Praetor Nistiner

Two things...

1st: This post should probably be in "politics and diplomacy" instead of "alliance recruitment".

2nd: Your alliance was treated very well, despite the fact that you declared on NAAM and uCrow. So as far as the confederation's "aggressiveness and violence" goes; RE is living proof that peace is easily attainable, as long as the other side works with us.

And another thing, "Grand Alliance", please.  

Hope everyone has  a  good day.

You're sounding awfully Lovecraftian, Rill...now if an alliance only had a capital named R'lyeh

Credit should definitely be given where it is due. Though I'm sure you know that peace wasn't only achieved through the successful efforts of Zynot and Dittobite. A very large part was thanks to the willingness of all parties (NAAM, CK, uCrow and RE especially...) to adhere to a lengthy cease fire. I don't want to highlight my own role here; but I do have to point out that uCrow negotiated the original cease fire between RE and CK, while pledging to abstain from hostilities towards RE. A feat which as you surely remember, was repaid with a war declaration from RE after uCrow declared on TCol.

That said; I do understand your reservations about the progress of the war and the enormous losses TVM, DLord and most recently TCol are suffering. I personally think all this destruction is unnecessary; but our side has no choice but to continue fighting as long as the other side refuses to do their part to help end the conflict. As long as they believe they can break our spirit, or even pull a hail mary... they will continue fighting in the hopes of achieving victory.

If you feel like he slapped you.. suck it! Anyone who isn't looking to bring RE back into the war for their own personal agenda can see the thread isn't intending on conveying any such insult.

P.S. Dlord hasn't had 'tremendous losses' (lol). Yes, we have had some cities lost - so what, that doesn't even account for 1/10 of our what we have so keep the spin to a minimum.

Let's use the phrase 'tremendous losses' when a group has lost 1/4 or more of their towns. I would agree that any group who lost at least that amount of cities would indeed constitute using the phrase, 'tremendous losses'.

Well people will eventually get tired of it  if its thus

 

Or in this games is it playing it the way you want to, but someone else doesn't want you to?

 

I hope that he will see the experience of folks from his alliance and other alliances that those who make peace are treated with respect.  It is difficult to refrain from kicking someone when he is down, especially if that person just kicked you (or your friends), but I believe that we can forge a new path.

Bela, I can understand your fears.  I hope that you will eventually discover they were unfounded.

Wait, are you pointing that at me?  I was just saying it was bad PR and sent a confused and dis-unified message.  How the hell did you get to me threatening them with war?  

Bel,

 

It always is both an honour and a pleasure to be enlightened on the BASIC mechanics of the game by a leader of your poise and stature. 

For the record, Invictus is not - I repeat not - involved in this conflict. We are a neutral party and intend to remain so. As a consequence, you might have noticed that we have not been a part of any sieges on you, nor anyone else... Please understand that I have no desire, nor angle whatsoever in bragging and boasting, but just keep a balanced, measured and objective assessment of what's actually happening on the ground.

PS: Peace is what Elgea needs at this stage, and if there is anything I can do to bring back peace I will happily do so.  

This is one of the reasons surrender, to some groups, is not an option nor is it for many individuals.

One of the reasons some will not surrender. I have never stated nor alluded to - it is not possible for a war to end in which people are treated with respect.

I stated that because of the attitudes of many, (contrary to your above) many will not surrender.

I'm missing something apparently. Please elaborate on where we disagree.

PS: I am not sure I know what you are talking about with RE? As far as VIC's leadership knows, we haven't had any recent issues with RE. This is a serious matter to me. In what way precisely did VIC wronged RE?

PPS: I am a proud elf and I stick by my statement.

PPPS: Last I checked, numbers don't 'speak'. You seem to confuse the realm of numbers with the one of spinners. 

PPPPS: I think I understand why we can't see it eye-to-eye. As far I am concerned, and this is the only element I consider:  a city is 'lost' when .... it's no longer in the alliance's count!!.... full stop! I have never pretended to venture in the murky marshes of trying to understand for what reason (sieges, being kicked, going for a vacation trip in another alliance, moonlighting,...) a city is 'lost'. 

Best,

Tath

So, can you explain that reason, or by preference as many of the reasons as you're willing to share?

Perhaps that discussion should go in a different thread, since it seems that we've strayed from the original topic.

