bring it back from the brink, or will this devolve into a spiral of shattered cities and abandoned accounts because, on both sides, we are going to war because they "attacked our confeds"? |
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 09:17
You hit it on the nail Spheniscidae! Those of us who are true war gamers consider Illyriad as retirement and want to explore the social, lore and mystery part of the game. |
Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 14:01
|
In my dealings with H? senior figures post-Consone war, I have to admit that I found them honest and decent people to negotiate with despite the levels of animosity that had festered for the 6 months plus that the war went on for. I was grateful that it was players like KillerPoodle I was dealing with, rather than alliance leaders from the other victorious alliances, many of whom whilst dominant in battle were sadly lacking in humility and common decency. And this leads me to the point of my post. H? as the most senior alliance in the last war had the opportunity back then to not only lay down the ground rules for how server-wide Illy warfare was conducted but also to enforce those rules amongst their own allies. Instead the precedent was set this time last year for how Illy wars are to be conducted namely: 1. don't join a war because it is the moral thing to do, but for cheap opportunistic gain instead. 2. Don't attack anyone that isn't smaller than you. 3. Pursue a policy of diplomatic bullying even when a player leaves a warring alliance. 4. Use sat accounts and undeclared alts to spy on opposing alliances. 5. Use GC to publicly humiliate players taking this from just a game to something bordering on cyber bullying. Of course being out of this war it is easy for me to take the moral high ground. All I can hope for is that the victors of this war conduct themselves in a manner more befitting this game and less like spoilt children so that when war returns to the game in October 2014 we can conduct ourselves like adults.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 16:09
| Edit: my rambling thoughts on sandbox PvP and PvE are not really relevant to this thread. Apologies for the clutter, everyone. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 16:32
It's actually a really great name for this war. There will be no winners in this conflict. Only bloody battered exhausted combatants. So yes, everyone is going to lose if we don't find peace! But "A" for effort on trying to make me look bad! Isn't it interesting that the numbers of ad hominem attacks increase directly in proportion to the weakness of your opponents position? |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 16:40
|
Kumo, That was not what you meant by that naming of the war. You were deliberately issuing the same threats over and over again (about nine or so hours ago at the time of this reply). You grew exceptionally cocky and started encouraging the participants in the "discussion" with you to begin flaming the other sides. Since you so stubbornly believe that you will win, and that coupled with your behavior in GC only shows that you meant it as an insult for those fighting against you. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 18:00
|
EF, I want to congratulate you on finally being the grown-up in the room. I realize that can sound condescending, but honestly I've watched you mature over years in the game and gosh darn it if you haven't turned out to be a fairly interesting person. (Even though we still might not agree on many things.) Kudos to you.
|
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 18:28
| maybe this should be called the permasat war...I know several alliances are feeling overwhelmed by the few memebers that they have left playing so many accounts...it makes u wonder what is actually consider inactive...good luck to everyone and remember its a game, life doesn't end with illy..I love the spin even though I didn't understand its meaning....wheres my shovel? |
Posted By: Kompanion
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 18:31
Do you need a shovel to spread some fertilizer? I am fairly certain that is what peaceful farmers do. |
Posted By: Bartleby
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 19:13
qft ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/222898" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 19:48
It's best if KP responds to this:
While pawing through that thread I found this gem from Kumo:
Given the combatants in this (the very next war), that quote made me chuckle. I think in some ways KP is right, this is a game. It's really not possible to siege anyone out of the game. The gloom and doom tone sounds really silly from an alliance whose members were actively trolling for the start of war (do you want more links or you can read the first dozen taunts from KP in the Trove war thread above). The silly "rules" established above have no boundaries. Most sieges are multi party (usually an entire alliance). Even the zealous scribes of H? will never know who established most blockading forces, who assisted defending a sieging force, etc... As such, if an alliance were to siege out any inactive (one city) H? (or NC or TCol) account your rules allow for the complete destruction of every account within that alliance (or perhaps even loose affiliation of alliances). If H? already has players who are "going to be sieged out of the game", how are these rules? IMO, H? enjoys the pretense of rules but the reality is that those rules boil down to "we'll do what we can/want, if we win". No one thinks H? isn't dangerous. We know that. IMO, that's why so many are in this war. Everyone saw that H? did everything they felt they could get away with to every alliance with any connection to the last war. It was a laundry list of (give us this or else) demands. We all saw how the last war began with RHY, H?, NC and secret confeds sieging cities and Consone accused of aggression for breaking sieges. Players of any consequence or size have their own perspective on the score and the price. So, I hope H? learned some lessons. As KP states, this is a game designed for war. Either fight it that way (current conflict, total war) or build structured wars between willing participants with solid boundaries. Threatening everyone with scorched earth stories seems juvenile. Doing so, because the consequences of the way members of H? and it's allies have actively pursued their own select limited wars seems exceptionally so. To the extent you feel these facts are flipped on their head, you should try to siege others out of the game. You should do this to change the dynamic of the game. I think that's why the devs built the game as they did. Every player always has the choice of leaving the game or creating new accounts and starting over (hopefully with a new attitude). Soon (less than 2 months), anyone can have the choice of living in complete safety in TBL and everything will change. Peace and harmony will reign. ;-) |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 20:31
