All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
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=5466
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 05:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
Posted By: John Louis
Subject: All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 17:59
|
All I Am Saying Is Give Peace A Chance (by John Louis) I should, of course, start by highlighting that this post is entirely my own and is not endorsed by anybody (except me, I suppose). Can there be peace in Illy? Should there be peace in Illy? Will this war ever end? Is surrender the only viable option?...Can we refrain from name-calling and insulting one another? My post on a A Short Treatise on the History of Illyriad was locked by GM Luna because you guys just could not control yourselves... ...if you are going to comment on my comments then please try to behave!! The accusations (and counter accusations, etc) are flying all over the place, is it even possible for the average Joe to make heads or tails of anything on these forums anymore? I will try to start simply – can there be peace? Firstly, we need to ascertain exactly what is necessary for there to be a viable peace. Players need to stop destroying one another is the easy answer, but how can the Illy community bring this about? For ease of reference I will try to simplify matters by referring to the two sides as follows: Harmless? and their allies ("Team A") and vCrow and their allies ("Team B") – this is an oversimplification, I know, but otherwise it becomes too confusing naming and referring to all the different alliances which are (or have been) involved. My understanding of Team B's position is that their main objective was to stop Team A from, allegedly, dominating the server and imposing its 'will' on others (even if some Illy players thought that Team A's actions were for the ultimate good of everybody). Has this not now been achieved? It is humbly submitted that any fair-minded observer would have to conclude that this objective has already been achieved. The facts are that Team A is no longer the No. 1 alliance and Team B has successfully claimed the top 2 spots for themselves. What this means is that Team A can no longer command the authority it once did and therefore their much-criticized alleged 'policing' of Illyriad has come to an end. The balance of power has, in my view, definitively shifted and this is already apparent. So, if the primary objective has been achieved, why has this war not come to an end? Well, Team B may argue that this is because Team A will not surrender and they feel that it must as a prerequisite to any future peace. In my opinion this is stubbornness and not at all how others have been treated in earlier wars. Sure, it is true that Team A has required surrender and war reparations from alliances it has defeated in the past, however, this was limited. Team B is presently carrying out a server-wide extermination of those who will not surrender to them. It is a scorched earth policy tantamount to genocide (if this was a real life war that is). Team A may have done many things (good in some peoples eyes and bad in others), but it is not guilty of mass exterminations as we are seeing today being carried out by Team B. The balance of power has shifted in Illy, Team A is not what it once was. The geopolitical landscape in Illyriad has morphed into something completely different. For better or worse, this is what we have now and for the foreseeable future. Many players have voiced the opinion (and I agree) that Illyriad would be a poorer place without the members making up Team A. Yet their destruction is the only remaining objective for Team B – and this can only be called revenge. So, where do we go from here? The fact is that Team A will not surrender to Team B. Yet, Team B says it is willing to discuss the surrender of Team A and would like to do so as soon as possible to bring an end to this war. It is submitted, therefore, that there are very few options left available – but there still are options. (1) A declaration of an end to this war (as the objectives have been achieved), or (2) a ceasefire with good faith from both sides and genuine negotiations at a permanent resolution. I feel a ceasefire is the best way forward from here as this will allow much needed cooling time and an opportunity for everyone to take a step back and consider where we already are and where we are going as a community (I think certain alliances need to do a little soul-searching as well). I feel it is probably the only viable way for Illyriad to retain the rich tapestry of active players that it has created over the past few years. It will give Team B an opportunity to realize that the war need not go on, their ultimate goal has been reached – or do they hunger for genocide and are happy to justify trying to achieve this by saying Team A could have avoided it through surrender? |
Replies:
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 18:16
|
I will go with JL's terms for both sides: To my knowledge past wars - which had been won by Team A - have always ended with surrender and payment of reparations by the losing side. What has changed and why should this war end differently? Just because Team A is too proud? Past wars did not end until one side surrendered and that side continued to be attacked and lose cities until they surrendered - what is different this time? I submit that the claim that Team B is after revenge can't be truely tested with Team A stating that they will continue to fight and not surrender. If Team A offers to surrender and is rejected by Team B it may show that Team B is actually after wanton distruction and revenge. Leaders of Team A stated in other threads that they do not trust the leaders of Team B and I believe that this goes both ways. How do we bridge this lack of trust? Finally, what prevents JL, the writer of this thread, from surrendering in order to end his part in the war?
