Print Page | Close Window

TRIVIUM

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=5330
Printed Date: 09 Aug 2020 at 07:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: TRIVIUM
Posted By: abstractdream
Subject: TRIVIUM
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 20:17
I am posting now because I want to tell our side of this story. I will follow this thread should it go anywhere and respond to reasoned questions and comments when time allows but those who would rather fish should cut bait now because I just don't care enough to wrestle with buffoons any more.

Some of my opponents are starting to wonder why I would be willing to fight to the end. I was always ready for that. It's just that now is the time to put up or shut up. There are those who think it's okay to insult me and mine from the get go and turn around and expect respect when their armies are coming our way. That sort of thinking just makes me laugh. There are limits on the destruction. The things I have built mean very little compared to the relationships I've forged. Nothing short of my own choices can break those.

It is the height of hypocrisy to do all the same things one accuses ones enemies of doing in an effort to limit the ways this game can (and should) be played. Conflict, in its many forms is the only really uncontrolled aspect of this game. Without it, Illy would be nothing beyond a chat room with unused virtual resources on the side.

This war truly started before I ever heard of Illyriad. The specific declarations and players (most of them) are more recent but it originated with a desire by one group of players to stay out of the conflicts that arose between players as time went on. Harmless? represented that group well, but now it is more than only them.

On the other side is a group of players who want to limit or even eliminate conflict, regardless of who is involved. That side was previously far less organized, I guess because they just don't care for organizing. Consone was a perfect example.

Now, the sheer numbers of H?'s opposition make this current war likely to last far longer and cause much more digital damage than the Consone War.

As for TVM's place in all of this, I believe the reason so many alliances are currently stomping on us is that it is a part of a larger plan to take down the most powerful alliance in Illyrian history and turn this game into a city builder for retired gamers.

First off, I will describe what I see as EE's overt reason. It is, in a word, revenge.

The declaration against us was announced and the revenge angle explained to the members of EE by their leader in a publicly viewable forum. He later declared it was a hacker trying to give them a bad name but it has since been authenticated by more than one of their own members. The circumstances of that revenge are that EE believes we perpetrated some wrong against them because we sent armies to break their sieges on a member of Dwarven Lords during the Consone War.

From what was posted in the Illyriad Forum at the time of their Consone War declaration against us, it wasn't the siege breaking they objected to so much as the fact that we did so without declaring war.

It doesn't seem like a factual reason simply because just days before that apparent grievance, during our own siege against a VALAR city, EE attempted a break (contrary to the belief of some current and former EE, we declared war on VALAR before launching). They did not declare against us and it arrived too late, though it did kill tens of thousands of our troops.

There are a few key posts in the insulting thread EE's leader started at that time, which describe this series of events. At this late date, the only way to prove EE's attack on our siege came without a declaration is to see the date on the battle report, which precedes the date of their original post. I don't think there is a history of declaration dates archived by the game (correct me if I am wrong, please) so I suppose there is no way to prove we declared war on VALAR before launching the siege on their city. Conversely, there is nothing that can be shown to prove EE's view either. It is our word against theirs and allies believe allies, and so it remains. There you have TVM's view of EE's overt reasoning.

Other alliances began targeting us soon after EE did. A leader of one of these top ten alliances told me they are attacking us to "free up" EE so they can help them in other regions. That, at least is strategically sound, however I have been lead to understand there are other reasons.

One of the reasons bandied about as to why TVM is being decimated by a handful of very large alliances is that we are an arm of the Night Crusaders.

Some of our members went to NC during their war against Bane. Apparently some players are saying the TVM members who joined NC made the difference in that war. I can't imagine these folks actually believe that.

NC obviously gained some population from their new recruits and they very likely were able to utilize the troops those members brought with them to their fullest but turning the war? Can anyone actually make a case for that?

The TVM family members who went to NC at that time did so to learn. They wanted to help but they got way more out of it than NC did.

The next event on their agenda of reasons is TVM's attempt at helping Roman Empire.

A few of us went over to teach them how to defend against the overwhelming numbers they were up against. RE's leadership understood we expected them to stick to defensive actions and one of the leaders of Celtic Knights had been told that was what we expected of RE. I gave specific instructions to my family members who went there that if RE took any organized, offensive actions they were to return home and all support would end. Not a single troop was launched against Celtic Knights from TVM proper or TVM members in RE. To my knowledge, once we arrived, no further offensive action was launched by RE.

Talks between myself and the Celtic Knights leader I was in contact with seemed to be progressing well until uCrow came into the picture. uCrow instructed the Celtic Knights to leave all negotiations to them and thus, at that point I was cut off.

I understand our enemies are doing their best to pile on reasons for this war against us but as players leave alliances not at war to join EE and others who are at war so they can come after us en masse, is this really a reason they should be holding up as worth a damn?

The next reason I have heard for killing TVM is that we are a shill for Harmless?.

TVM is a friend of H?. We are a friend of NC and several other alliances as well. We are loyal and we expect loyalty in return. Is that so weird? Some rather large alliances are going after H? and NC and are hitting us too. That is to be expected. Perhaps it is just a case of pure synchronicity that EE chose to exact their revenge when they did but given the way this is all playing out does anyone really believe it was a coincidence?

Lately, another alliance has declared against us. I presume that now it seems fairly safe to do so, since we have already lost cities and are very unlikely to cause them any serious harm within our current circumstances. They are taking advantage of the situation to ensure the safety of one of their members because it just makes good strategic sense to kick us while we're down.

There have been several calls from our opponents for me to surrender TVM to whatever terms EE feels are adequate. I've told them before, I will tell them again and I will say it here; I will never surrender. I believe that personally it is wrong, I believe that philosophically it is wrong and I believe that morally it is wrong.

I believe this war is between two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Well over a year ago, I attempted to publicly discern them but was told to shut up because I was just stupid and that I should embrace "diversity".

I believe those who tout war in Illy are the best possible advocates for this game. I also believe that those who would snuff out the diverse warring players (ironically, with war) are sounding the death knell of this game. Some seem to wish to make Illy into a retirement community. How many new players will that attract?

Without adversity we can never know what we are capable of.


-------------
Bonfyr Verboo



Replies:
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 22:17
I dont think that anyone is trying to snuff out divers warring players as you said it.It is probably just your perception because for first time you are in war against stronger oponent and war is not going so well for you, after all you cant go around choosing only wars you are certain you can win and send your players to expeditions to join other wars and siege people for some obscure reason.Also i doubt that game will die if TVM players are gone, game is still here even with all those players that left game because TVM among others.I dont think anyone wants to erase TVM.As officer it is your choice if you allow your players to be forced out from game because of loosing war, dont worry about it you are not first officer to face that choice.As a military player you should try to keep your perspectiv of situation and do what you feel is best.

I for one salute your wish to fight until the end (something i am not shame to say i would never do to my own alliance and players that i like and with whom i have go thru many good and sometimes difficult times in past several years)




Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 22:39
Your story about Harmless? and Consone can be persuasive only to cut off villagers in Ursor and Qarosslan, during long winter nights.


Posted By: Buridan
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 22:39
Thanks Sloter for adding some sanity to what is a bizarre and rambling OP.  I couldn't make heads or tails of it so your synopsis is most welcome.