------------- |
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 20:39
|
Salarius, Harmless is not the only alliance that put limitations on loss during wars. If you are advocating scorched earth policy then you lack the foresight of what changes it will have in the game. It is why scorched earth was never fought in previous wars. Harmless is not threatening anyone with scorched earth, we are, however, watching a trend in this war that we have not seen in others wars; players are under siege in all cities (not fake sieges either). Harmless is bringing up these actions because it will require a shift in our policy of limiting the number of cities we take from any one player. We are NOT threatening scorched earth, we stating that we will match the level of destruction imposed by our foes. So yes, it is the leaders of the alliances, we are fighting, choice on how this war proceeds, if they want to siege players out of the game, Harmless will change their policy of imposing limitation of losses and meet the challenge in kind. We would like to hear from the opposition alliance leaders in the war. Edit: spelling
------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: Binky the Berserker
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 21:09
|
I've been sieged down to 0 population many times and I never left the game. If you're scared of losing your towns keep out the war I'd say. Or step out while you have the chance. I don't know much about the current war, but I doubt players allready lost all their towns on 2 accounts. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 21:29
Hi Starry, Alliance leaders have contacted H? (AFAIK some talked to you). If H? is worried about the far flung cities of H? getting sieged from the game, then why did H? declare war against EE, and simultaneously make the implication that H? believed there was a vast conspiracy (of former Consone members) to continue the Trove war? Wasn't that a recipe for getting your isolated members attacked (by former members of Consone)? IMO, no alliance is going after the cities of individual H? player. Alliances are going after H? cities near them that can launch short warning attacks against dozens of targets. If those cities are from the same player, that was a stupid thing for H? and that player to do. H? is smart enough to look at a map and see who is vulnerable. H? players are smart enough to know who was on which side in the last war and predict the risk of their location. Why not contact those alliances you are threatening (because you feel they are part of a conspiracy against H?) and give assurances before attacking EE. At least order your members to exodus before voluntarily declaring against EE? Personally, I want to put as much space as possible between myself and H? and any of their allies or anyone that I feel may attack me. After HM's post, I'm not sure the map is big enough. Will H? really never stop? Is that how H? would like to assure us to stop attacking their players? How is that an assurance? Personally, I don't feel comfortable at all after HM's post. Maybe we could all agree that your team stays on your part of the map and other teams stay on their parts? Perhaps that is a solution to this never ending war. I'm not a big fan of alliances spread everywhere. It's a recipe for misunderstandings and war. So, to be succinct. If H? is worried about their members, H? should either fight for their members or H? should negotiate for them. Either there is a carrot or a stick. Threats of future violence will probably encourage increased present violence, not less. What idiot alliance would stop fighting H? if it meant allowing H? to continue, survive and fulfill HM's promise? With HM's post, H? all but assures a continuance of (or increase in) the attacks. Sal |
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 21:45
|
Lets not kid ourselves here, players have already been chased from the game. Nobody here can claim the high road so stop with the spin. The only people who can put a stop to this fast is the DEVS. Devs, if you 'cancel arrangement' on all accounts now and then set up new rules where sitters can't use the troops or caravans of the sat account then this will all disappear quite quickly. The warmongers won't be so much in a hurry to fight when their war machines come to a halt from a lack of unlimited gold, supplies and massive amounts of reserve troops. Get rid of these permasats so those of us who actually play the game, and want to continue playing it, have the opportunity to do so. |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 22:05
------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 22:37
You are welcome to discuss HM's statement in your Embassy at our forum, my post did not state it had to be discussed here.. HM's post was a statement of policy, if you want to discuss it, we will listen. ------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 22:45
|
Hey all... sieges are only a small part of the problems driving players out. In the last war I was short from leaving several times. - The constant spinning of facts, - the rise of activity you NEED to perform when entering your computer, at a time when you planned to relax... - often insults from enemy players... - errors and bad language from your allies... All this factors can cleave the fun off a game! Damn, I didn't have a single siege on my cities during the war, but was short from quiting after 3 months of constant fighting... there has to be something wrong in this picture... Many players left, until we had to surrender to stop these losses. Mind you NOT losses from sieges, but players leaving, allies dropping off, as it was no fun anymore! Thus both sides: Don't underestimate those psychological factors!