|
Posted By: Jenin
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 18:34
|
My Dear John Lewis, Team B's objective is not as you would think. While I am not a genuine representative, I know the spirit of our push for war. I think I can safely say that it is over the rough edge that caused Luna to shut down your previous thread. It has pervaded GC and caused me to report several people for lewd and bigoted comments in the months previous to this war...there has been a lot of assumptions made by both sides which have been quite unfair; as there has not been any seriously direct communication (mostly baiting). There is the whole concept ushered in by Black and continued by NC; of stealing from non-allied newbs to support huge armies; pushing them to move without telling them how to make the best possible use of their city/game & threatening them, attacking them, etc. Then as the lines blurred between newbs and 5+ city players, it became obvious that the nastiness of other on-line games had followed those of us who truly admire what H? had done prior to their support of NC. Given as NC players are skilled warriors who in my opinion took far too much advantage of the newbs around them as evidenced by the strings of complaints about players such as Warren Gabriel and others, and then attacked BANE unmercifully while we were admittedly green horn traders who thought it might be cool to sell T2 Rez w troops attached (after seriously sandbagging II and several smaller alliances as well), it became obvious that no one would be enjoying the game much longer if we did not do a better than "the Consone". Both H & Consone supported the 10 square rule and the latter it seems to me was set up mostly to give a balance of power and did little to help deal with the frustrations of newer players who were frustrated by the overcrowding created by the 10 square rule. It is my belief that this is and should be the ultimate subject of our current struggles. If is seems that "Team B" is going tit-for-tat with a scorched earth policy, I apologize; however since H? stubbornly refuses to admit that supporting NC when other alliances had expressed misgivings for the very reasons I state above; I am not sure there is any other way to make the point: Bullying MUST stop...Illy is not a place where defense is easy, so attacking must have more social deliberation attached. So please, Mr John Lewis, do not generalize about "Team B" motivations...let's have serious communication here, not just a bully pulpit, OK?
|
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 18:43
Why is the light at the end of the tunnel never a peace train and always a siege train? 
|
Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 19:04
As above. Now you have your answer John Louis. it's quite simple really. Please don't compare the razing of pixel cities in a war game to any real life conflicts - its a ridiculous comparison - your children won't be going hungry tonight or hiding in a bunker because someone is catapaulting one of your cities and is easily ended by anyone's personal surrender. ------------- 
|
Halcyon wrote:Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 21:18
You call for serious communication but at the same time you place NC in the same barrel with Black and claim that they stole resources from newbies .?. 
Alas the forum does not allow the publication of IGMs so as to expose that your side considers those accounts fair game (I called my vCrow neighbor out for such a behavior and asked him to attack someone his size and he told me that small account are ok too  ), but I do have evidence on the matter. So, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be so fast to get on a high moral horse ... ... and unless you consider this account : http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/Towns/164846 a warrior and a "good target" I'd suggest that you be a bit more down-to-earth with your proclamations. There is a good reason why a lot of small T-O accounts flocked around my cities during the war you know ... 
Has BANE been informed of that change in their alliance's purpose .?.
The change is that when it came to that point, it was the opposing side as a group that was losing cities and there was a general limit on how many cities a particular member of that side could lose. Anyone citing examples will have to admit that they are few and far between and the rare exception of the rule, so I guess that we will at least agree that this was the general code of conduct of those past wars. As on why this war should end differently ... it will end differently because of the aforementioned change is now the RULE and not the exception ... and pride has nothing to do with it ...
You can claim what you want, but there are some facts that cannot be overcome with simple claims ...  -------------   Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 21:44
This is only true in my past experience because we were willing to surrender before it got to this point. Before finally surrendering to the Coalition at the end of the Consone war, we were told that we would continue to lose cities until we were destroyed unless and until we surrendered. This came from both H? and it's allies, all constantly sending IGMs stating as such. Just because your enemies had the sense to surrender before it came to that point does not mean that it would not have progressed to the same final point that this war is coming to. It would have and in fact has been stated as much in the past. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 22:43
The day when words would count more than actions has come and noone sent me a memo .?. I have a small question ... let us say that these warnings were indeed told ... at the time they were given, was anyone violating the rules I mentioned or not .?. This is the answer I'd like to know the answer to and not what "might" have happened, because noone knows that ... for all we all know they might have been bluster to make an war end faster and with less destruction ... or can you tell me that the possibility of a bluff is so outlandish ... ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Jenin
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2014 at 23:16
You call for serious communication but at the same time you place NC in the same barrel with Black and claim that they stole resources from newbies .?. Yes, NC did a LOT of that - ask anyone who had a city near Warren Gabriel or Pepe, or Samuel Marcos or many others whose names I can not recall now since they are out of that alliance
Alas the forum does not allow the publication of IGMs so as to expose that your side considers those accounts fair game (I called my vCrow neighbor out for such a behavior and asked him to attack someone his size and he told me that small account are ok too  ), but I do have evidence on the matter. So, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't be so fast to get on a high moral horse ... ... and unless you consider this account : http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Player/Towns/164846 a warrior and a "good target" I'd suggest that you be a bit more down-to-earth with your proclamations. There is a good reason why a lot of small T-O accounts flocked around my cities during the war you know ...  I was ordered to attack a player and after I realized how small he was & that he was part of my neighbor Praetor Augustus' alliance, I asked to be excluded from TO action. we also have a 3 city player called Arimis under attack right now by H? player(s?), so Idk to whom you are referring with regards to "high moral ground" - perhaps you might ASK what is going on so that the smell of blood doesn't turn us all into sharks...after all speech is a human gift, one i think we should not waste...try for facts, please - we don't need to inflame things with conjecture, ok?