And yes, I know English isn't your first language but what you've written is far more cogent than what you are replying to.


Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 23:01
Just to add a fairly significant point - the sieges that TVM broke in the last war were to help defend a former player of theirs (Fromfrak/Romram) who had left TVM to enter the war. In doing so, TVM had covertly inserted themselves into the war against EE and her allies.

I had no problems with F/R leaving TVM to join Dlords and H? but I did resent the fact that they turned to their former alliance to break a siege that was of their own doing due to repeated diplo/magical/military attacks on exceedingly small EE players in my vicinity (I know this because it was what brought me back to EE from their training alliance and into the Consone War.)

As for opportunistic warmongering... I have to take exception to this. TVM did not enter the Consone War (at least officially) until the last days of the war after most of the Consone alliances had already surrendered and EE was left on its own. 

Again I am more aware of the exact timescale of events during that period because I am on TVM's doorstep and  it was their entry in to the war that caused me and my neighbour to retire from the war and look to personally surrender to H? and their allies - in doing so we helped encourage the rest of EE to surrender and so ended the war.

Please note that I am not involved in this war and as such do not have an axe to grind. I just think that we should not be disingenuous.


Posted By: Tatharion
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 23:04
A couple of ancient Greek and Latin Sayings might contribute to your reflexion as an Alliance Leader (and as such responsible for the well-being of your alliance's members.)

"Qui gladio ferit, gladio perit."  which can be loosely translated: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword"...(also Matthew 26:52).

and

"Dulce bellum inexpertis." which can be loosely translated: "War is sweet to those not acquainted with it."


-------------
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: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 23:27
My eyes are bleeding...
Anyway, was it not you who said, Players should not be ashamed of or afraid of WAR in Illyriad. 
{lifted from the TVM alliance page}



Posted By: Mona Lisa
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 23:48
.. I guess... the increased font size .. makes it more ... er ....  I guess .. just more....

Your friend,
"Rill's B%^*$"
 .. remember , your words, not mine . . .


-------------


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 00:36
Ok, so one at a time.

Sloter
TLR and then TVM had to survive against Shade, a much larger alliance then and now. We used diplomacy and military tactics to do it. Currently we are doing our best to survive against overwhelming odds. We understand the consequences of standing firm.

Yes, I know the game isn't going to die. It is a free game, after all. "Sounding the death knell" is clearly hyperbole. I do believe however, that a large portion of players would like to chat and harvest rather than explore other, in my opinion more interesting aspects of Illyriad.

No player, in any alliance is required to stay. At this point it is clear they have an out, even without all the "please surrender" messages sent out to our members by the opposition. Even so, they remain. They understand that no one can force them from the game. At worst, we regroup in the newb zone and try again.

and finally..
If no one is trying to force diverse warring players out, why have all the so called peaceful alliances banned together to fight the warmongers? It must be because they disagree with NC and have to take down H? to stop them. Yeah, that's it.

Caconofyx
Fromfrak left TLR September 28, two months before TVM was founded. She was forced out by the same player who forced me out.

TVM declared against VALAR and went about sieging one of their cities. EE declared against TVM using the events I described as the reason. Reread the thread started by your former leader.

Tatharion
Dying by the digital sword was always a possibility. That was expressly stated in my OP. Also, I am quite acquainted with war in Illy.

Spheniscidae
I am neither ashamed nor afraid of war in Illyriad. Thanks.

Mona Lisa
It's a text wall. I wanted to make it as easy on the eyes as possible for those who read it. After all, it isn't required reading so I tried to be helpful. Thanks for the public dig. As for my words, I have never denied I thought you were a threat to TLR and then TVM. The player who forwarded you that message felt the same way when he had a vested interest in the region. A shame I didn't buy his ranting at the time.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Mona Lisa
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 01:39
BV,
A shame you drank your own koolaid on that front, I never once took action against you or your alliance, and even was generous when they mistakenly tread a bit close to me, I had good relations with my TVM neighbors, but of course, my perceptions were quite well poisoned upon my reading, by your own hand, of your plans for the region.  

I hope you do not find it odd that I oppose you now.  

Things could well have been different, but its the choices one makes that decide ones fate ...  and you perhaps picked ...  wrongly...


-------------


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 02:03
I do not find it odd and I do not believe things could have been different. In fact, since my TLR days when you threatened to use tens of thousands of your Ursor and Qarosslan based troops against us I have expected nothing less. I also expected nothing less than your doing so when we are down. Bravo on meeting my expectations as I have met yours.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 02:07
I would add one point of clarification here...TVM has not been asked to "surrender" or make any such public declaration stating they did such...

-------------
"War is the father of all things..."


Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 02:17
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

I do not find it odd and I do not believe things could have been different. In fact, since my TLR days when you threatened to use tens of thousands of your Ursor and Qarosslan based troops against us I have expected nothing less. I also expected nothing less than your doing so when we are down. Bravo on meeting my expectations as I have met yours.

This looks like a tough fight ahead of you; if we were still allies I imagine that I would have your shield arm, and I would not have wavered.




-------------




Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 02:17
I'm not sure what you're looking for here.  You joined this war, of your own volition, and now you're fighting it.  If you want out, you should stop insulting anyone who asks if you're interested in talking about peace.  If not, there's nothing really here except your propaganda machine spinning its wheels.   


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 02:38
BellusRex
In fact I have messages from 3 different alliances asking me to accept terms. Several of TVM's members have messages from one or more opponents asking them to accept individual terms.

Aurordan
We joined this war in that EE (your new alliance for the duration?) declared war on us without prelude or explanation. VCrow followed, to "free up" EE to fight elsewhere. nCrow declared, after we were rocked on our heels to fairly safely remove us from the vicinity of at least one of their members.

I stated what I was looking for in the first sentence.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 02:44
Bonfyr, I don't say you weren't offered terms. I said you were not asked to surrender, but to withdraw from hostilities...I understand that not continuing to fight might make the two equally the same to you, I just wanted to be clear in that you were not being asked to surrender or declare you were doing such...

-------------
"War is the father of all things..."


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 03:01
Again, you are wrong. We were instructed to pay a ransom of tens of thousands of saddles and hundreds
Of millions of gold, remove all but food sovereignty and demolish our barracks. Lastly we were required to make a post here about our "not continuing to fight". Now, it is true that order only came from one alliance in one message but it did happen. There were other messages urging me to accept those terms.

I suppose you can see it as NOT a surrender but you can call the Sun the Moon too.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 06:39
The asking price for peace is not that bad. Tens of thousands of saddles and hundreds of millions of gold couldn't be more than 300M-500M, not much for an entire alliance. Dropping sov and demolishing barracks are a bit silly.

Counter offer with 250M in gold or supplies, you'll drop all confeds/naps, ban your players from joining warring alliances, promise to not seek revenge and remain neutral for the remainder of the war.

I'm sure you'll have plenty to worry about when factions go live and you're constantly being attacked by the dragonkin, eaglesbrood and all the other aggressive factions in the north.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 07:50
Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

The asking price for peace is not that bad.
without disagreeing...i don't think that was the point.