|
Posted By: Vanerin
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 23:29
|
As I read and think about this, I am curious how "destroy an account" is defined. Anyone that reaches 0 pop? Anyone that has a siege (successful or not) on all cities? Anyone that abandons? I would think this definition to be a crucial part of establishing policy. Also I think Epidemic had a very good point about inactives. Could someone please explain why they are so important to defend/attack? Finally, can morals/high road really be called that if the principles are thrown out when it becomes inconvenient? ~Vanerin
|
Posted By: M6 Redneck
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 23:43
|
Hi There, I like this game, I prepare for and work hard in tourneys. They, (the tourneys), keep my interest and as such my military is geared for tourneys. Then along comes a war. Fair do's these things happen. Alter some sov, change some build ques, etc,etc, prepare. As it happens I am located some distance from the main theatre of opperations for my alliance. Works out well for me as I learn from those at the sharp end and have the time to prepare some more. Yet I want to contribute. So I do. Long range attacks and a few opperations nearer to home. Those opps near home... ISpy a few issolated cities, diplos deployed. Small towns, few defences. Took out the troops, thieved away. Hey its war! I have never conducted a siege, so I sent out my battering rams, (about 2). I wanted to both learn about siege craft and hopefully draw forces to break siege to give respite to my alliances mates that were being hit hard, (didnt work). Then I get a message from a H? player, do not remeber name, do not remember message. I do remember the tone. It seemed to me he did not like me sieging a smaller player. I also remember that it was really none of his/her business. So a question... Am I now marked on the list? And an answer... So what, I shall play the game as I see fit. (For the record I shall not raze any town I siege, just not my way[not that it is any business of yours H?]). I have many H? neighbours. I met them by acciendetally hitting one of their armies. I contacted the player involved and their leadership about it. Both where really good about it and accepted that "stuff" happens. Always had respect for you guys. Threatening posts like the opening one really errode that respect . M6 PS, although I will not destroy these smaller cities I can and I will act to stop them being a threat to me however I can.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 00:04
|
While this policy superficially seems reasonable, here is the problem that I have with it. Alliance leaders are almost never the ones who take casualties. Didn't you guys figure this out during the Trove War? It's the far-flung players and outposts that get hammered during a war. Usually those players don't even realize they are in extreme danger until an alliance suddenly declares war, the map around them lights up in a field of red, and the sieges launch from point blank range. Leaders are tucked away safely in huge alliance strongholds, and rarely lose cities except as reparations at the end of wars, and only if they lost. A reciprocal annihilation agreement really just says that if an alliance crushes your outlying players, that you are going to crush theirs. But that's only a deterrent if the enemy alliance leaders CARE that you are obliterating some poor player's entire account. I doubt that to be true. It seems much more likely that those leaders would smash that player deliberately to upset and infuriate their enemies. If you want to make some kind of anti-obliteration policy, I suggest you target it at the alliance leaders. All this one says is that "If you terrorize our weakest links, we will terrorize your weakest links, too." You're just extending the misery to adjacent footsoldiers. A more sensible policy might be to say, "We will monitor the worst damage inflicted on a single account, and if you lose, we will require that many razes against each of your leaders." That at least would be fair, because you're specifically targeting the people making the decision to destroy an account. Your way just punishes random people on their team. |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 01:19
|
What sparked the announcement of this policy now? The same tactics that this policy opposes were performed in many of the previous wars by all parties. If that has always been a harmless policy when approaching this war, why was it not announced at the beginning? Why do you expect everyone to respect Harmless? policy when Harmless? has blatantly disregarded and insulted other alliances' war time policies? ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 07:24
I have no job with the rest of the discussion, but Brandmeister you weren't in the Consone war and even though you seem to be totally unaware of the razed-captured-exodused list of both sides in that war, you make such proclamations. So since you mentioned that particular war I should inform you that the bolded part is totally false. Oh, and just two notes ...
... an alliance that doesn't care about its members is not an alliance, but a contradiction in terms.