Has BANE been informed of that change in their alliance's purpose .?. Yes we have been now, so please don't be snarky over this...we were hardened by attacks from NC when most of us had never even attacked a live player before...in fact we were specifically ordered NOT to without permission from leadership...that would only be given if the other player was seriously out of line and would not work with diplomacy from ours and their own leadership or if it was to take a tourney spot - remember we were selling T2 rez w troops attached and fighting with them instead of selling them doesn't pay much...we had no idea how to use them in any serious way when the NC war started...and I am flat out serious here - we came from 2 previously failed alliances and few of us knew a thing about how to fight in this game, or even had many troops for that matter - we were just having fun & making gold, til we got scouted every few hours to check our troop/build levels and then sandbagged when we had sold 75+% of our troops - as a military action that was efficient, but pretty un-sportsmanly in my opinion.
The change is that when it came to that point, it was the opposing side as a group that was losing cities and there was a general limit on how many cities a particular member of that side could lose. Anyone citing examples will have to admit that they are few and far between and the rare exception of the rule, so I guess that we will at least agree that this was the general code of conduct of those past wars. As on why this war should end differently ... it will end differently because of the aforementioned change is now the RULE and not the exception ... and pride has nothing to do with it ... Not sure how this got started and I am unclear of any Rules here...we had people seiged out of the game and they got seriously nasty letters from NC players saying "good riddance" when they had only attacked for defensive purposes - shamarra comes to mind...I saw the letter Warren Gabriel sent her...it was very nasty
You can claim what you want, but there are some facts that cannot be overcome with simple claims ... Deranzin, pray tell me why you are making such a connection about 'facts' such as that...this is NOT even about H?, it's about NC and anyone foolish enough to think that the nasty tactics some (not all) of their players got up to that was spoiling the fun of this game - that's all, plain & simple, please stop assuming you know what's going on here when clearly you don't. and if you are going to make such a claim, show me proof at least... instead of the snarky little laughing face... Edited by Deranzin - Oh one last thing, Deranzin: while you were taking my sentences and putting your own comments after them, I do want to thank you for not taking them too far out of context...I do hope you come to recognize that this whole war is about supporting nastiness which we think needs to be stopped and that it got ignored until it built up to unacceptable levels...
|
Jenin wrote:Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 00:28
As above. What reparations are paid is probably open to discussion, but if one side thinks the war has been going on for longer than they can handle, then there is always the option to surrender. Till then, this war will drag on till Team A or B or both come to their senses. No need for 27436179469172 posts by the same few people about the same thing. Case closed.
|
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 04:32
That is not true Deranzin. You caused 'more destruction' after the surrender of Consone, not 'less'. Instead of counting words and actions, just count the number of cities you razed during the war and after the surrender. You will understand who is bluffing. There is merit in the argument that the winner should not destroy her enemies completely. But its really up to the enemies you are fighting. When you come up with these kind of arguments, it only looks like you are insulting their intelligence. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 09:48
Wow this reply format you used makes this quite hard to read and reply, but I'll try anyway :
So .?. Do your actions reflect your whole side .?. By that measure I broke the truce with my vCrow neighbor over this exact matter (him attacking small accounts) ... so should I then claim that everyone from my side had the same ideas like you do .?. I think that such an idea does not hold water ... Plus, you said that you were ordered to attack a small player and asked to be excluded from it ... I find this honorable for you, but doesn't this imply that someone else carried on with those orders .?.