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 08:54
The comparison with loosing to Shade may not apply for this situation. For one, Shade is a regional alliance on the other end of the map. They didnt have anything to gain from a war with you. EE and nCrow are your close neighbors. They both have something to gain by destroying an enemy in their backyard, whether they want to do it or not. 

You seem to be loosing cities almost every day, without even killing any significant number of enemy troops. From the numbers I have seen in Herald, you wouldnt have even taken out 5% of EE's armies so far. You should discuss with your coalition to see what is the best strategy for you. Perhaps if you withdraw from war, EE may be forced to face tougher opponents like H or TCol, and then they may not be as successful in making sieges as they are now.

You are sacrificing your friends with no gain to the war cause of you allies. Your willingness to fight the war to the end reminds me of myself during the last war; but in the situation you are in, it appears more like lack of clarity than loyalty. How are you of help to H just by loosing your cities?




Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 12:40
Epidemic
Refer to Angrim's post

Ander
Your assumption seems accurate to me. EE and nCrow (and vCrow too) have something to gain by doing the very thing they and others have accused me and mine of for more than two years.

The numbers may be spot on but TVM cannot withdraw. We did not get in. We were declared on by all three and are being forced to fight. That is not to say we are unable to accept a "die by the sword" mentality, however it is now clear that the rhetoric of our opponents in general is just lip service. The opportune entry of vCrow to "free up" their allies and nCrow to preemptively protect their member flies in the face of everything they have espoused in the time I have been active in Illy.

I am not sacrificing my friends. I am sacrificing my own account. The rest of TVM is sacrificing theirs. I have never expected anything less while being a part of a group of players who recognized the ethereal quality of the "things" they've built while cherishing the actual relationships above all else. I have sent a few messages out explaining the alternatives to staying and fighting and so far only a handful have taken any one of those routes. Their heads are where they need to be.

Our efforts are for our own peace of mind. Any benefit to Harmless? is bonus for them, not the goal. Also, if we are helping them, I wouldn't post that here.

EDIT: put the player names where they belong.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Vanerin
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 04:31
Quote one group of players to stay out of the conflicts that arose between players as time went on. Harmless? represented that group well, but now it is more than only them. 
On the other side is a group of players who want to limit or even eliminate conflict, regardless of who is involved.

I would suggest looking at the diplomacy history of the "Non-Interference" group . How frequently have they declared war on other players? I know that for several alliances in the "Meddlers' group", this is their first time going to war.

Also, wouldn't trying to change the nature/existence of either group be considered "interfering"?

Personally I think those labels are rather silly. This is a multiplayer game and interacting and interfering are not easily distinguished. Any action taken by anyone could fall under either/both of those labels depending on the perspective.

~Vanerin

P.S. For future reference, I think you kinda accomplished the opposite of the intended goal with the font-size thing. It was have been *much* easier to read if more words could have been seen at one time.


Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 07:45
Originally posted by Vanerin Vanerin wrote:

P.S. For future reference, I think you kinda accomplished the opposite of the intended goal with the font-size thing. It was have been *much* easier to read if more words could have been seen at one time.

Actually I like the large print.  Being a bit older and not that sharp-eyed anymore It didn't cause me a headache like most of this forum BS does.  Maybe a smidgen smaller next time though if you please.  This looks about right to me.


Posted By: AZADICAN
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 10:02
Bonfyr,

Could you explain honestly why you have declared war to Valar last war? It is still a question to me. 

Just a short answer with ANY reason will do.



-------------


Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 14:50
I applaud you for posting your perspective. 

However large bold font does not further your cause. 

You could of simply said you enjoy the smaller conflicts of illyriad, and support Harmless?s agenda of continuing smaller scale conflicts. And you oppose Consone's attempt at no conflict, as well as other alliances attempting to prevent all conflict. 




-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 16:20
So 2 or 3 weeks after the coalition claimed that uCrow did not 'have the right' to defend their allies, and Kumo was claiming he had ensured the peace that pervades in Elgea, you are claiming that you will fight to the bitter end for this coalition as they maintain the 'right for people to fight'.

When will this so-called coalition stop twisting and turning in their propaganda campaigns?

This is not to criticize you for staunchly fighting, however only time will tell if those who you blindly follow will show such courage and honour and of course it'll be too late for you or your members by then.


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 17:31
Vanerin
Those labels are your own. All I said was one group wanted to stay out of other's conflicts and the other group wanted to limit conflicts. Also, I never said the group that wants to stay out didn't want to get into their own. BTW: how do I see "diplomacy history"?

The font is a personal preference and apparently another divisive issue. Huh...

Azadican
We were about to siege a VALAR city so... As for why, refer to my OP.

Geofrey
I said what I had on my mind. Take it or leave it.

Darkwords
I don't have any issue with uCrow other than they wanted to escalate the war and that seems counter to the way Crows present themselves.

I am following no one. I have allies. They can do as try please just as I have. TVM may go down but it is because EE decided to attack, vCrow, Shade and nCrow followed suit. What's that got to do with my allies? I believe it is because they didn't want us to be able to help when they began to attack them. The only other reason I can think of is revenge for EE, I don't know what for vCrow and Shade (though one of them said to free up EE) and a preemptive strike for nCrow. I'll entertain counter theories.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 20:12
I am also , same as AZADICAN curious as to why did you declare war on Valar in last big war.I checked your OP but i dont see any info about that there, or maybe i have missed it.Could you also give some date of your war declaration to Valar.I remember that Valar cities were under heavy attack by H? in west area and by NC in central areas so i would be thankful if you you could give me estimated date of your siege of Valar city so i can form picture of what happened when.

Also if it is posible could you please say why you sieged  cities of Druids?

I am also interested to know what happened with TLR, why was TVM formed in such way (players leaving TLR and their leader and forming new alliance) Do i remember corectly that TLR and its leader at the time decided to withdrow TLR from war under presure from one other alliance and as result TVM was formed so that all ex TLR players would have way to continue war?

I know all this is probably ancient history to many but i can not miss oportunity to ask question since you offered to answer.It is ok if you decide not to answer them, it was worth asking.


Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 20:47
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:



Darkwords
I don't have any issue with uCrow other than they wanted to escalate the war and that seems counter to the way Crows present themselves.

I am following no one. I have allies. They can do as try please just as I have. TVM may go down but it is because EE decided to attack, vCrow, Shade and nCrow followed suit. What's that got to do with my allies? I believe it is because they didn't want us to be able to help when they began to attack them. The only other reason I can think of is revenge for EE, I don't know what for vCrow and Shade (though one of them said to free up EE) and a preemptive strike for nCrow. I'll entertain counter theories.


My question was in regards to why this thread claims that vCrow et al stand against warfare in this game and that the coalition try to create an environment where people can go to war, when quite the opposite is evident.

The coalition exist to maintain a system where their member alliances can go to war against unprepared targets, whilst non-member alliances are told they will be destroyed by H if they join in to defend such targets.

The other side (the crowalition as I would like to term us, thats not to put the importance on all the non-crow alliances down, just a nice play on words) stands for their right to fight, their right to defend their own allies and their right to play the game free of another's control.

From what is stated in the opening post here, it sounds like TVM should be fighting with us, not against us.


