And when the going gets tough......
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=5460
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 05:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: And when the going gets tough......
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Subject: And when the going gets tough......
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 04:25
|
A quick note for those who are left fighting in the coalition,there will be no trips to "the embassy" for terms.We will be happy with IGM's. If you don't want to deal with, tough bikkies(cookies)! Love the Good Guys  ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Replies:
Posted By: realist
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 04:52
| ... |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 08:27
Well, finally some honesty in the forum ... +1 from me (for the honesty, not the content ) As for Hathaldir, I do not think that he really expects anyone to take his gloating seriously ... plus it is widely known that for actual terms one should go to vCrows ... -------------   Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
realist wrote:Posted By: Cilcain
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 12:59
Deranzin, please do not misinterpret one player's honesty as a consensus. I have no desire to drive players out of the game without them having an option to stay in the game. Everyone has an option to surrender and ask for terms. Some players (including yourself I believe), have publicly chosen not to exercise that option - and I respect that, in which case, the fight continues. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/77750" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 13:09
I didn't think that ... maybe I should have been clearer before so I will elaborate. What I meant by saying that realist was honest about how he felt about the whole issue, does not mean or imply that there is a consensus towards his opinions, but that he himself was honest about them and that I appreciate honesty overall (I have made similar remarks in older similar posts btw) even when I disagree with the opinion that was honestly expressed. And I think that clears up any possible misunderstanding.  ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 14:04
Check your facts, please, the Coalition did not siege anyone out of the game during the Consone war, max cities lost allowed was three (combined taken in the war and war reparations). The only exception to that was DARK players who decided THEY wanted to siege someone out of the game and we stopped it. It appears they are now free to continue their original intent and are removing Coalition members from the game. No it is not the same, we stopped at three, you guys are not stopping at all, the intent IS to siege players out of the game which is short sighted at best for the future of the game, setting a dangerous precedent for future wars at worst case. At least be honest about your intentions, you want the Coalition out of this game. For those that are neutral, consider what this game is going to like should Harmless fall and this group can do as they please. :D Hath, we have no intention of contacting you for any negotiations, we are not surrendering and certainly have no faith in the integrity or credibility of the enemy leaders to have any talks. ------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 15:24
|
The intent is surrender. Make no mistake about it. Everyone wants the war over with, except for players unwilling to compromise. With one side swearing destruction on it's enemies for all of eternity, the other side has 2 options, quarantine, enforce low military levels, or anihilation. In illyriad, quarantine is very hard to do. Permanent blockades are not effective. The only solution is to draw out a boundary line, and say if any of their troops or cities cross it, they will be destroyed. You would have to constantly monitor enemy troop movements and new settlements. Enforcing low military levels are also very difficult. Persistent scouting would be required to verify military levels. And you would only respond once the enemy has amassed more troops than you wanted. Meaning you are facing an army that you didn't want to face. Annihilation is the simpler solution. Reduce player's cities down to a minimum level. This will at least give you several months of peace while the enemy, who has promised to destroy you one day, rebuilds. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Cilcain
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 15:48
|
Starry – from my position (a non-leadership role in VICX), I
see things slightly differently to you. I do not believe the intention is to siege players out of
the game. I do however, believe that the
intention is to siege logical targets (quelle surprise in a war). Whether these targets all belong to a single
player or not is irrelevant. By “logical”, this would typically mean towns closest to our
hub – but other criteria might also come into play. What I wouldn’t deem as logical is specifically
targeting towns on the sole basis
that they belong to a certain player (e.g. “He’s only got two towns left, let’s
go get him”). By “target”, I mean towns belonging to members of alliances
we are at war with (de facto or declared) that have not yet surrendered and
accepted terms. So, in my view, it is perfectly within the power of each of
our adversaries to change one of these parameters; Logical: Move your
towns to a position where they present less of an obvious target. Target: Surrender
(either as an alliance or individual) and accept the terms given. So, I disagree that we are intentionally sieging players out
of the game; but what I do see is players choosing
to be sieged repeatedly rather than be seen to surrender – but that’s their choice. Personally, I would like to see a surrender....but you've made your position clear on that (for H? or for yourself though?) ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/77750" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 15:55
Considering that a surrender will lead to either of the suboptimal (for the winners) choices, am I the only one seeing the contradiction here .?. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Ryklaw