... where in the announcement did it say that any target is "random" as you seem to think .?.  |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 08:57
... an alliance that doesn't care about its members is not an alliance, but a contradiction in terms. [QUOTE=Brandmeister] as an opponent to the coalition during the consone/coalition war I have to agree with Deranzin here...sorry Brandmeister, you are totally wrong here. can I also say..it makes military sense to attack players on the fringes of the main bulk of an alliance and completely suicidal to attempt a major siege in the heart of an alliance hub, just to try to get at a leader. unless of course you have the military might and backup ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 09:49
|
Since War/Chaos is part of the game. One who is involved should accept/fight all ruthlessness thrown on you. Some alliance choose to be at war - this is a fact... If you want to get out SURRENDER, ACCEPT the TERMS/REPARATIONS, and SEEK PEACE. If you won't that's fine, you can battle it out until your towns was razed to the ground. still bored? :D |
Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 12:19
Jcx, from Night Squires, have given us a shining example of how the warmongers in this game think - surrender or be razed to the ground. H?, you can talk about your high-faluting ideals all you want, and I respect you for trying to keep to them in these difficult times. But can you ensure that the jackals who shelter in your shadow will hold to the same high standards of honour and decency as you hold yourselves to? Again, this war is not about H? and not a power struggle. Those that would change Illy (and not for the better) seek to hide behind H?. Will H? let them?
|
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 12:53
|
If you must refer to allies of Harmless? during war time as jackals - Then I will point you to DARK and our interaction during the Consone war and how we reigned them in from their over focusing on individual players. Twilights still rants about that in GC from time to time. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 13:19
The classic dilemma for which Star Trek is famous for exploring. Does the end justify the means, or the means justify the end? What sort of extenuating circumstances does it take to make someone compromise their principles? Ultimately, everyone has a line even Ghandi compromised his principles when inconvenient. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 15:11
That is a load of nonsense Anjire. Dark did not siege anyone out of the game, ever. During the Consone-Coalition war, 1 player alone was driven out of WR because he gave his word not to take part in attacks on Dark and went back on his promise. 2 or 3 of his cities were razed and I believe that 2 more were Exodused. Harmless? did not reign Dark in. First because Dark always does what we believe is the right thing to do and second because H? never had that power over us. Twilights rants. That is what she does. She never made Dark's policy or directed Dark's actions. She is our friend and we love to have her with us. I believe Twilights never razed a town. I was just informed by the said player from my first paragraph that while Dark negotiated said agreement with his alliance leadership, he was not made aware at the time of this agreement and thus attacked us without breaking his word. I was not aware of this until now, but believe his words to be true. I will not edit my first paragraph in order to acknowledge that part of what I wrote there is most probably wrong.
|
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 16:15
Since no one else is interested in answering my questions, I am going to GUESS what the answers are. Keep in mind I have no idea what i'm talking about, as I am not part of Harmless? leadership. Pure speculation for the sake of discussion from this point on:
To answer this question we must understand what the goals of the post are. This policy is either published to drive behavior or to gain public opinion/support for behavior. The behavior mentioned is the rather vaguely defined aggressive action towards non-large-scale combatant cities. So either Harmless is attempting to discourage enemies from attacking their outlieing non-large-scale combatant cities, or they want the public to think they are in the right when they do attack their enemies outlieing non-large-scale combatant cities. Something has changed from Harmless?'s perspective this time around that has prompted them to publish this policy during this war. I am GUESSING that Harmless is not as confident in their military advantage this time around and are afraid of being out gunned. As a result they are attempting to dissuade their enemies from attacking their more vulnerable targets. This is to encourage their enemies to attack their more fortified defenses, allowing them to score better k/d ratios. The other possibility is that Harmless is afraid of loosing public opinion, and this is their propaganda attempt to maintain their dominance in the eyes of the players not in the war. Either way the key take away is that Harmless is more afraid of the outcome of this war, than any other war they have fought. Something they themselves have hinted towards when discussing the magnitude of this war.
Now this question is interesting. Harmless has known who they are up against for weeks. Infact they were theorizing who they were up against months ago. They have known their enemies strategies for weeks, some would even say years. It is possible they had this policy stored in their private forums, and were spacing out their diplomatic/policy post so they have some meaningful propaganda to publicize to remind the players not involved in the war that Harmless is still awesome. I think it is more likely that recently Harmless has had a new strategy put into place. I am SPECULATING that they have decided to strategically encourage individual players to drop out of the war, as opposed to forcing alliances to surrender. I believe this change of direction is a result of some battles not ending the way they thought they would. But what does individual players surrendering have to do with this policy? Harmless will need to begin focusing on players instead of alliances. That means throwing down some pretty hard ultimatums to players, instead of negotiating surrenders for alliance. Those ultimatums are going to be "leave your alliance and surrender or loose all of your cities." These ultimatums will not go over well with the public and they know it. Harmless is trying and make them look like the good guys by preventing these sort of ultimatums until they were provoked.