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 21:08
Originally posted by Sloter Sloter wrote:

I am also interested to know what happened with TLR, why was TVM formed in such way (players leaving TLR and their leader and forming new alliance)

Eternal Fire gives me a chuckle sometimes, but I'm hardly surprised that he could inspire a mutiny.


Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 23:38
* Accidentally deleted my reply when I was trying to edit it.Cry

Anyone that is looking for information about why Trivium exists and is made up of mostly ex The Long Road members is allowed to message either Bonfyr or myself for our various sides to the story.






-------------




Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 03:09
I'd like to specifically state that Shade has not declared war against TVM. I was reminded that only one of their members has attacked us during the current hostilities. I have also been told they do not intend to attack us as an alliance at this time. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement.

EDIT: grammatical correction

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 03:56
Sloter
TVM declared against VALAR in the first week of 2012.

We declared against VALAR and Druids because they were Consone.

For the "TLR becomes TVM" story, read the third post here:
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/tivium-and-eagles_topic4693_page6.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/tivium-and-eagles_topic4693_page6.html

Darkwords
It isn't evident. Your statement overlooks the fact that your side thinks NC should not be allowed to make war AT ALL because they are just too good at it. You seem to think the only way they should be allowed to fight is if they go against overwhelming odds. I would guess that there is no single alliance that is "prepared" enough for NC.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: AZADICAN
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 09:53
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

Sloter
TVM declared against VALAR in the first week of 2012.

We declared against VALAR and Druids because they were Consone.
Let me see if I understand it correctly. 

You have the rights to declare war to an alliance (without any reason or warning) who is already in war for a long while and lost most of his troops, just because they are Consane, BUT when an other alliance declares to you with their own reasons, you cry all over the forum about respect and dishonesty.

One last question: Honestly, how old are u?  


-------------


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 14:41
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:



Darkwords
It isn't evident. Your statement overlooks the fact that your side thinks NC should not be allowed to make war AT ALL because they are just too good at it. You seem to think the only way they should be allowed to fight is if they go against overwhelming odds. I would guess that there is no single alliance that is "prepared" enough for NC.

Dark was prepared enough for NC and offered NC to war against us in order to end the NC-Bane war in a way that will result in less hostile feelings.
NC refused and went for another "softer" target...and here we are.
NC are good at war, but they are not THAT good and certainly not too good. Mostly, they are good at selecting easy targets and when they were wrong in the selection they had TVM and at least part of the Coalition to help them out. TVM is now paying for that, nothing more.


Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 14:48
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

Sloter
TVM declared against VALAR in the first week of 2012.

We declared against VALAR and Druids because they were Consone.

For the "TLR becomes TVM" story, read the third post here:
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/tivium-and-eagles_topic4693_page6.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/tivium-and-eagles_topic4693_page6.html


Ahh,


You have paranoia catching up to you as well, but based on your and Duke's comment in that thread you are not fit to rule either. I seem to recall you broadcasting to your members that I somehow engineered Crow and other birdies to war against you.  You have become irrational and seemingly uncaring as to what happens, what did you say a little bit ago?  Didn't you say that nothing could be done and that everyone knows you're being destroyed anyway?

If the main reason you left was because I was struck down with paranoia of a Night Fed coup and you wanted to give a better alliance to the members away from that paranoia, you should in turn leave now before your paranoia and your stubbornness wipes out Trivium. 




-------------




Posted By: Neytiri
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 16:22
I remember the sides being pretty clear during the Consone war.  It may be that an alliance joined late or quit early, but they declared war and fought.

As an outsider who is not involved in this war, it isn't clear who is fighting who.  It appears that alliances who have not declared war are participating regardless.  (This is from comments I see in GC which I'm not going to bother pasting in here.  You can dispute this if you think I'm wrong.)  If I'm missing the point of the thread, I apologize.  Regardless, whatever that point it's getting lost in this debate.

Someone should start a new thread about the purpose of a war declaration.  If I am correct in what I see on the sidelines, this formality is no longer necessary. . . which makes the world unsafe for everybody, nomatter how they want to play the game.


-------------
"It is well that their bodies know the heat and the cold; it will make them strong warriors and mothers." - Absaroke elder (from Edward S. Curtis's book 'The North American Indian')


Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2013 at 16:30
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

Sloter
TVM declared against VALAR in the first week of 2012.

We declared against VALAR and Druids because they were Consone.

For the "TLR becomes TVM" story, read the third post here:
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/tivium-and-eagles_topic4693_page6.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/tivium-and-eagles_topic4693_page6.html

Darkwords
It isn't evident. Your statement overlooks the fact that your side thinks NC should not be allowed to make war AT ALL because they are just too good at it. You seem to think the only way they should be allowed to fight is if they go against overwhelming odds. I would guess that there is no single alliance that is "prepared" enough for NC.


Now this is utterly laughable, NC too good..... ROFL

No, we just think that we have the 'right' to go to war, which H threatened to destroy us for, it is not me overlooking details.


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 03:17
Azadican
I have not said EE, nCrow and vCrow don't have a right to attack us. I guess you are reading whatever you like into my posts.

Those two Crow alliances are doing the very things Crows have claimed to despise for a very long time but they certainly have that right and I have never stated otherwise.

Halcyon
I won't speak for NC but I am curious why Bane should be considered simultaneously a softer target and the wrong choice for an easy target.

ES2
The reason I left TLR was because your actions left me no other choice.

Darkwords
You can solve all of this by posting a list of who it's okay for other alliances to declare war on.

EDIT: grammatical correction

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 03:44
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:



ES2
The reason I left TLR was because your actions left me no other choice.


Where have your actions brought you and the former remnants of TLR? 


-------------




Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 06:21
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

your side thinks NC should not be allowed to make war AT ALL because they are just too good at it.
i don't think anyone on the side in opposition to you believes that to be the reason.  there are some who would say that they should not be allowed to war against an unwilling opponent, and many who would say that their opponent should be allowed recourse to its friends and confeds in its defence--a right H? was widely perceived to discourage during the BANE conflict.  (H? has since denied that their postings were intended to have that effect, but where intimidation is concerned, perception is truth.)


Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 10:28
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:



Darkwords
You can solve all of this by posting a list of who it's okay for other alliances to declare war on.

EDIT: grammatical correction


How on Elgea would this resolve any of the issues I have addressed here?  You mean that if we published a list of alliances which included the coalition alliances that were attacking our allies, then the coalition leaders would not have declared that we have 'no right' to fight?

Somehow I do not believe that to be true?

Maybe you should actually read my posts before trying to fob me off with gibberish.

Or has Kumo made some 'global law' that non-coalition alliances must publish some such list?


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 15:06
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:


Halcyon
I won't speak for NC but I am curious why Bane should be considered simultaneously a softer target and the wrong choice for an easy target.


NC thought that Bane was a soft target because Bane participated heavily in the tournament and was low on troops. When they found out that they were wrong and the war was not going easy enough (NC like easy wars) the NC reserve alliance (TVM) was called in to the rescue. You are now paying for it. Surrender like Bane, or face the consequences of fighting till the bitter end.