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 15:58
|
Starry is correct. Destroying 3 cities is not the same as destroying all but one city. And I realize that I may be making the same point that many others (including the previous posts) have made. The issue is what is the level of force necessary for desired outcome? Would destroying just 3 cities of each alliance member result in that alliance’s surrender? In the case of previous conflicts, that answer was proven to be affirmative. Would that same level of force be effective in this war? While searching for an analogy, I considered comparison to street gangs, countries, or the military (EBO) and realized all are flawed when compared to a game. But all analogies are flawed. So let me use a very flawed analogy to illustrate what I am trying to say. If a child exhibits behavior that is unacceptable to others, the parent must decide what level of response is necessary to change that behavior. Choices exist ranging from rewarding good behavior through corporal punishment. When dealing with humans, one is never absolutely sure what level of discipline will result in the desired change. And so the parent makes flawed decisions trying to affect an outcome. It is also true that parents may exhibit behavior that is unacceptable to others, including the child. The child then must decide what level of response is necessary to change or escape the parent’s behavior but with an entirely different set of tools at her disposal. She can become even more belligerent, report parent’s behavior to authorities, run away, etc. And so she makes flawed decisions trying to affect an outcome. As both parties seek to stop some behavior (whether real or imagined) of the other, responses continue to escalate. I leave it to others to debate what level of force is necessary, what desired outcomes are acceptable, and what Illy will look like at the end. But anyone that attempts to establish expectations or boundaries to frame this conflict that prevents a final resolution are being very unrealistic. ------------- Finishing the Race! II Tim 4:7,8 |
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 16:04
|
I felt that the H? surrender terms after the last war were unreasonably harsh. I believe that H? members have stated numerous times that they do not accept that belief nor will they accept that belief. Short of removing the H? players from the game (which isn't really possible), is there another solution than to keep attacking? Given the rhetoric, I don't want H? cities near my cities. I'd be willing to accept a retreat by H?, along with some sort of agreement that the earlier surrender terms were too harsh. I don't need H? resources, I don't need to see H? cities destroyed. I just don't want to feel forever threatened. If there are players actively seeking to destroy H? no mater what (I'm sure there are). Then H? could isolate those players by realizing that most of us have no overriding reason to push anyone from the game and agree that they went too far. I notice that one of the players first held up as being "sieged from the game" is re-building in H? territory. Despite losing or being forced to relocate every city, Eurik is still in the game and already has 6 moderate size cities grouped in more H? friendly Tallimar. H? players can't re-build and cry wolf that they are being forced from the game. It seems like a never ending threat given the rhetoric and facts. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 16:28
Hmmm ... is it just me or is this another contradiction .?.
Are you saying that since everyone can rebuild even after losing all (or most, or many) of his cities, then it doesn't really matter how many cities they lose and so leaving the game because you lost too many cities is an invalid reason for quitting or even feeling annoyed about it .?. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 17:40
|
I, as well as others from the last war are proof that taking only two of your enemies cities is not enough...I lost two in the Consone war yet here I am six months after that war.. back to ten... and fighting again. Then again this depends on your outlook: 1. I wasn't destroyed enough to the fact that it took me out of the game, therefore I can thank the Coalition for their leniency? 2. I am now once again a reasonable threat in that I now participate again in full on battles much to my enjoyment and maybe...the coalitions regret? to summarise...Geoffreys point about annialation is correct...only if you want to ensure no further retaliation from past enemies...whether annialation is right or wrong is open for debate, and even the word can be interpreted as you will. OFC the dictionary meaning of the word is complete destruction, but you could also take it as destruction to the point where your enemy cannot take part in any retribution for a very long time. Another downside to doing this ofc is the possibility of ppl quitting the game.. a touchy subject Seroiusly...I do not want to be fighting in wars of this magnitude every six months or so...I have neither the will power or time to keep this up indefinately. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 18:01
|
When faced with the loss of many cities, some people will choose to leave the game. Others will surrender and plot revenge. Some might surrender and seek reconciliation. Some will fight to the last breath and continue fighting from a single 0-population city. Neither side can control the other's choices in this war. The main question for both sides is, what sort of future Illyriad do you want to build? And what are you willing to do or give up to begin to do so? For some people, this might mean giving up cities, for others giving up pride, for others giving up fighting. For some people that might mean continuing fighting in the face of overwhelming odds. I don't think we on the forum can parse those decisions, although certainly we might express opinions about what WE perceive might be best. I would simply suggest to all sides to keep this thought in mind: What sort of future Illy do you want, and how do your actions advance or harm that future?