We know that RE won't rejoin the conflict; or at least, we trust you guys enough to not be concerned about that. As I said; I do respect your opinion, but disagree with what seemed as you blaming us for all the losses in the war.

It looks like your concern is based more on the outcome of previous wars, than the reality that governs our side's perception and objectives in the current conflict. The idea that RE are prohibited from speaking their minds, or are under any kind of threat is false. My objection as repeatedly stated, was based on the simple fact that RE -- to their credit -- were able to accomplish peace with no losses. An option which by the way, is also available to DLord.

-------------
"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."

It's the task of each alliance to determine their own status in this war.

Some render themselfes on the winning side, some on the downside. I'm not as far into statistics as to determine who is who...

Then again, there's a point, where the loss in players hurt more than the actual surrender or cease fire itself.

Each alliance must take this decision by themselves.

VIC had been in a similar position during the last war. I can say we put up a decent fight and were determined not to surrender. But more and more players and allies stated, they couldn't take the constant state of alarm and the lies in the forums (from both sides) anymore, RL being far more important - and left, sometimes even the game.

And this was the point, when we surrendered and paid the reparations. I dare say the consequent peace was worth the money, but that's my opinion again.

If all members want to keep on fighting and are up to it, why should an alliance stop?

Thus, I don't think there's any point in haggling about numbers (as any alliance seems to have their own... ). Each alliance make their offer to the other side, and it's their choice to accept or not. And I recomend IGM for that... .

kindest regards,

Hora, neutral dwarf.

RIll, just go back and read what I wrote. 

It is very simple - people's attitude and more especially what I specifically stated.

Not full stop. You jumped into a conversation dealing with cities lost, wherein the causation was due to sieges. In keeping with said conversation I dealt with you on the premise of the original conversation. If you left that premise and continued trying to argue from another point, that is your fault.

No. It is based upon THIS war and All previous wars.

We discussed your terms, and rejected them. We do thank you for discussing them.

There is more to peace than loss of cities or armies, till you understand that you will be hard pressed to find ...peace.

I agree there are different views in this. Correcting a person where they were incorrect on facts  directly related to the context of the subject of 'siege / losses' is not the same thing as a difference of opinions here.  His opinion is his own and I agree.  In fact, if I were to use his numbers and used all cities no longer a part of Dlord as losses since the war - then I would, without question, agree we have had 'tremendous losses' but I would state more so 'devastating losses'. 

However, the discussion was about cities that were sieged and thus the phrase 'tremendous losses" directly relates to those cities intentionally removed by another alliance.  I agree that Tam and I can have a difference of opinion on what constitutes this phrase comeing into play, however Tath brought in losses that were not a part of the numbers being discussed by Tam nor myself.  Yet these additional numbers were interposed into the figures being initially discussed and caused them to be skewed greatly.

 

Pardon me folks, I would like to post something from page one of this thread:

This thread is obviously far off topic, and since it was considered closed on the first page I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would consider this matter closed.

 

RE will remain neutral, I think that is one thing everyone in the thread agrees with. Since this thread will be associated with my alliance, I hope you understand my desire for these outside conversations to be continued in other threads. I see the connection to Praetor Nistiner's post, so I get how the topic got where it is. I just hope you will all respect my wishes and continue the discussion elsewhere. I don't want this kind of negativity and war talk associated with RE as we try to grow.

-------------
"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."

I have to disagree jtk. The conversation has evolved organically from Nistiner's original post (which contained subjective opinions, and even characterizations of "the confederation"); to which I replied, and he subsequently replied back to. I'm sure Nistiner originally meant to post a simple statement, but he ended up turning it into a conversation 

 

You are right, it certainly did evolve organically. Perhaps the conversation will help in some way to solve the problems! I think my posts are enough that if it would somehow have reflected badly, it won't now. Our neutrality is plainly stated multiple times, I apologize for my unnecessary interruption of the discussion. I just wanted to be sure that everyone knows that some of the things discussed are not really related in any way to the literal topic, "RE Stance...". (in other words, a lot of this is opinion and not our stance as an alliance).

Au contraire mon ami! There's much to be lost; especially if H? leads half the server down a path of "utter destruction". But please tell me, where's the "honor" in using your coalition friends as shields to wear down your enemy... while you comfortably relocate all your "exposed" towns south to Azura?