Posted By: The Electrocutioner
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 15:34
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

 
NC thought that Bane was a soft target because Bane participated heavily in the tournament and was low on troops. When they found out that they were wrong and the war was not going easy enough (NC like easy wars) the NC reserve alliance (TVM) was called in to the rescue. You are now paying for it. Surrender like Bane, or face the consequences of fighting till the bitter end.

NC never considered BANE a soft target. We have always had more respect for them than that. They were a challenge, and we love a challenge. 3 or 4 players from TVM joined NC in response to BANE adding far, far more than than from II. (For the second time!) At all times, we were outnumbered and out gunned. That didn't stop us from razing 45 BANE cities during wartime plus another 22 in the post war settlement, and ultimately securing BANE's surrender.

We were grateful for the 2 weeks or so that the TVM players helped us out, but it did not mean the difference between success and failure. They supported us but never razed a single city themselves. If you think they deserve the "bitter end" for their actions, I think that is heavy handed but you are entitled to seek that if it suits your character.

I find it interesting to see how just like NC you all want to be. You're a vengeful lot, seeking the destruction of players and alliances if they don't surrender. Although I hate to see our friends be the targets of your vitriol, I do find the irony to be delicious. To punish NC, you're actions are the same as the worst of what you ascribe to us.

Kudos!


Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 15:57
Originally posted by The Electrocutioner The Electrocutioner wrote:



I find it interesting to see how just like NC you all want to be. You're a vengeful lot, seeking the destruction of players and alliances if they don't surrender. Although I hate to see our friends be the targets of your vitriol, I do find the irony to be delicious. To punish NC, you're actions are the same as the worst of what you ascribe to us.

Kudos!


Lol... better vengeful than delusional.



Posted By: Sir Bradly
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 16:22
Halcyon,

Bane MERGED with Insanity Inc mid war.  They add 11 military players to Bane.  Keep in mind at the beginning of the war Bane had at least twice as many players (all mercenaries) than NC had.

As a result a few members of TVM offer to help NC.  Its funny how you had no issue with Venita and her group.  However, Mckenna and others have to pay the price.  Why is that?  Oh, I get it.  Because you don't like them and therefore they should be punished.

Lets face it.  You are a complete hypocrite and are just using an extremely weak excuse to punish (and perhaps eliminate) a friend to NC.

Bane is running around attacking whomever they want right now under the guise of being "under contract".  That is okay, because they are on your payroll (or ditto's).  Slightly hypocritical?

Because TVM sent 3 players to NC during the war the entire alliance must surrender and be under the control of the enemy OR be wiped out.  I have seen dittobite's individual surrender terms.  Part of the terms is to have a player in vCrow sit the account during the duration of the war.  I am sorry but players are never going to agree to such a thing.  The option is 1) lose control of your account and 2 cities)  and your freedom to play or 2) get wiped out.     

When I heard Dark had an issue with NC during the Bane war, I sent an igm to you to discuss.   I was very open to discussing with our allies.  You did not respond to me and several weeks later you sent me a mail basically threatening us to end the war or else Dark would join.

In the end, you have offered zero diplomacy and have apparently out to seek revenge on NC and whomever they are friends with.  

War can be alot of fun.  NC enjoys the challenge of war, however complete destruction of alliances is not cool.  We would never do it to anyone and I would hope our enemies would never resort to such an action.  If you choose to go down that path, so be it.  NC will not follow you.  I have alot of respect for our enemies and would never treat them in that manner.  

Remember, if you war with respect for each other if can be enjoyable and challenging.  If you war with hatred in your heart and seek the total destruction of your enemy, the game is no longer enjoyable.  Pick the right path.

SB




-------------
[04:46]<HATHALDIR> okay,I'm a bully


Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 16:32
Electro Let me talk you through this as simply as I can, because you have read it before and clearly not understood and you continue to moan about what you imagine to be true rather than reality itself;

We DO NOT consider surrender terms to be a bad thing, we NEVER have.

We think they are a positive thing for a few reasons:

1 - They allow people a way out of the war if those people wish for that.
2 - They enable people that have exhausted their own armies against us to avoid destruction, therefore limiting damage to the player-base in this game.
3 - It means that an alliance leader can not necessarily treat a small member of theirs as cannon fodder.

We DO NOT stand against H because they have used such conditions in the past, we have many varied reasons for this war and most have been expressed (clearly enough for you to understand) in previous posts.

I have 2 questions for you;

If you support such conditions (and ours atm are far more lenient than those placed on consone players) then why do you moan about our use of them so much?

If you don't support such things, then why do you support a coalition that uses them?


Posted By: Janosch
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 16:48
Again the fact that TCol in adition to NC and TVM was involved in the war against BANE and II is not mentioned.

And that SB talks about "positive" diplomacy and to spare alliances that do not surrender, I also find a bit strange. Confused

Anyway...




-------------
You like Democracy? Join the http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic3448_post42792.html#42792" rel="nofollow - Old Republic !


Posted By: Sir Bradly
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 16:55
Janosch, 

Tcol did not go to war with Bane.  Nor did TVM.  Like I said, 3 players from TVM wanted to join NC during the war.  No different than player like Aurordan leaving PLAN to join EE.  Or Subotoi leaving mCrow to join the war.  

I just don't see the outrage from the community when these players do it.  But when 3 TVM players do it, it seems to be a different story.  Do you not see the hyprocrisy in that?

Furthermore, you have not been privy to terms from NC (yet).  However when the day comes you will see how benevolent our group can be.  Wink


-------------
[04:46]<HATHALDIR> okay,I'm a bully


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 17:00
War is not enjoyable for the side which doesn't want it. 

"That didn't stop us from razing 45 BANE cities during wartime plus another 22 in the post war settlement". 

That must be one third of BANE's cities? I dont know what they ever did to you to deserve such treatment. 




Posted By: The Electrocutioner
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 17:14
Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:


If you support such conditions (and ours atm are far more lenient than those placed on consone players) then why do you moan about our use of them so much?

I am not complaining at all. Not once have I said what you are doing is wrong. I do think the destruction of Trivium and its players is heavy handed, but I said Halc was within his rights if that reflects his character. You delight in bringing an alliance to the bitter end. I never said you should stop.

Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:


If you don't support such things, then why do you support a coalition that uses them?

I didn't say I don't support them. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. The forums are littered with invective against H? and friends for their tactics and terms. If you want to be like us and do the awful things we are regularly accused of, then kudos to you! I'm glad NC is a beacon of light to show you how to be the kind of players you want to be!

Now get back out there, break those players, ruin those alliances, and wreak your vengeance! It is what you want to do and I'm glad you are enjoying it.


Posted By: Sir Bradly
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 17:17
Bane had about 350 cities at the beginning of the war.  They added 11 member of Insanity after that.   So they had well over 400.  So that's about 16%.

Since the beginning of the war they have trimmed down their roster quite a bit.

SB


-------------
[04:46]<HATHALDIR> okay,I'm a bully


Posted By: Janosch
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 17:28
Originally posted by Sir Bradly Sir Bradly wrote:

Janosch, 

Tcol did not go to war with Bane.  Nor did TVM.  Like I said, 3 players from TVM wanted to join NC during the war.  No different than player like Aurordan leaving PLAN to join EE.  Or Subotoi leaving mCrow to join the war.  