|
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 18:42
Only time can answer this question. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 19:08
The severity of the above actions are completely negotiable if there is some idea of compromise between the parties. Generally speaking the quarantine that happens after a surrender is the standard 10 square rule. Enforcing Low Military Levels could be as simple as don't attack us, as other peace treaties have stated. But reducing the severity of surrender terms down to those levels requires compromise. If 1 side is unwilling to compromise the other side has no choice but to play by their rules. And while I appreciate you pointing out contradictions in logic, these forums represent a great deal of brainstorming from players. There are going to be contradictions, loopholes, and logical impurities. That is not to say that the idea is wrong, but that it can be improved. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 19:22
|
I think players need to get their heads out of the sand and actively pay attention to the siege list. Lots of peaceful players have been sieged from the game, lots more have quit in frustration or disgust. Illy wars have changed for the worse. You need to accept this as reality and then we can try to figure out how to bring Illy back from the brink. If you think you can save Illy after destroying it you're delusional. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 20:06
Indeed ... and this procedure of making an idea better usually starts when someone points small (or big) issues the original ideas might have. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: The Electrocutioner
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 21:50
Really? Who are they? I'm not saying it's not true, I just don't know of any. I am only personally aware of one player who was sieged back to the newb ring, and that player was the opposite of peaceful.
|
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 23:10
So basically you've had your head in the sand for all of the war except the last couple of days. Most of the destruction has already taken place and what is left is quickly being mopped up. I'm not going to bother posting all the players affected, because I don't really have a clue just how bad it is, but i'm sure you can find the answers if you look hard enough. |
Posted By: The Electrocutioner
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 23:22
I simply asked a question, and you respond with an accusation. You're accusing ME of having MY head in the sand, when you don't know either? I think you are making this up. You cannot name a single player. You said yourself you don't have a clue... you're right about that.
|
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 00:12
|
No results for: The Electrocutioner I simply don't care about spinsters or those who hide behind fake accounts. |
Posted By: The Electrocutioner
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 00:18
|
I am ELECTROK from Night Crusaders. I was The Electrocutioner for a year or so before changing my in-game name. My apologies, I should not take it for granted that everyone would know that. You can go back to making unfounded assertions that you can't back up now.
|
Posted By: Daefis
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 00:26
|
that's a pretty compelling response..... ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/37796" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 00:38
Looks at a devastated TVM, looks at a devasted Tcol, looks at a devasted Dlords, looks at a devastated H?, looks at a devastated NC... I don't like what I see, you might not care, but I do. A player going from 150K+ to 15k is 'siged from the game' in my book. Anybody can still go to the above alliances members list and see for themselves, except of course those who have already abandoned. |
Posted By: Mc Kenna
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 00:50
|
I'm a player who surrendered from the war, I'm a ex-TVM member. Surrendering is'nt as bad as people make out, I'm still here and I'm thriving. Leading up to and during the war it was always the other side the "evil side" how wrong was I. After my surrender I was offered friendship and assistance from the "other side" which is more than can be said for my allies. TVM was given no assistance no backup, were we left out to dry. In my opinion we were left to perish so other alliance's could bide their time and stockpile for the last battle which were now witnessing. It's sadden's me, we had a vision in TVM we belonged to Ursor we had so much more ahead of us. I look at the siege page daily in despair, TVM cities are still being wiped out and it does'nt have to be this way. Alot of them cities belong to player's who are not here to decide their fate. Bonfyr has made the decision to take TVM down that path, that won't change but at least let the player's go who are'nt here to make that decision Bonfyr.
|
Posted By: The Electrocutioner
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 01:15
I agree that is all unfortunate, and there is great in-game devastation to all of these alliances. But what you said was, "Lots of peaceful players have been sieged from the game". Who was sieged from the game? And were they peaceful, or fighting? I think those are fair questions to a very serious assertion, and they remain unanswered. Who are they?
|
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 04:35
IMO - Epidemic thought of TVM, TCOL, DLORDS, H? and NC as peaceful alliances.. lol.  ------------- Disclaimer: The above is jcx|orcboy's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Harmless? [H?] or of the little green men that have been following him all day. jcx in H? | orcboy in H? |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 07:53
I would have made a RL analogy that you wouldn't have been at all good for your argument, but Luna would go bananas if I did, so I'll leave that part alone. 