HonoredMule wrote:   Tamaeon wrote:  I begrudge the fact that my side is being forced to raze hundreds, maybe thousands of towns before being able to end the war. Gee, I'm sorry that the war you started isn't ending promptly to your satisfaction.  There was a time when your side had all the power in the world to stop the war.  Your only cost would have been accepting failure to achieve your objectives.  Just imagine, leaving the war without even contributing millions of resources and billions of gold toward continued destruction of your friends.

Oh! Really, and what time was that exactly? Please do elaborate!

In case you're wondering, I would absolutely see myself leaving the war... if my only apparent role, were to use my alliance to slow the advancing enemy, or shield an ally who won't move a finger to end the war... or even use their troops to defend my alliance from siege. And most certainly, if my "allies" systematically nuke any discussion which attempts to bridge the divide between the two camps!

HonoredMule wrote: Now you have given us objectives.  We should at least return the favor of destorying every isolated, overwhelmed satellite city and account to be found, to the last fragment of existence.  Then, as battle lines are formed, perhaps we'll consider eventually stopping some point short of the total annihilation your side has so recklessly and indiscriminately sought from the start of this war.

Oh! So we gave YOU objectives?! 

We obviously must have missed something, as H? would NEVER threaten or conspire against their friends. How dare we make such unfounded and outright ridiculous accusations!

Is this what is to become of the war? Your allies in the east suffering massive losses in order to shield you from the "utter destruction" you so eagerly wish to impose upon us?

And where will this theoretical battle line form? On the edge of Azura?

After TVM, BSH, DB, TCol, T-O and DLord have all fallen for the (perceived) honor of defending H? from the exact same fate you wish to impose upon your enemies? 

HonoredMule wrote: But after watching alliances and players with whom we previously warred on a limited and reasonable scale and afterward built peaceful, positive relations join this battle purely for the profit, glory, and our utter destruction - I can't imagine why we should suffer such coexistence again.

Ah man, the hubris!!! 

HonoredMule wrote: But go ahead and offer platitudes here, while you harvest inactives (or claimed inactives), non-combatants, and whatever non-key players are handy.  It's far easier than focusing your efforts on tactical objectives designed to disrupt continued war operations, and it looks really good on paper.  It would even work if you were up against mewling, easily spooked cowards. But tough break: you're up against us.

Really HM, get some skin in the game and start showing some backbone. Your allies are losing towns on a daily basis; while you spew nonsense, stifle peace talks and pledge the utter destruction of your enemies from the comfort of your homeland. If this course of action is your idea of honor... then I'll call your bluff and denounce you for the scheming cowards that you are!

Cheers jtk!

As far as I know, none of the leadership on our side have had any doubts about RE's neutrality. We understand and accept that there are, and may always be differences of opinion regarding the war. Nisitiner's comments may lack some tact at times, but I'm not aware of anyone regarding them as comments made on behalf of RE as whole.

HonoredMule's comments may have incited some anger on my behalf, but in general I think this thread has had a positive effect on the overall debate regarding the war. Peace may still be unattainable, but its only through constructive dialog and common understanding that we'll ultimately manage to bring about lasting peace. The conversation sparked by Nistiners comments is most definitely a small step in the right direction!

---We still control the outcome of the war, to what length you and Coal2 wanna drive the destruction home is in your hands. 

Now you have given us objectives.  We should at least return the favor of destorying every isolated, overwhelmed satellite city and account to be found, to the last fragment of existence.  Then, as battle lines are formed, perhaps we'll consider eventually stopping some point short of the total annihilation your side has so recklessly and indiscriminately sought from the start of this war.
--- You should return the favor?? You lack the forces, if you didnt you would ask those isolated to come to individual terms of surrender. Something you (H?) have done in the past. If annihilation was what we were seeking, then there would be no need for anyone to surrender. The Choice remains your own good sir.

But after watching alliances and players with whom we previously warred on a limited and reasonable scale and afterward built peaceful, positive relations join this battle purely for the profit, glory, and our utter destruction - I can't imagine why we should suffer such coexistence again.
---Limited to whenever your greed and bloodlust was fulfilled. Reasonable in your eyes alone, because as victors you set the scale. The alliances that declared had their own reasons and motives Im sure but while you seem to be pouring some kool aid, Im gonna have to pass this time around. 
But go ahead and offer platitudes here, while you harvest inactives (or claimed inactives), non-combatants, and whatever non-key players are handy.  It's far easier than focusing your efforts on tactical objectives designed to disrupt continued war operations, and it looks really good on paper.  It would even work if you were up against mewling, easily spooked cowards.
---Non-key players?..... Shade values every active member in its alliance so if you could give me a list of the "key players" Id be most grateful. 