I just don't see the outrage from the community when these players do it.  But when 3 TVM players do it, it seems to be a different story.  Do you not see the hyprocrisy in that?

Furthermore, you have not been privy to terms from NC (yet).  However when the day comes you will see how benevolent our group can be.  Wink

To claim that TVM and TCol support of the war against BANE AND II was not that significant, is not what I heared. I think nobody claimed so far that this war is only about this issue and 3 TVM players joining NC during the BANE war.

But I am sure others know better...


-------------
You like Democracy? Join the http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic3448_post42792.html#42792" rel="nofollow - Old Republic !


Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 17:40
Originally posted by The Electrocutioner The Electrocutioner wrote:

Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:


If you support such conditions (and ours atm are far more lenient than those placed on consone players) then why do you moan about our use of them so much?

I am not complaining at all. Not once have I said what you are doing is wrong. I do think the destruction of Trivium and its players is heavy handed, but I said Halc was within his rights if that reflects his character. You delight in bringing an alliance to the bitter end. I never said you should stop.

Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:


If you don't support such things, then why do you support a coalition that uses them?

I didn't say I don't support them. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. The forums are littered with invective against H? and friends for their tactics and terms. If you want to be like us and do the awful things we are regularly accused of, then kudos to you! I'm glad NC is a beacon of light to show you how to be the kind of players you want to be!

Now get back out there, break those players, ruin those alliances, and wreak your vengeance! It is what you want to do and I'm glad you are enjoying it.


That is not what we want to do at all, as you should know having read my posts, this is why we offer the surrender terms afterall.

Perhaps this is why you keep moaning about the fact we offer them, because personally you would rather see all these allied accounts be destroyed on the bidding of H.

btw, are your leaders happy having you as the most vocal mouthpiece here?  What with Sisren trolling GC your alliance is hardly creating a positive image of late.


Posted By: blazing arrow
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 17:49
BANE was happily co-existing in elgea ...only when H? was challenged to the top spot by vCrow who were helped by some BANE members were they targetted...

I also remember how Kumo publicly acknowledged their millitary prowess and wanted to have BANE players for next tourneys, a request that that was denied by Malek and then the pawns were let loose...

knowing fully well that BANE participated in tourney and NC didn't ... the ploy was worked out and what the server saw was a  militarily prepared NC taking on post tourney depleted BANE..

the surrender conditions and the cities lost have already been brought out

so anyone in NC/TVM/H? who is now turning a holy cow ... please give us a break LOL

Disclaimer. This is just me expressing my opinion Wink


Posted By: Evae
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 18:26
The vitrol being spewed in these forums and in GC is beyond reason.  I did not hear Bonfyr attacking anyone in his post, on the contrary he stated his personal beliefs and tenets, the history of this conflict as he understands it.  Yet many of you people who have responded have done so with scathing, cutting comments.  Get a grip people.  We are human beings subject to the errors of our own perceptions and our emotions.  Yes, we are playing a game.  And as in all things in life, our choices and actions write our story.  The personal attacks over choices made it this game are chilling.  Your words are your choices too.  

In his post Bonfyr wrote:
The things I have built mean very little compared to the relationships I've forged. Nothing short of my own choices can break those.

This is what I have enjoyed primarily about this game.  I would stand beside someone with this conviction any time.  The rest of you should examing the truth of that schoolyard rhyme you were taught, "...but words will never hurt me."  I think you were sold a bill of goods.


Posted By: The Electrocutioner
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 18:34
Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:

btw, are your leaders happy having you as the most vocal mouthpiece here?
I have no idea. I could ask Sir Bradly, but I'm not technically disobeying if I don't know what he actually wants me to do ;)

Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:

What with Sisren trolling GC your alliance is hardly creating a positive image of late.
Sisren is not and has never been in NC. I haven't been paying attention to GC lately, but he does not represent Night Crusaders in any way.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 20:31
Originally posted by The Electrocutioner The Electrocutioner wrote:

Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:

btw, are your leaders happy having you as the most vocal mouthpiece here?
I have no idea. I could ask Sir Bradly, but I'm not technically disobeying if I don't know what he actually wants me to do ;)
:)  well said.


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 21:11
Bonfyr, Electro, SB:

There is no hate in me towards any of you guys. You played the game and acted as you did, causing destruction to a lot of players and making a lot of us angry with you. Anger does not translate to hate. Especially in a game.

You managed by your actions to bring to life and forge the great opposition that now stands against you. Greater than Consone and much more resolute. This is a globla war and it will probably expand even more before it begins to move towards peace.

You reap what you sow. You can surrender and accept terms or continue to fight and try to force us to accept terms. I can appreciate your refusal to surrender since I will do the same. You have had the run of Illyriad for far too long and caused too much harm for us to allow you to continue as if nothing happened. We will fight you until you accept terms, or until one side is destroyed. At this time, I see no middle path.

Any player who is not resolute as you and us seem to be, is welcome to accept personal terms. On our side, Ditto is to be approached for terms.

Cheers,


Posted By: Shadar Logoth
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 21:24
Halcyon, Respect.

You probably pointed out best what this is about to both sides, without showing disrespect to the other. 

Off course your point of view will be the same view from the other side. 
But hopefully they will regard it with the same respectfull approach you did. 

(edited cause my editing needed editing)




-------------
More Orc, less talking!

All that is said is my own opinion. I am not a leader nor voice for Invictus. I will always abide by Invictus's rules.


Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 23:22
In the Consone war I had to withdraw for personal reasons (periodically RL gets in the way of the important things in life).

When I approached H? leadership they were generous with the personal terms for my surrender. As it was the war ended 2 days later and I accepted my "fate" along with the rest of EE.

Anyway, my point is that however recalcitrant TVM leadership elects to be, I am sure that any player looking to leave an alliance mid-war will be treated fairly and equitably.


Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 11:45
If there were no harsh surrender terms for loosing side in wars Illy would probably have more wars  and both military oriented alliances and peaceful alliances would get all aspects from game that they want.

For BANE to lose 22 cities as surrender terms is completly insane ( how many cities of NC have BANE sieged?, maybe 4-5 and they had to lose 5 times that number)If it was done differetly there would never be any bad blood, and also NC and other military alliances would have more oportunity for fights.People complain about lack of PvP and that is direct result of crazy surrender terms.

If wars were fought so that no alliance has to lose cities after they accept loss of war Illy would be different.

As for NC being outnumbered by BANE i dont see that anyone has mentioned of over 500k troops that were  used in first siege that belonged to one leader of training alliance and two 2 others from NC who just used up huge reserv in that siege and then left NC to be replaced by other military players mostly from TVM.While it looks that NC had 20 players its politics of revolving doors allowed them to use huge amounts of troop from players who joined in only to unload all troops they had and then remove them self to safety.One player even used up all his troops then left to other alliance to rebuild his troops then came back to NC after a month and used his freshly trained troops to form siege.

Tcol declared war to II , they say it was ment to keep war fair.If they did same to leader of training alliance who used all deff troop from one acc to suport NC siege,or to any other alliance that suplied NC with military acc during war i might have belived they only had fair play in mind.