I've heard that being said in GC about my case as well and was taunted that my alliance supposedly "abandoned" me (which is far from true, unless you guys believe that I can dodge armies while sleeping ), but any person that has ever launched an army cross-country knows how blatantly false that is. Example. Let us suppose that I want to help you break a siege :
THREE DAYS !!! The siege would have ended well before that time and if you consider the return trip I would have been without my armies for SIX days during which I'd unable to help other allies near me whom I actually had a chance to be in time to help them.  So, that part of the argument is out. Of course, there were players with cities much nearer than myself, BUT you forget the fact that those where ALSO being attacked and where in fact destroyed or forced to move out of that area One look at the current strategic map proves my point even to someone who has not been following the war. So, it is not as if your allies where sipping tea and frolicking in a party while you were being attacked ... they were being attacked AS WELL, so before sprouting allegations be so kind and take into account some facts please. P.s. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 10:35
It's not bad if you can accept the fact that you surrendered. For you that was acceptable. For those of us left in TVM, it isnt.
To be clear, that entire paragraph is your opinion. TVM was offered assistance, still is and have been backed up on many occasions. Just because that backup was unsuccessful (which wasnt always the case but in the long term didnt stop the "other side" from hitting us, all of us) doesn't discount it. It was there. You are just flat out wrong.
Not according to EE, nCrow, vCrow and Bane, among others.
Huh? We should boot players who aren't here so they won't be sieged? What Illy are you playing? ------------- |
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 12:00
TVM, TCOL DLORDS and H? are peaceful alliances. As peaceful as Vcrow, Ucrow, Ncrow, VICX, DARK, SOON, SHADE. and so on. If you suggested alliances like NC, BANE or BSH are not peaceful I would agree. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 12:38
I think you seem to have lost track of what Illy is about...you do realise that a big part of this game is geared for warfare in one form or another yes? If you haven't realised this then you are the one who needs to get your head out the sand....wake up and smell the coffee epidemic, and if you don't like the smell or like what you see go and play Farmville. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 18:52
|
Warfare is just one aspect of illy, it is also a social game, a diplomatic game and a farming game. These aspects are just as large as the warfare. Illyriad is a blend of styles, a sandbox game which allows players to choose how they wish to play the game. It's like saying i'm capable of murder so I must be a murderer...
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 20:15
|
I think a lot of people forget the Devs themselves describe Illy as a sandbox military strategy game...there may be other aspects to the game, but they are not the focus the game is premised on. ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 21:25
|
Illyriad might be a military-oriented strategy game, but the community adopted the position that this was a more peaceful MMO. That isn't artificial, because it's a sandbox, but that position has eroded badly in the present server war. People who have read my other posts know that I believe this kind of conflict was inevitable. If Illyriad changes, so be it. I don't think you can prevent that kind of change when the game mechanics clearly support it, and are intentionally biased in that direction. I will comment that there are two sets of people that got wiped out. People who refused to surrender were the first. However, I watch the siege list daily, and it was quite obvious that there were also accounts that got kicked from their alliances due to inactivity (or whatever reason), and the sieges continued even though the account wasn't fighting back. I consider that unsportsmanlike, because that's razing the account of an inactive or infrequently active player, who is not actively fighting in the war. They might have all been permasat accounts, but I thought it was poor form. Absent players can't even surrender, so unless they had sitters, the accounts were doomed. |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 21:51
| Those against sitting will say that's a good thing, the inactive accounts well they were doomed anyway once the number of days arrive for the inactivity clause. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 22:21
Which brings the question that always pops in my mind while reading Twilights in GC ... how on earth can someone distinguish a perma-sat account for someone that went a trip, has a RL problem, had a kid or is for some time away from the game for whatever other reason .?. Do not get this wrong, this is not an accusation ... if a person announces that he is not coming back or that his account is up for grabs, then ok, but on any other case I just cannot see how such a decision is being made so easily and I'd really like to know it ... ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 22:27
| I am not sure the accounts that left alliances were not fighting back. I know my alliance continued to siege a couple of people who said they were going to make peace, left their alliances and then did continue to fight. We continued to fight against them until they made peace or until they did not have any more available targets in the neighborhood. It might therefore appear that the account had been kicked from the alliance for inactivity and continued to be sieged, but that was not the case in at least three instances I can think of. |
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2014 at 22:27
|
I agree with Brandmeister...the sad thing is most of these players who are affected arent the perpetrators of this war but victims. A hand full of players are responsible for this war yet the whole of the server pays the consequences. Who are those players? well it depends on which sides spin you believe, but hath is as much of a saint as I am, and i'm a fracking atheist. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 00:11