Now this is the most interesting question, and is why it is the last one. I am GUESSING that the answer is "we don't." Harmless is smart enough to know the forums is not the place to reach an agreement with anyone. Going back to my original question, if Harmless is not stupid enough to think this policy will drive behavior, than that means it was designed to gain public opinion/support. This reinforced my THEORY in the second question & answer; that Harmless has a new strategy to target individual players. -------------------------------------------------------------- In Summary, I'd like to remind everyone this is my speculation and is not fact. I posted this as a discussion of the Original Post, and not as an attack on anyone. Any and all discussion about these wild theories of mine would be great. please stay positive in your analysis, but feel free to call me out for being a conspiracy theorist. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 18:00
You are not a conspiracy theorist. What you have said sounds plausible. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 18:06
|
That was an interesting read HM; thank you for sharing. I've been eager to have a heart to heart with your side, and would like to offer my thoughts on your message. However, I'm afraid that any effort I invest towards this will be disregarded and cast away as spin if what I say isn't in agreement with your beliefs. Before offering my thoughts I would like yourself and/or any H? directors to address some incidents regarding your stated war policies and events that have already transpired during this conflict and the NC vs. BANE war. This, in the hopes of starting a true conversation. Here we go...
I assume you're mainly making this comment due to Eurik's situation in the East. As much as I empathize with your plea, I do have to ask why you're only bringing this up now; as NC has quite callously razed 50% of Gabigliani's cities. There is more to this story, but I will keep it at this for now.
Why bring this up now, after NC has sieged two inactive uCrow accounts which of course never sent a single unit against them. Why was there no repudiation when they counted these cities as trophies and used these "victories" to brag on GC?
Where is the outrage for ~N~, ~NS~ and RES accounts sending diplo's to support NC operations during the current and previous war. Where was the outrage when NC enlisted the help of TCol to declare on a defenseless II, and quite opportunistically razed a couple of their cities?
Please list a concrete example of this occurring. I'm not saying this hasn't happened, but I want to be sure I understand this point correctly. A non-combatant target of opportunity applies to many situations in my opinion.
Your closing remarks are perhaps the most interesting part of your missive. I will recuse myself from picking it apart or levying criticism in the interest of avoiding a pointing match. However I will say that comments about record keeping, sound more like a pledge to take revenge or harbor feelings of ill will towards your opponents. This is obviously counterproductive to any constructive dialog. So this is it, my last attempt at having a real conversation with your side. The decision is up to you to dismiss this post as spin, or embrace it as a genuine attempt at dialog. Your sincerely, Tamaeon. ------------- "How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned." |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 04:49
dont forget the trade and crafting...
Propaganda aside... There is a history and longevity to the game and community that is beyond dispute and it can't be glossed over by your ministry of truth. That history and the stability of the game was made possible in a large part by the older players in the Crows and H? The players in these groups are among those who are directly responsible for the stability Illy has enjoyed. Newer groups (that I've watched come to prominence in the last year / year and a half) are not and to those of you newer players that are slandering either one of these groups I am going to say now that you are not fooling anyone with your doublespeak. It is a wasted effort. You should at least show respect for the fact that these older players and groups built the community that you have enjoyed and is now under threat. To you older players I ask, in both Crow and H?, please do not abandon either what you worked to build nor the ideals you built it with. I'm not the only third party hoping for this. - M. ------------- 
|
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 13:51
| the question to ask, has their control ruin the game for others and protected it for themselves? |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 16:13
|
That
is a load of nonsense Anjire.
Dark
did not siege anyone out of the game, ever.
During
the Consone-Coalition war, 1 player alone was driven out of WR
because he gave his word not to take part in attacks on Dark and went
back on his promise. 2 or 3 of his cities were razed and I believe
that 2 more were Exodused.
Harmless?
did not reign Dark in. First because Dark always does what we believe
is the right thing to do and second because H? never had that power
over us.
Twilights
rants. That is what she does. She never made Dark's policy or
directed Dark's actions. She is our friend and we love to have her
with us. I believe Twilights never razed a town.
I
was just informed by the said player from my first paragraph that
while Dark negotiated said agreement with his alliance leadership, he
was not made aware at the time of this agreement and thus attacked us
without breaking his word. I was not aware of this until now, but
believe his words to be true. I will not edit my first paragraph in
order to acknowledge that part of what I wrote there is most probably
wrong.
Had to wade through about 3 years of IGM's to track down the information and make sure my t's were crossed and i's dotted. Yes, I still have a handful of contacts within DARK. I was very active helping a number of their members expand in some areas to the point I even sacrificed my alt to make room for a number of their cities.