Posted By: Janosch
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 16:41
Originally posted by Sloter Sloter wrote:

If there were no harsh surrender terms for loosing side in wars Illy would probably have more wars  and both military oriented alliances and peaceful alliances would get all aspects from game that they want.

For BANE to lose 22 cities as surrender terms is completly insane ( how many cities of NC have BANE sieged?, maybe 4-5 and they had to lose 5 times that number)If it was done differetly there would never be any bad blood, and also NC and other military alliances would have more oportunity for fights.People complain about lack of PvP and that is direct result of crazy surrender terms.

If wars were fought so that no alliance has to lose cities after they accept loss of war Illy would be different.

As for NC being outnumbered by BANE i dont see that anyone has mentioned of over 500k troops that were  used in first siege that belonged to one leader of training alliance and two 2 others from NC who just used up huge reserv in that siege and then left NC to be replaced by other military players mostly from TVM.While it looks that NC had 20 players its politics of revolving doors allowed them to use huge amounts of troop from players who joined in only to unload all troops they had and then remove them self to safety.One player even used up all his troops then left to other alliance to rebuild his troops then came back to NC after a month and used his freshly trained troops to form siege.

Tcol declared war to II , they say it was ment to keep war fair.If they did same to leader of training alliance who used all deff troop from one acc to suport NC siege,or to any other alliance that suplied NC with military acc during war i might have belived they only had fair play in mind.



Personally I think this is even more the case, if the reason for war is totally random (=just for fun). That some players come to the forum and declare a war between NC and CK as “fair” (or just) is also a rather funny idea (although their pop might suggest something else). It would have been nice not to have this “take city policy” after wars. But probably it is too late for that.

I do hope in the new Illyriad after the war (however this will look like and who will be the new (or old) masters) will be managed by a different approach to war and punishment of the looser or aggressor. But escalation to something else might be very possible.

Do you refer to NS and their leader concerning the BANE war? I did hear rumours that also NS supported the war against BANE and had not so nice experiences with NS-players myself.

BANE/II vs. NC was eventually a “fair” war (considering army size, battle knowledge, troop building speed, player activity, etc.). But the moment TCol engaged against II players was maybe the moment that made this coalition against “the” coalition possible? My feeling was the peace treaty created some additional bad feelings and particularly NC have made themselves ex-II and BANE players as enemies same as EE might not like H? anymore? It would have been great to say: “Thanks for fighting a great six month war which you did fairly well. Let us return to peace now!” But some humiliation and city destruction from the winners (NC in this case) seems to be part of the game, sadly. Just for fun is only good when all players have fun. And I think an easy peace would have led to a more calm situation then what we experience now. There is now even the risk to move to a more hateful stage then what we experienced before. But only time will tell…

I tried to wage war once with one of my players to capture a mine. An unaligned player occupied the mine (after it appeared and “fairly” close to my player while the other player was about four times further away) and did not respond to any mails which suggested sharing the mine. We decided to use force with the aim to get the player to share the mine. The player turned out to be an H? alt. It took about one day and I had a big siege from H? directly next to my capital. I was told: “Accept our conditions (pay a fine) or loose cities!”




-------------
You like Democracy? Join the http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/topic3448_post42792.html#42792" rel="nofollow - Old Republic !


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 17:18
As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. This whole conversation would be a lot more sensible if people started talking in specifics, instead of using vague accusations like "an EE player" or "some TVM players". I think both sides are purposely keeping things vague in order to draw sweeping conclusions, which is pretty obvious PR FUD.

I don't know why everyone is screeching about warriors joining and leaving, and various escalations. Both sides have done it, ad nauseam. NC, BANE, TVM, II, DARK, uCrow, H?, Tcol... the list is long. Isn't that what happens in a war? Your friends jump in to support you? Whenever someone is in danger of losing, they bring in a few more tough guys (or entire alliances) to their side of the conflict. Frankly, I think we should prefer that individual players join the alliances at war, because it keeps wars contained to the two alliances fighting, and restricted to only voluntary combatants of significant experience.

Let the fighters duke it out. That's what MMO wars are supposed to be about.


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 17:32
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around.


Posted By: Sir Bradly
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 19:57
This thread is getting derailed just like every other thread in the forums.  

/me goes back to building troops.   :)

SB


-------------
[04:46]<HATHALDIR> okay,I'm a bully


Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 21:33
... I am sure players are free to pick their own way out of a conflict, one who did had a city ready to be razed (the button had indeed popped) ,  in the end, the city survived ...  there is always a way out, it is the choice of those in conflict how far they wish to press their position.  

If accepting terms is too distasteful, then the conflict just goes on until ? 

I presume that is really the way of all Illy wars . . .  this one no different than any other....  just larger in scale....


-------------


Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 22:34
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around.

You are wrong, as was Sloter. The war started over a player of mine that had troops next to his city. I sent my troops to surround his city to protect him from a retaliation siege. When this lie was being spread during the war I and many others who had been contacted by BANE leadership with the accusation, asked for proof of this accusation. None was ever produced. 

BTW, thanks for thinking I have 500k troops. Big smile


Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 23:21
Originally posted by Myr Myr wrote:

Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around.

You are wrong, as was Sloter. The war started over a player of mine that had troops next to his city. I sent my troops to surround his city to protect him from a retaliation siege. When this lie was being spread during the war I and many others who had been contacted by BANE leadership with the accusation, asked for proof of this accusation. None was ever produced. 



Again: There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around. Nobody was interested enough in your nwebs to push any of them around. NC were looking for an excuse and found a very flimsy one.




Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 23:28
Halcyon, you are welcome to your opinion. I disagree and will stand up for any of my members if anyone is parking armies next door to their cities to claim sov. Also, if anyone is not familiar with the incident and would like the facts they are welcome to contact me in game.


Posted By: Malek
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2013 at 00:16
Originally posted by Myr Myr wrote:

Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around.

You are wrong, as was Sloter. The war started over a player of mine that had troops next to his city. I sent my troops to surround his city to protect him from a retaliation siege. When this lie was being spread during the war I and many others who had been contacted by BANE leadership with the accusation, asked for proof of this accusation. None was ever produced. 

BTW, thanks for thinking I have 500k troops. Big smile

This is a blatant lie Myr, you rotated blockades on Sirrazer yourself. Trying a new tactic as i seem to remember it being said.  As for "pushing" around your player I disagree. We did sov around him, though at 135  pop (at the time) what would a player of that size use sov for, they could not afford it. To this day that player has still not claimed any sovereignty at all.  So what was the point in the end, we only had 2 large armies left after tourney which you knew from the heavy diploing undertaken by NC in the weeks preceding it (well electro missed the cav army of hyo). 

As for the sov, I had rescinded it, i do not know why it didnt work, instead of a follow up mail it was a declaration instead.  Your gunboat diplomacy in relation to dealing with people will be your undoing. Also NS players heavily supplied NC with res in the war (we watched the speed vans moving in and out of their towns) and also received diplo's from the Nightbringers as well. 

As for retaliation siege? You havin' a laugh or what? Why would anyone siege someone plonked on the map at random and a newb to boot, stop spinning the facts and get it right. You used that excuse as a means to go to war with a weakened alliance, which is par for the course for NC.  NC were offered the chance to go to war with us prior to the tourney, which they did not, refer to GC logs for veirficication.  