This is the farmville of all war based strategy games, you should stop drinking the coffee... |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 07:57
I understand you may not like the PVP side of this game and you have done a good job of staying out of it...so I do not understand your sniping at the people who do enjoy the PVP. If your sniping is for the defence of the people who are loosing cities then why are those players not complaining for themselves...have you been elected their spokesman? If this really was a problem for them they could quite simply follow your lead and prevent any/or minimal losses...yet they choose to fight..this suggests they also like the PVP and accept the consequences. I could accept your criticism if you was an active participant in this war but your not...yet you are still entitled to your opinion and as a regular Illy player deserve a voice, , we all know your view there is no need to keep banging the same drum....unless ofc, this is your goal to keep up the moaning. apologies for derailing this thread. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 08:53
If you are not sure about that would you mind checking and inform us about thing you seem sure, like who were the people that "left their alliances and then did continue to fight", because such a behavior makes no sense (if they wanted to fight, why quit their alliance in the first place) especially if such a peculiar behavior refers to more people than one. And after that do tell us why the actions of those "three instances" should reflect on all the others ... because what you effectively said in that first sentence is that by casting doubt on EVERYONE's sincerity, you perceive every person that left the war as a potential threat which should still stay somewhere on your attack list. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 17:26
|
Deranzin, that is not at all what I said. There are many people who have left the war, made peace and have continued to be peaceful. That list is much longer than the few I cited in the opposite condition. Some of the people who have made peace include Dark Blight, The Colonist Empire, The Order, and multiple members of DLords. There are probably others I don't recall at the moment. The key here is that they made a peace agreement and are keeping it. There are OTHER people who have left their alliances without making peace. Those folks have been subject to continued action as I described. I choose not to identify specific folks on the forum because I don't see the point of calling out specific people. If someone wishes to contact me by in-game mail, I can provide a fuller accounting. The OP did not name any specific individuals, and I chose to follow suit. As for the people who quit their alliances and continued fighting, I do not know why they chose the path they did. Perhaps it was an attempt to gain sympathy. Perhaps they intend to join some other warring alliance in the future. In case my original point was clear, simply quitting an alliance at war is not sufficient to be considered at peace, particularly if one has taken part in war. People who wish to make peace should contact the designated leaders of the other side to do so, or they may be subject to continued attacks until they do, particularly if they themselves continue to attack. In the case of the alliance for which I fight, the appropriate person to contact is dittobite. I am not aware of ANYONE who has made peace with our alliance who has then continued to be attacked.
|
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 06:24
|
I know of 1 account that I sit for the owner has health issues (serious ones) and that account has gone from 10 cities to now 2 cause as a sitter you really cant fight a siege. Most likely this player will leave illy cause of his health he does not need the additional stress. Also leaders of the other side know the owner of the account cant come on often and it is hard to get in contact with him (different country then me) By the time he got a message he was under siege he ends up losing multiple cities. Yes this is one example of the happenings of the war the casual player or someone with Real Life situations that they can not be here hours a day are suffering. It is sad that this game has taken such a hateful turn for the worse in the past year. I fight cause no one has the right to destroy everything someone worked so hard on and/or force people to leave the game. Some people have spent real life money on prestige So yea their cities are worth money. I also know first had how expensive it is to fight off a siege with power building from the last war. This is most likely why there is so much bad feelings. Everyone complained about H? from the time i joined this game almost 3 years ago... but honestly i have seen so much worse behavior from other alliances in this war then i can express. To be honest I am ashamed of some of the leaders. To be a good leader there needs to compassion for your enemy all i see it hate. Hath.. I was a member of EE when you first started the alliance.. what happened to the ideals you had? the snide remarks, the baiting of people.. you are better then that. It saddens me to see you stoop to the level i have seen in the past 2 wars.. ** edit,, now that account above has one city and his last city is under attack.. this account is not a permasat account ( like the justification for other accounts having every city sieged to respawn in newbie circle)**
|
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 07:13
I agree with you that it is not a pleasant thing to destroy someone else's work. Where were you when Harmless and NC were sieging cities of surrendered opponents, including dozens of cities of your former alliance? Nothing like your own karma catching up to you
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 07:47