We will fall and we will rise together.  We have something you don't have - respect for each other.  Trust of each other.  

You seem convinced the outcome is certain, that troubles me.  For how long have you had precognitive abilities?

Tamaeon wrote: Really HM, get some skin in the game and start showing some backbone. Your allies are losing towns on a daily basis; while you spew nonsense, stifle peace talks and pledge the utter destruction of your enemies from the comfort of your homeland. If this course of action is your idea of honor... then I'll call your bluff and denounce you for the scheming cowards that you are!

Backbone he has.  He has been reborn.  :)

Thanks for helping bring the HonoredMule back.  Watch out for his kick.

Oh, and didn't you stifle the peace talk between RE and CK?  hum...

Hmm, TVM has lost all military capable towns.  TCol has lost what, close to 100 towns in one form or another and now has H? babysitters to make sure they don't back down.  H? itself has lost all military forces outside of their southern base, and lost most large cities outside of that area compared to pre-war.  DB has lost 50-75% of military forces, T-O not much better.  DLords has lost almost 100% of military forces outside of their Perrigor hub.  All told the Coalition has lost hundreds of towns 20K pop and higher.

Meanwhile, I can count on my two hands the number of allied towns lost.  Sieges are rarely hit due to the fact the enemy is running out of troops, and generally armies return to towns with more forces than they left with.  

Doesn't paint a pretty picture, not sure what type of precog abilities one needs to have in order to see the outcome.

No, I think I'll keep those cities around to contribute to the war effort, and in failing that make you earn my losses at the highest premium I can extract.  I don't need to help you win to prove my loyalty.  I need to do the opposite.  And I'll thank every ally who preserves and consolidates his strength in similar fashion.

Some of you have waited a long time for boredom and the stagnation of the game to do half the work for you, but for me you didn't wait quite long enough.  I would have left the game by now, but under present circumstances I will stay however long it takes to win or be removed by force.

You want my skin in the game?  As long as I'm here, that's my skin.

I personally would rather see you continue to play, whether it be in war or in peace, although I prefer peace.

Brad, just go to illy tools and look at the town history of TCol, Dlords, TVM, T-O and H? (not just current members, members who surrendered those too) add those u and the number will be more than 100

Sisren wrote: Oh, and didn't you stifle the peace talk between RE and CK?  hum...

Through Kumo your alliance has clarified that it is perfectly acceptable for us to destroy your allies accounts, all KP has done with his post is to confirm it is H's choice for us to do so.


-------------
<Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that

[21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted

<Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps

Total cities, they had close to 3000 (not including Dlords, with them they had more than 3000), now they have less than 2500 (including Dlords).

(edit for spelling).

Are you me?  Do you know how I interact with my friends and allies?

You presume to understand the relationship.

You understand nothing of it.  I begin to ponder if you know what respect in fact means...

You keep tossing 'undefended' around.  Interesting spin.

The truth is when help is asked for it is given.  

Your own (collective) reports will show this, something we shouldn't even have train you to do...

You keep with your certainty that we are on the verge of destruction.  This is laughable to most of us, but keep on trying!

Thing is, they uh.... don't.  It's kind of hard to get around that fact, huh?

Repeating the baseless claim.  A cunning riposte.  The fact remains the large majority of our sieges have not been attacked by players outside of the alliance. 

As H? core territory is about 1000 squares away from us it isn't likely that a siege camp will still be there when their troops arrive, hence we don't ask them to send troops.  As far as I can tell no one else does either.  Nor do we beg our allies who are dealing with their own sieges to come do our fighting for us.  Perhaps you do things differently, I don't know how EE operates.

If we ask for tactical advice they loan us a tactician, whose advice we may or may not follow.  Since you have already made a point of mentioning the presence of H? alts in TCOL then you really can't claim they haven't, and since you can't produce evidence that we asked for troops and they denied us, your claim is just more of the usual baseless propaganda.

 Perhaps we could make a deal where you all agree to leave a substantial siege camp in place for two weeks, we ask our allies to help destroy it, and see if they come or not?  That would give everyone reading conclusive proof whether or not H? supports its allies.  That is, assuming you want to make a real point with real facts instead of just venting more hot air, but I think everyone with more than 7/8 of a brain knows the answer to that question.