I realize how crazy and even unrealistic this suggestion sounds since the losing side of a war has always had to pay reparations since...forever.  So I do not really expect anyone to agree with this but I thought it would be worth putting it up for discussion since Illyriad is so different from other games in this genre.  Here are a few reasons why this *could* be a good tradition to start in Illyriad.  

1. Generally speaking the side that surrenders has already endured more losses than the other side so having them pay reparations is kind of like beating a dead horse.  

2. Would make players/alliances less scared of PvP since they would know that if they lose a war they would not be crippled by having to pay reparations after they have already lost towns/players. 

3. Players would be less inclined to hold grudges for months/years.

4. The winning side of the war would not gain so much power so they would not easily be able to dominate the server for years (which is one of the causes of this big server war right now in my opinion) thus making the game more balanced.  

5. This could work for Illyriad since it is so different from other games in its genre.  Think about it; there is no end game in sight and we are already known as one of the "nicest" and most helpful communities since we give instead of take from new players and it seems to work out in everyone's best interest.  So why not apply this to alliance warfare?  Its kind of like the wining side saying "Good fight mate, here's some things so you can rebuild, see you at the rematch!"  

I was going to post why this *could* be a bad idea also but I'm sure some of you can come up with way more reasons than I can so I will leave that up to you guys to discuss.  And I know there are many good reasons not to do this but personally I think more good would come of this than harm.  

Like I said I know this is pretty unrealistic even for Illyriad because there is no way that most alliance leaders on the winning side would ever agree to pay the losing side since it is not profitable or even logical for most players.  Also some players on the losing side might even be offended by someone even making this suggestion because of pride etc.,

But to both sides I just have this to say; this is a game and even if you have spent hundreds of $ on it the whole point is to have fun.  Please don't bring greed or pride into a game because that ruins the whole point of it being a game that you play for your entertainment.  We have enough greed/pride in real life and I think most people use this as an outlet to escape some of that stuff.  Some people play because they are bored and just like the GC community, some love strategy games and this should not really affect war strategy since all reparations would be made after a war is over. 

The only players that I think this would hurt is the ones that use an online game as a way to become "rich" or "powerful" because it makes them feel better about themselves and their shortcomings in their real life which is not really healthy at all if you ask me.  It's normal for human beings to get attached to something after having it in their lives for months/years but I hope that attachment is to the relationships formed with other people and not the pixel cities or gold on your screen.  If you are insulted by what I just said I'm sorry but that's what I think.  

Personally I think it would be more fun if prior to a war there were agreed-upon parameters for what it means to "win" and what the consequences of "winning" or "losing" would be.  Some people would probably find this to be annoyingly bureaucratic though.

I think a better solution would be to make the cost of offensive warfare more realistic. In the pre-gunpowder era, succeeding in a siege was a very iffy thing. An army far from home could run out of supplies long before any besieged city. Sieges would take months, not days. They would also lose part of the army every day away from home - to disease, accidents, hunger and desertion. 

A change in that direction would balance the situation between the winners and losers, and might also make the winners more likely to offer decent terms in order to limit their own expenses.

Yeah I know this would never occur in reality and honestly don't expect anyone from either side to take this suggestion seriously (not even sure that I can lol) but was just curious to see where some people stand.  Its way too nice even for Illyriad, and also the fact that some alliances are choosing to fight until their total destruction means that they don't care what the terms are.  Its just annoying that some of them choose to cry in GC about their cities getting wrecked when they chose to fight to the end.  You would think someone who chooses to fight to the end has come to terms with what that means but I guess not everyone has.  So lets keep fighting and see what happens.  

There is no reason for that to happen. You could store resources in hubs without even having a trader. What is the connection with city getting destroyed?

We DO know that it's not the same as an account reset, since the 0 population city retains all the research of the last city to be sieged.  Basically what keeps a player in the system's "memory" is the existence of a capital city on the map somewhere.  There are no circumstances under which an active account will not have at least one active city on the map -- this suggests that ownership of materials in hubs, which are not dependent on any particular city but are owned by the account, will be continuous even if all cities are sieged.

However, rather than turn Illy in to a.n.other MMO I think it will stagnate the game into a spiral of self-destruction.