SB stated that BANE is full of mercernaries implying that we are all mad troop producers, this is not the case in those days only the people that held the rank of BANE and BANELING and above were troop makers. The rest were support. You guys continually bang on about the lack of razed cities by bane, you must have missed all the forced exodus's of electro and sir bradly which amounted to most of them away from buildings and forests. If BANE was doing that badly, then why did we have 5 cities on NC doorstep that they could not get rid of? 

You reap what you sow and all the alliances that are against you is a testament that a lot of the community of Illy are really just fed up with the lot of you and how you conduct yourselves. 



Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2013 at 03:04
Haist....  Dead

People seems overly attached with the past... move on.


Posted By: Neytiri
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2013 at 04:31
I have this prediction:  Exterminating an alliance is not a just enough cause to keep people motivated to fight for the long term.  (As most of you know, Illy wars can last awhile.)
I thought the right to organize was a just enough cause to keep the Consone members fighting, but even that led to boredom for some members of that assembly.

There's an ugly side to the concept of forcing people out of the game because you don't like the way they play.  One of the nice aspects to Illyriad is the flexibility to approach it however you like. 

I hope, out of the respect I have for those involved, that a better justification for this conflict will  eventually surface.


-------------
"It is well that their bodies know the heat and the cold; it will make them strong warriors and mothers." - Absaroke elder (from Edward S. Curtis's book 'The North American Indian')


Posted By: Evae
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2013 at 05:46
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around.

Originally posted by Malek Malek wrote:

...As for "pushing" around your player I disagree. We did sov around him, (emphasis added) though at 135  pop (at the time) what would a player of that size use sov for, they could not afford it. To this day that player has still not claimed any sovereignty at all.  So what was the point in the end...

Hmmmm...135 population (in a spawn spot in the newb ring) seems like a pretty tiny newb to me...

Malek, just so I understand, are you saying that if I as a player don't choose to sov the squares around my towns, my neighbor has a right to sov within 5 squares of me??  (or even 10?).  Although in this case, because I spawned within 10 squares of SirRazor (and within 12 of the player in question) I am intimately familiar with the circumstances.  SirRazor had considerable sov - some as much as 8 squares from his town. He was establishing sov within 5 squares of me and 3 of a seperate neighboring town.  Yes - he was encroaching.  He did not ask for permission from me or my neighbor.  As for "pushing", big player, 7 towns, unresponsive to igm's vs. new player with spawn town?...you be the judge.


Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2013 at 06:29
..  talk about derailed thread !

.. eeek  newb ring talk...  guess this has run its course !


-------------


Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2013 at 18:33
As for part of my post when i mentioned that leader of training alliance used troops i would want to say that i do not have any evidence for that.So i would like to apologize for that part of my post.It is too serious to make that kind of accusation without proof and i have non.

I ask all to disregard that part of my post since information in it can not be confirmed.I apologize both to Myr and NS players for accusing them of using NS troops as neutral alliance in war among BANE and NC.


Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 07:25
Originally posted by Evae Evae wrote:


Malek, just so I understand, are you saying that if I as a player don't choose to sov the squares around my towns, my neighbor has a right to sov within 5 squares of me??  (or even 10?)


totally aside from your main content.. and being a busy-body forum-trolling dwarf... but how the heck do you NOT have the right to sov within 10 squares of another players towns? Even if you go by the ten square courtesy often used, you seem to completely miss the point of it.  it was made so that both players would be able to sov up to five squares from their city... and do remember this is a courtesy extended not a right to be expected!

If you as a player want to ensure that you hold land within five squares in a crowded zone, then you better sov it. This especially goes for claims in the noob ring (I have had two well developed cities there for a long while). If a player spawns near my cities he cannot expect room to grow. I will not withdraw my sov claims just because rng placed a new player near my land and it is unreasonable that anyone should expect anyone else to do that. - M.


-------------


Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 07:51
Originally posted by Meagh Meagh wrote:

Originally posted by Evae Evae wrote:


Malek, just so I understand, are you saying that if I as a player don't choose to sov the squares around my towns, my neighbor has a right to sov within 5 squares of me??  (or even 10?)

  it was made so that both players would be able to sov up to five squares from their city... and do remember this is a courtesy extended not a right to be expected!



Are you suggesting that Evae and perhaps others in similar situations have a feeling of entitlement? I agree with what you have to say here. Why should I give up sov squares that I've spent countless gold, resources and research points on because someone spawned within the squares being claimed?

I know a common argument is "well you should have claimed sov before they spawned there", but I don't see how anyone can prevent a random new account spawning in the middle of sov claiming.  I do not think that it is particularly just to expect developed accounts to sit back and allow brand new accounts the same sov room as the developed accounts. 

As you also said, the newer accounts can always leave the newbie ring. There are spots elsewhere in the map for their cities and sov claims. 



-------------




Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2013 at 19:09
Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:



ES2
The reason I left TLR was because your actions left me no other choice.


Where have your actions brought you and the former remnants of TLR? 

Hm? 



-------------




Posted By: Praetor Nistiner
Date Posted: 10 Jan 2014 at 17:35
What Trvium says its true they only supported us if we played a defensive war which we did and only some players came over to help out including Nallen which sadly abandoned.

-------------
Tutela 111-Sir Bradly is surprisingly nice. SSH :D


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 10 Jan 2014 at 20:09
As I have no desire to play a juvenile game of gotcha, I've decided to remove my post.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2014 at 02:56
did the terms of the peace forbid forum posts? i don't see anything contentious here.

Context: Rill's prior post accused Praetor Nistiner of trying, by posting to this inactive thread, to start again the war for which RE had just negotiated peace ("fight a war on the forums which you chose not to pursue in the game", iirc).


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2014 at 04:34
I think the agenda behind digging up a long dead thread is pretty obvious.  Don't you have your own forums to caw at your fellow Crows on? 


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2014 at 05:41
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

I think the agenda behind digging up a long dead thread is pretty obvious.  Don't you have your own forums to caw at your fellow Crows on? 
this being a public forum, i think i can still caw here as long as you can still screech.

imputing motives to other players is something i've learned to live with on the forums. suppressing expression is something i choose not to.


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2014 at 06:07
Sure, but there's things that you can do and things that are good ideas.  For example, I could stay here and argue with you  on a gravedug thread, but I can't see how it would be helpful in any way.  

Good day.  


Posted By: Garth
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2014 at 07:08
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

I think the agenda behind digging up a long dead thread is pretty obvious.  Don't you have your own forums to caw at your fellow Crows on? 
It was dug up by Praetor Nistiner; complain to him about his agenda if you must.


-------------
Garthen


Posted By: Praetor Nistiner
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2014 at 15:45
I don't know what u mean about my agenda.. I simply supported a small part of He`s post ok if crows are arguing with each other then that's not my problem.. cry to someone else

-------------
Tutela 111-Sir Bradly is surprisingly nice. SSH :D


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2014 at 18:10
Edit: I posted something snarky here, but then I removed it so I could act like I'm too mature for snarky remarks.













Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2014 at 21:58
Edit: LOL

-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net