Then perhaps harboring grudges and nurturing emnity is not a good look for you. I do not assert that you have done so, but your present position does little to suggest otherwise. You being back at full strength in six months after fighting against us is as it should be. Six months rebuilding (presumably without prestige since it was only 2 cities) is sufficient consequence to Consone war decisions and actions, and I recall asserting that was the time frame we both predicted and sought for your recovery. You being involved in another war now is a completely separate issue once again reflecting your own continuing decisions and actions after that point (an outcome we semi-expected and found acceptable, but did nothing to promote). No one can domesticate a warrior but himself. While plenty of people are out to paint a different picture now, avoiding conflict with Harmless has never been difficult nor required much more than some common courtesy and a vague sense of fairness. For the sake of past foes who have chosen more harmonious post-war paths, I have no regrets for carefully limiting both wartime and post-war punitive costs. ---- People fight for fun, for hate, or for justice. Whether you think we must be annihilated therefore depends on what our hate and/or sense of justice would induce us to do both now and later, balanced against what you are willing and/or able to face from us both now and later. If we must be annihilated to prevent what we would do, then we presumably feel that given a choice, we cannot allow you to get away with what you have already done. In some specific individual cases at least, I cannot say otherwise. There is no certainty for anyone, nor has there ever been any in previous wars. There is, however, a track record regarding both how and by whom wars are started and ended - and from that, an already emerging certainty that ours will compare most favorably against yours. For all the bawling, what we do to our enemies has proven very survivable even in terms of staying in the same economic/military class. In this regard, whether people surrender is quite irrelevant, for in the Consone war our limits came into play in a big way long before anyone ever did. Even so, were we to somehow beat these 5:1 odds, we'd have to think long and hard where we draw the lines between social training, justice, and revenge this time. What do you do with someone who cannot be rehabilitated toward even the remote prospect of future peaceful coexistence, and by what measurement do you identify such cases? It's not even an assessment we've considered since Diablito. No doubt our active combatant enemies reside along a broad spectrum from toeing the party line to "all in." Forget Harmless's moral compass - when was the last time any player held a grudge against an enemy that bowed out when he was winning? And whether it is justice or just revenge, I don't feel terribly compelled to suffer continued coexistence with the latter case, except for one thing; one thing you can never take from us no matter the destruction is our leadership by example. So if you don't want future wars, and you aren't personally responsible for orchestrating this one, then yes annihilation is one of your options. But don't misrepresent it as the only one. That is only true for a very select few ringleaders and puppeteers on your side - the ones whose continued influence on the game or at least the diplomacy of its major players is just not feasible nor healthy for anyone on either side. And if they get their way, at least our coexistence with them will be happily discontinued without us even having to make those kinds of hard, example-compromising decisions. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 10:39
| The only reason that people/alliances weren't destroyed further or even completely in the Consone war is because they surrendered. Your people HM stated it plainly in GC on many occasions, I remember clearly a certain person telling GC that pride was the only thing preventing Consone members from escaping the war. By foregoing our pride we could reach terms of peace, otherwise you would continue razing our cities until we changed our minds. So berate your opponents all you like and try and make them out to be far worse than you ever were but reality is the majority aren't buying it, hence your current position. No it doesn't have to be this way but you have a decision to make that can alter the path of which we are headed. Over to you. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 10:52
Hehehe good for you, I say ... now if this is really so, can you all stop pestering us with surrendering when our side has explicitly explained why there will be no such thing .?. Not surrendering is our decision (for various reasons). Destroying everyone that does not surrender, is your decision (for various reasons). We all know the consequences of our actions and choice, so let us leave it at that and play the game as we all chose ... how about that .?. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 17:52
| Sounds good D, lets close the forum then. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 18:00
I do not propose that, but beating a dead horse of a topic again and again, day in and day out is imho tedious especially when we all know that actual diplomacy on the forums was never achieved even in better days ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 20:19
------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 20:31
As you can see I am as perplexed by all this "surrender" or "cease fire" or whatever discussion every day, as you are. The positions are clear from both sides and I clearly do not see what is the point in beating around the bush ... Something I disagree with you though is that fighting and standing up for what you think is correct has nothing to do with pride, but I do not think that such a point of view is something to argue over ... just a matter of personal style/point of view imho ...
Yes ... we know  ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 22:17
|
Both sides have indeed clearly stated their positions, made their decisions, and are sticking to them. There is, however, no such nonsense as "onus" based on current outcome. That's as sensible a moral compass as "might makes right." Personal responsibility never goes away. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2014 at 04:04
Agreed, so lets get it over with.
|