Late November, early December of 2012, Killer Poodle posted in the war room H?'s policy about limiting damages to players to 1-2 towns at most unless there were extenuating circumstances and a request that coalition members abide by this as well. This post by Killer Poodle was prompted because of DARK's actions against a member of Consone in Western Realms. It resulted in an internal vote by DARK to abide by Harmless?'s request or not. I guess since Killer Poodle only had to approach DARK twice more during the war in regards to this policy the result of the vote can be assumed. Not that there were some very vocal advocates pushing for wanton destruction of any/all Consone Accounts within Western Realms by prominent members of DARK leadership.
At that time, it wasn't about sieging a player from the game that wasn't even a consideration at the time. This war, due to IGM's that have been forwarded and the language being expressed, it is quite clear that one side initially had no qualms for pushing forth such a doctrine. however, since this posting by Honored Mule the language has changed and a number of break throughs have been made. We will continue to push from our end to abide by such a doctrine.
~I don't listen to twilights for the setting of DARK policy, I listen to twilights to get a feel for the policy/stance set by DARK leadership. She has been very accurate over the last year in foretelling positions and stances for DARK as a whole. It lines up surprisingly well with all the forwarded IGM's that I have accumulated from various DARK members/leadership over the past year.
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/26125" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 17:48
| psssst anjire, dark is going to have a rave party and we don't want harm to know about it...it be a good time to attack cause we all be too drunk and tired from all the dancing! |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 18:46
There are some inaccuracies here: 1. There was no internal Dark vote. We thought that a Consone member who gave his word to stay out of the war went back on it and as a result of that we chased him out of WR, what he did not Exodus, we captured or razed. 2. Twilights is not Dark leadership. She is a very vocal member of Dark, but that does not mean that she gives word to the dominant stances in Dark, even if she does not bother stating "these views are my own and does not reflect Dark policy". 3. Recent months have seen a steady string of messages and posts from Dark leaders both in igms to you Anjire and in the H? embassy. In these messages, Dark leadership have made it very clear to H? directors how we feel about the continuous aggrssion by NC and their allies. H? chose either to ignore Dark's view, style it as influenced by spin, or made sure we understand that any action against it is unacceptable to H? You should not have been surprised by our final decision to act. If anything, you may have been surprised by the support of so many others to our views and the joint opposition to the aggression you chose to disregard or even support.
|
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 23:29
There is truth in this. During war Dark didn't vote on this per ce, it was an agreement between tactics, growth and diplomatic leads (at the time). If memory serves me correct, it was more than 1 person that this was done to: Alagos (EE) ahaliel (VIC?) Coraxi (VIC?) Then there were some alliance-wide IGMs wanting to raze all of a person's cities to the ground that we had to restate what it meant to be in Dark, to ask if Dark: 'Are we evil and bullies, or honorable and good guys? I for one have been treading the path of be an honorable and good guy. Am I with the wrong group?' This was the point when Dark was asked WTF about taking more than 1 town by the coalition.. Not trying for any spin here, just promoting the truth as I always do...
You may not think she is a barometer for your alliance, but here we are. Not long ago she was egging SB on saying that there should be a war - there is war between Dark and NC. Not long ago she was egging on H? saying there should be war - there is war between Dark and H?. That likely could just be an appearing with a dose of coincidence. However, there was some instances in the war where she contacted the opposition stating something as Dark policy that wasn't, of which you, Hiei and MisterDark were CC'd. I can say that many times when I was with you guys Hal, she wasn't a real barometer for the alliance... how many times did I complain about it and yet resisted the temptation or kicking her?? If you want to revisit those IGM, I can send your way. Just shoot me an IGM. These were the things that may have led to this? I don't know anymore... /me shrugs and walks on Sisren ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 23:37
| what a load of bs...shakes head at how low harm can act to spin and win a war...reminds me a lot of the stuff in the consome wars...oh well sop, its time for a change in the game...wheres my shovel...trying to play on halcyon...pretty low...especially since u were one of us and true form that u with harm now...shakes her head |
Posted By: Kompanion
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 23:42
|
If h? had shown the same level of concern over how certain unmentioned alliances and their members have conducted warfare in more recent history as they did during the consone war, then maybe this war would not have happened. Here is the most important fact that seems to be overlooked. h? has somehow managed to unite many alliances against them, including some former allies. Back to the topic: If h? is looking for a fair rules of warfare agreement, then my suggestion would be for them to try to reach terms agreeable to both parties. Perhaps, both sides could agree upon representatives and a document for fair rules of warfare could be created. If however, this is a warning, then point taken. No need to continue this thread, we have been put on notice. |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 12 Nov 2013 at 23:52