Maybe, but I didn't claim that no small account was ever attacked by my side because I do not know that for a fact. You, however, did falsely proclaim that.
BANE was, and still is iirc, this game's only military force for hire ... since when they are traders I know not, but your own alliance profile page says : "Current status: Hired, under contract."
Unless you meant that you were selling troops ... but that expands a bit the concept of this game's trading, wouldn't you say .?.
If you are not aware of the pre-war Hathaldir's post calling for revenge and having gathered many people with him for it, then this is not my fault. Apart from that, if it was "about NC" I would like your explanation why NC are amongst the last people standing and others (even in map positions unrelated to NC) where attacked first and foremost, like TVM for example. Also, calling people ignorant just because they happen to have some different facts from you, is a bit of a bad form imho ... 
So, you went to stop the "nastiness" by taking it to new unprecedented levels .?. I'll keep that in mind while my account is reduced to rubble  (I am not being ironic, I really find that comment amusing)
That "destruction" though was part of the whole agreement, not "just because we could" ... this is an important difference. Also, we talked about that thing in a previous topic and imho the current war proves that the prediction of those terms (a setback of two months) was indeed accurate, else all those former consone members wouldn't have had the troop levels they exhibit in this war. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 10:30
That "destruction" was part of the agreement, "just because you could" impose it - not because the other side considered it fair. If you had not placed such terms as destruction of cities on your surrendered foes, they would have stayed away from your next war. Even others may not have bothered to make the secret alliance against you. Coalition did certain things that made people very cautious of them. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 10:45
Fair or not, I will not be the judge of that ... what I care about is that the whole thing was exactly as it was claimed and it was indeed a general time setback for whole alliances and not destruction of particular accounts.
This though is just an estimation and I respect your opinion ... allow me though to have a different opinion and thus highly doubt that it would have been so ... ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 13:02
|
There's been a lot of high brow condescending comments from people from nearly all parts of the game that say that Harmless, Dlords, TVM and NC should surrender. I would however like to point something out to "Team B". "Team A" have already suffered more losses in this last war then any members of the Consone war EVER did. All of them have lost more to this war than any peace terms ever could. I would like Team B to consider a few things... firstly, that the more you destroy, the less they can pay. And secondly, that many of Team A will choose to abandon rather than face total humiliation. If you are so determined to gain something from the peace terms, you must recognise that atm leniency is your only possible option.
|
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 13:27
|
Ehm, Noki... What would be more humilating? A loosing side saying: "Damn, we lost this war though we thought we were right (and still think)!" Or the winning side saying: "We have to stop now, as we trod the other side so far down in the dirt and they still don't get it!" ...? Loosing is in no way acknowledging you were wrong! VIC lost in the Consone war, still saying we didn't start the war and Consone had good principles. But we had less military, actually underlining the statement. So what, now we're back up and chose to be peaceful, as we were before. Totally putting away the possibility of surrender either leads to destruction or the other side stopping out of pity! They won't acknowledge your ideas just because you keep fighting...  And for the (possibly) winning side: Perhaps set some sort of limit, when to choose Option 2... would be good PR
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 14:20
I make clear that this is my personal opinion, but when you think you are right (or when you think that you did nothing wrong, but it is not exactly the same thing) then you keep fighting for it. For example supposing that VICX asks for my surrender (they won't and I respect them for that), why would I surrender .?. What did I do specifically wrong that I have to surrender about it .?. Nothing ... so how could I ever surrender if I did nothing wrong .?. It is as simple as that as far as I am concerned and it has nothing to do with pride or humiliation ...
Hahahaah it might have been, but they will do no such thing ... not their style. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 14:40
|
Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough... my point was not that the winning side should just stop, but that they get rid of the idea that they are going to punish the losers in the peace terms because they've already been punished enough in the war. Otherwise this cycle could continue to repeat itself. Take EE. They said "Damn, we lost this war though we thought we were right (and still think)!" and then they had to suffer the loss of a very large amount of cities razed. The peace terms made them want revenge, and contributed to the start of this war. They objected to it because they saw it as cruel, an injustice- even a humiliation. This was due, ostentatiously, to the peace terms as opposed to their defeat.