Once monster hubs of aligned alliances take shape I think that not only will there be less war as the power will be with the defenders but also the tournaments will become redundant as each alliance that has claimed a region will just sit on their tourny square.

When even friendly combat becomes impossible I think Illy will just collapse 

http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2012:Tantrum" rel="nofollow - Tantrum Spiral

Not sure how you come back from that in a month or two, unless you have very large stocks of basics already stored in hubs and are willing to use quite a bit of prestige.

I know basic math is hard, but that war concluded almost a full year ago.  Last I saw, a year had 12 months instead of 1 or 2.  I personally did not lose as much as many of my alliance mates, but it was 6 months after the war before I was back up to near full strength.  Timeline of the two wars my left foot, if the above happened we would have been back at war in a month or two as Kp stated, not over 7 months later.

Angrim wrote: Sir A wrote: the fact that some alliances are choosing to fight until their total destruction means that they don't care what the terms are.  Its just annoying that some of them choose to cry in GC about their cities getting wrecked when they chose to fight to the end.  You would think someone who chooses to fight to the end has come to terms with what that means but I guess not everyone has. again, this false dilemma. am i the only one who remembers Hathaldir suing for peace without surrender? there are middle states between war and surrender; they occur constantly irl, whether or not illy has ever made use of them. rejecting surrender terms is not the same as choosing extinction unless the victor wills it so.

Thats actually a really good idea Angrim, so create a peace treaty per say right?  The only problems I can see with that is that:

1. The winning side right now has no interest in doing that unless they were running out of gold/troops which is not really the case in this war. 

2. How long would a peace treaty last and even if both sides agreed to it would they honor it?

But other than that I think that is a great solution to ending the current war (at least for now).  It definitely is more logical than the winners giving the losers reparations :P.  

KP you really are the spinmaster, would you accept a medal titled "Spinmaster" if I made one for you?  I would be honored.  

Anyway the way I see it in war the objective is to destroy your enemy until they lose the will or ability to fight.  So far your allies have taken the majority of losses in this war since they were the main focus.  It does make of sad that TCol had to take so much damage since they were the main focus and one of the biggest military powerhouse alliances in the game.  They were pretty much the main reason NC has hardly lost any cities.  And instead of helping them they selfishly used them to buy themselves time.  And then after TCol finally surrendered after putting up an amazing fight Rorgash from NC thanked them by sending multiple sieges against them within hours after they surrendered.  So don't talk to me about honor pls.  

As far as blaming players that are being targeted; if you offer terms to an enemy and they reject those terms would you stop attacking them?  That would defy all logic and be really counterproductive.  So yes I blame the ones that are being targeted because they know the risks of being in a war when they entered the war.  And they also know that they can get out of the war at any time they choose and many individual players and 3 alliances have already done that.  But anyone that chooses to stay in the war are targets and should not expect their enemies to stop attacking them.  That is how war works and for me it really is as simple as that.  

Not only is the actual estimate, seven months, right there in the very section you quoted, It was also previously state that this was without heavy prestige use or stored basics, which Elmindra may well have had.  Anecdotal evidence of one players recovery is cannot be generalized.  

The terms levied against EE where by any measure among the most brutal in the game's history.  That you think making them harsher would have helped you now is a testament to Harmless? hubris and arrogance.  

  

Unintentional I know, but, my god that's funny. KillerPuddle is totally my next username.

Thanks for the moment!

I can see you're right. I don't get out much these days...

While we're discussing surrender terms, I'd like to point out we have never demanded cities from players because we didn't like their forum posts or something they said in GC was deemed trollish. If such was the case, we would have some very obvious demands as part of terms.

I don't believe the same can be said of other alliances

I would like to see where any terms offered or accepted in this conflict made any similar demands, or delivered them in such a disparaging manner.

RMY was a drama queen who liked to paint herself as the wounded party when, in fact, she created the problems herself.    Any comments posted by T or H staff were fully justified.   Find something else to dredge up, this one doesn't cut it.  

Heres some quotes taken from a thread Angrim made about the nature of the Crowfed a few months back that shows some "not-so-subtle" threats made by KP to people that posted in that thread.  This was a few weeks before the current war began, I wont comment on what was said because I don't want to put any of my spin on it.  The thread is locked so I don't think you can edit your posts on there anymore but I know KP can be such a tricky poodle so I took screenshots in case .