You will be the first to get some IGMs then twi. Like I said above, no spin just the truth from the time. ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 00:00
Except that it was not H? that you had a problem with... right? You talk of former allies... from all appearances it's really only Dark that was the former ally... vCrow seems to mostly be valar these days. allies they were not from what I understand. but to your point, yes. back on topic. Since it's likely terms won't be reached, let's face it anytime H? and EE's confeds are in GC together kind words arent used... the terms are as posted. right? take too much, expect more to be taken. Lex Talionis ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Kompanion
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 01:18
Then the thread should be closed. |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 01:52
I am of the opinion that it should remain open. This isn't just for Dark, but all involved in this war. We shouldn't close any and all threads because it is inconvenient for you, Dark is not the only stakeholder. Unless of coarse you are now speaking for the opposition? But I believe that is either Hath or ditto... ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Kompanion
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 02:50
My opinion was not based on inconvenience, it was based on your response that the intention of the posting was merely a notice. Notice served  |
Posted By: Oozra
Date Posted: 13 Nov 2013 at 16:22
| what is the ratio of town razed on both side now ? kumo , still keeping records ? |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 15:52
|
Towns Exo'd would also be an interesting statistic. Effectively towns razed to level 12 buildings and put out of combat for 1 week. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 20:47
Everybody always accuses me of being militaristic or mean whenever I pull out stats, but, I guess, if I'm being asked, then I don't run the risk of being accused! ;) Here are my latest numbers. Please let me know if you have any I've missed... The Coalition has inflicted the following: 1 Capture, 24 Razed, 15 Exodus. vEElar has inflicted the following: 7 razed, 8 Exodus ;) |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 21:22
|
How many have DarcVik uSoon and CalciShady celtiCrow Knights razed? Jeez you guys got a lotta enemies. |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 22:06
------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 22:24
Thanks for letting me know, Duke. Which six have you razed? I want to make sure my records are accurate... I only have records of two cities being razed by Shade, Desilee's and Crozno's... Please fill me in on the other four... |
Posted By: Oozra
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 23:04
So , where in your new policy does it say that you ll inflict 3 times more damage than you receive ? |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 23:10
LOL try counting the cities raised / exodused amongst the coalition (which in your words does not exist) not just in your alliance. You may also want to include the cities you have promised to exo so as to gain peace for a certain member of yours, or is this not happening? Should we continue our actions against that player now? Please answer asap, we would rather your member exo his cities rather that forcing us to do so much damage to one account (especially one you have exploited as a front line fighter), but if you are silent we can only presume you are going back on the peace agreement reached for this member with your alliance. |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 14 Nov 2013 at 23:56
|
Is there any way to have an auto-count of this? It is extremely tedious and prone to error to do it by hand. Like an alliance enters war, and it starts counting friendly cities razed and enemy cities razed? Ect I imagine both those numbers are larger than what are shown.
|
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 00:03
|
What about the number of cities from abandoned accounts since the start of the war? I count what, like 30 there?
-------------
|
Posted By: Tatharion
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 00:26
|
With regards to keeping track of the situation I am offering a fairly easy-to-automate suggestion. The publicly available live data condensed in the Alliance List tab can turn out to be a very useful input about war momentum for either side. I tend to focus on Alliance land (sum of sovs) as a yardstick. In a war on a global scale, likely to be one of attrition, it will be one's ability to keep and nurture large cities with military sovs that will dictate the speed at which one can replace lost troops...and eventually win the war. It's easy (I have started this a while back) to keep track of the week-to-week net change in land plots for each alliance at war and to further sum these up for each global side for a very good indication of how things are going. Those players dropping out of an alliance and/or moving around will induce some noise at an alliance-level but it will tend to cancel itself out over time and while adding all alliances on each side. Obviously this requires some insights initially, sifting through alliance diplomacy pages on identifying the actual parties at war, i.e. not just "frontline" alliances battling it out but also those (at war officially or not) that procure a "backyard" for resting a while.