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 15:41
Again, for the upteenth time, during the Consone War no one in Consone lost more than three cities TOTAL* (that total includes cities lost in the war and war reparations); in many cases, players were allowed to walk away from the war. In this war, however, we have members/allies that have lost all but two, one or all of their cities (I don't count the small replacement city put in goodness knows where). Our enemies are not holding back and all the BS posted here doesn't change it, I consider most of the posts made by our foes as attempts to twist the facts and paint themselves in a better light. Check the stats, look at who has lost cities and how many. Bottom line they want NC, Dlords and Harmless gone from this game. They could care less if a player has health problems, is stationed away from home serving their country, etc. To clarify, because I've heard it before they do not back off players....one alliance starts in on a player then backs off stating they don't believe in sieging players out of the game only to have another alliance pick up where they stopped to finish the job. Like it or not, warfare in Illy is changed forever, talk all you want, the precedent has been set and you cannot go back. *Except the player/players that someone in DARK decided they wanted gone and the Coalition stopped them ------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:28
Be that as it may, the terms have clearly contributed to the wave of anti-Harmless feeling; for EE at least. My point, if you would allow me to restate it, is that peace is only possible if vCrow et al do not repeat this mistake.
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:50
|
I honestly can't see any end to a conflict like this without some kind of mutual, bilateral agreement. We don't have to call it surrender if you don't want to, but I doubt anyone is just going to head off and give their opponents their backs.
HAHAHAHAHAHA But that's the exact definition off... Oh nevermind.
|
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:54
We only lost as many towns as we did because of the fact that we were smart enough to exodus isolated towns out of harms way from an early time and because we decided to surrender under the threat of total destruction. Check players like Hannibal or Alagos or Bellus or many others than went from well over 100k population down to almost nothing due to forced exodus and/or more than 3 towns lost. Or the constant threats of "you lose another town because we don't like how you talk in GC or the forums" or "my goal is to get people to leave the game, that's how you win" or "not so wise now huh". I declared early on that the Consone war was not a war we could win, and only because of that realization and our decision to both exodus to regroup into the north and the fact that we decided to surrender before complete destruction is the only reason there is a distinction between us. Sure your side has lost many more towns than we did in the last war, but that is of your own doing. Ask the people who did surrender, no where did we force them to continue losing towns as part of surrender terms. Many of you were given an out very early on with the ability to lose little to no towns as a price. You on the other hand forced us to choose between losing towns daily and an increasing number of towns as part of terms, or to simply accept the 37 towns we were forced to allow you to raze as part of our settlement terms. Personally I have no problem removing your towns one at a time until they are completely gone from history, but don't come on here and preach that you are high and mighty and somehow better. I am here for vengence, that is something that you have created and now have to live with. -------------
|
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 16:54
Time to try and put a stop to this myth. A certain Vicx player had cities in Dark territory during the Coalition-Consone war. An agreement was struck with Vicx leadership that he remains out of the war but there was a miscommunication inside Vicx and the player himself was not notified of the deal. As a result he attacked Dark sieges on a Vic player. Thinking that he broke his promise Dark proceeded to siege or capture all his cities in Dark area. I believe that he Exodused one or two cities. Talks with Vicx leadership at the time did not reveal the mixup and the real facts were made known to us only months later after that war ended. H? indeed approached Dark to say to ease up on him, but no one actually stopped us since at the time we were sure that he had went back on his word.
|
Posted By: Starry
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 17:23
|
Interesting, since your posts indicate that you agreed with the Coalition's stance but went on to siege another city. (Starry is thankful we keep all data relating to past wars). Irregardless, the point of our limit was the continuation of the game; sieging players out the game is short sighted and, in the long run, bad for the game. While I realize that many players have different view about the viability and continuation of this game, others may want to continue playing. After four years of building, starting over and pouring more money into a game with enemies that will hunt you for your game life, is not an option for many players. No, I do not think our enemies will allow H to rebuild, in spite of their claims. Edit: Elmindra, your post is filled with so many falsehoods, I'm not going to bother replying but I challenge you to post verifiable examples of H threatening any player with additional loss of cities once peace was secured. For the general public: We have always consider exodus as a tool to save a city and it has been used by both sides not only in the Consone war but this war too. There is a big difference between rebuilding an exodused city and starting from scratch. If you use prestige and have resources available, you can rebuild completely in days. ------------- CEO, Harmless? Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 17:43
Funny indeed ... because: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorant because ignorance is LACK of knowledge on an issue and definitely not when you have DIFFERENT knowledge on that issue ... so you are actually laughing while being mistaken ... ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 17:59
I never said you threatened these things once peace was secured, I stated you and your lot threatened these things and did in fact act on it when you could BEFORE peace was secured by us accepting a surrender. I have IGM's from leadership of TCol and BSH at the time stating as much, as well as from H? leadership and also from your so called embassy (outside forum) which you force all enemies to come and grovel to in order to accept surrender terms. I will not post any of this because it is against Illy terms of use to do such things.