------------- 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: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:05
I would love that! |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:08
Did you even read my post before you wrote yours??? Read up... "The Coalition"... those are Coalition losses and wins. You all really should read stuff before composing your vitriol... I was asked by you and Oozra. And I gave you the data that I have simple as that. And, I have yet to see the 4 that Duke said Shade razed... I can defend every single one of my numbers... Oh, and as to those who have promised to exodus, I have no way of knowing how many of those are. To my knowledge quite a few on both sides of this thing. I don't think it's fair for either side to go back on our words to not let them exodus just because you want your score to reflect that? Once they exodus, I'm sure they'll be counted... |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:08
Good question. I know there are lots of players abandoning accounts because of this war. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:10
Tough metric to reflect war success, as experienced war fighters commonly drop and add sov based upon whatever stage of the war they are in... Ideally, the devs would provide some sort of automated metric like DD suggested above... |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:19
|
Also, what is the Coalition? I would assume TVM is part, since it is home to NC alts and you all declared war on us in their defense. If that is the case, we have razed 5 TVM towns, 4 DLord towns, and forced 1 TVM town to exodus.
-------------
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:23
Yes, TVM is part of the Coaltion. Please let me know what TVM and Dlords cities you are referring to (or actually just the player's name). The only TVM razes I have from you guys are 2 of Wonka's cities. What are the other 3 and what are the 4 Dlords cities and the TVM exodus please). Thanks for letting me know! |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:28
|
Actually I wouldn't mind comparing city count with anyone who is keeping track for their respective alliances. Either side, its hard to spin city x was razed so I'm assuming we can all at least somewhat agree. Twilights! Are you listening I have a job for you :D Knowing you I'm sure you would love to keep track of destruction.
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:35
DD actually knows this list better than anyone else in The Coalition as he is in charge of keeping it updated, so please interface with him... |
Posted By: Oozra
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:36
|
so , i asked where in your policy it says you shall pay triple the damage you receive and you ignore my post ? i m trying to merely understand your policy ... it seem to have a lot of flaws . or did you need more time to come up with a way to twist the truth to come up with an excuse ? |
Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:38
Players entering warring alliances from outside (at least six by my count) and moving into other alliances to re-arm (god only knows how many) will permanently muddle any automated numbers.
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:39
| Oozra, as the Anti-Coalition has said its no where near triple damage. You have been ignored because your simply wrong and thus your question doesn't even apply. |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:42
|
Well I suggest the automated numbers just say (Alliance x (raze count) war Alliance y (raze count)) Imagine it as an extra thing on the diplomacy page. I'm not sure if there would be a way to capture how many exoduses there are. Since 1 exodus may be due to war and another exodus could be to grabbing a better spot.
|
Posted By: Oozra
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:42
| im basing my question with the numbers given . it seem clear the coalition has done more damage than receive . it shouldn t be with this policy ... |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:47
not sure its triple damage in most cases. the policy had been to only hit 1 city, until the recent climate change... ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:47
| Oozra, their policy seems to be per player, not per alliance. So if an alliance razes 1 Coalition city, each player in that alliance can lose 1 city. There are so many players involved, if you took 1 city from each of them, it would be dozens. |
Posted By: Tatharion
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 01:55
|
To Daufer: I beg to differ for three reasons:
- You must have identified on the onset those "sanctuary" alliances and included them in the global camp at war so what Alliance X from Red camp loses, then Alliance Y from Red camp gains for no effect. - You must dynamically readjust which alliance is part of a camp and which isn't and there are simple ways to do this. - The "noise" you are mentioning tends to fade if you look at long enough intervals between reports (a week seems an adequate interim period) for net changes. Further you should focus on the camp-wide net change of the sum of plots and not on each individual alliances. As to Kumo's remark, which is mostly correct, I would reply that it will be unlikely that all or even a substantial portion of players in one given 75+ members-alliance will be in the same "sov-economic" phase at any given time, so the "cyclical" effect will be greatly attenuated. But more importantly the possible "cycles" actually gives good strategic info about the situation and gearing of their opponents! ------------- 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: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 02:12
|
Good point, Tath, but what land area doesn't take into account is players going into and out of alliances... Those actions don't necessarily have to do with the war and could potentially majorly shift the land occupied. All-- I have never said that my count is gospel. It is the best info I have. Duke and Elmindra told me here that they have others that have been razed. I have asked them for whom so that I can get accurate info and I hope they provide it, so that we have a more complete picture... |
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 04:26
|
Tally Board Alliance Razed - Captured - Exodus - Abandoned Group ABC H? - BSH - DB - TCOL - TVM - T-O - ~NC~ - RE - RES - Group XYZ DARK - SOON(TM)- SHADE - VCROW - -TG- - EE - AEsir - XckX - ALT - UCROW - NAAM - KCROW - Note: Abandoned and Exodus must be war related. :D |
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 05:28
| well Kcrow is not at war.. and i do not think they would like to be grouped in like they were... |
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 07:12
| sorry, my bad.. its Calcr. |