As for that, if it were up to me you are correct. But, decisions such as this are not up to me.
-------------
|
Posted By: John Louis
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 18:11
|
I am very grateful to all the helpful comments here, I can see some players are genuinely considering where we go from here. With respect, I would like to discuss the following points: @ Halcyon – nothing prevents me from personally surrendering, except my values. I am exploring the remote possibility that both Team A and B may want an end to this war. Given that Team A has already lost more than that the losers from past wars – what does Team B hope to gain other than the personal satisfaction of making past enemies surrender to them. In my view, this is pure revenge (plain and simple). So I suggest, put personal vendettas to one side and negotiate a real peace that will satisfy everybody – this is within sight, the moment is here, both sides just need to take a leap of faith and grab that opportunity before it is gone. It is clear, however, that surrender is just not possible, it is not even clear at this point what surrender would mean. Team B already has its pound of flesh, if you take any more there really will be nothing left of Team A (and most say that they do not want an Illy without Team A – so ball is in Team B's court). Poetically speaking, I now quote Lauren Hill, "What you want might make you cry, but what you need might pass you by, if you don't catch it...". The time for real peace is upon us, don't let it pass us by! @ Jenin – thank you for your comments, however, I cannot agree with your assertions. Some may think that I am just spewing rhetoric, but I am trying to be genuine. I have been in NC many years, I have never seen them bully anybody...unless you include harassing bullies themselves. NC does harass bullies such as alliances/individuals trying to force Newbs to do as they say. Jenin, you compare NC to Black, but have you seen your own alliance's page? BANE is a mercenary alliance, you are currently under contract, its here for all to see: http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/760 . In Latin we say res ipsa loquitur (not the Illy alliance, I should point out, but the words mean "the thing speaks for itself"). Perhaps you need to start with the man (or woman) looking back at you in the mirror before making these types of accusations against NC. But, irrespective of points of view, I do hope we can work with one another at finding a true and lasting peace, that is what this post is about after all – are you prepared to discuss that without flinging ideological arguments about and making a huge mess in the process? @ Mahaut & Rill – Rill, maybe I am mistaken but I thought I saw a post of yours (now deleted methinks) arguing like Mahaut that my words regarding a scorched earth policy were ridiculous and even hurtful. Rill, if I am mistaken I apologize and then this reply is only meant for Mahaut. Please do not take what I say personally, however, this game is a community (perhaps like the International Community in real life) and there is a war element, especially at this moment in time. Accordingly, analogies to real life war situations are only natural and appropriate. If you have been traumatized as a result of real life experiences, or wars going on in real life that you see in the news, maybe you need to take a step back. I have friends who have experienced real life wars and they are nowhere near as sensitive as some people who make accusatory posts in Illy. This is a game, and words are just words (most of the time). It makes for interesting reading, however, so long as people are not hypersensitive all of the time. @ Spheniscidae – This war need not drag on unless and until one side surrenders – Ceasefire is a perfectly reasonable alternative. It opens the way for discussions in good faith and may bring about a more lasting peace than a much resented surrender (this resented surrender has happened before, which is why we are where we are now). Also, I will write whatever I feel I should write, you are not my editor or censor so don't read what I have to say if it upsets you so very much. @ Elmindra – wow, you must be one of the few who actually admit your participation in this war is about vengeance. Thank you for your honesty, I guess, though you say nothing which is conducive towards a peace settlement. Finally, I think I should reiterate – Team B has criticized the peace terms prepared by Team A in past wars. If they genuinely believe this was so bad, why are they following the example of Team A. The world is in your hands, you think you can create a better Illy – well, show us the way. Lead by example instead of following what Team A has done in the past. You certainly have the capacity to take the lead/initiative from here on. Prove Team A wrong, show them you can be trusted, that you do want peace – that there can be a better Illyriad. If Team B can usher in a Golden Age for Illyriad through a peace written in good faith and good acts instead of the blood of Team A, now is the time to do it...I dare you! |
Posted By: Arian
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 18:11
|
Starry is missing the point. Unilateral rules posted by Honoured Mule or Killer Poodle and not agreed to in advance by any other party are just propaganda. People fighting H? and allies in the Consone war didn't lose more than 3 cities because they either moved out of harms way, left their alliance and sought individual surrender terms or the entire alliance SURRENDERED before it got to that point, not because of any perceived sense of fairness or otherwise on the part of H? and friends - and some were threatened with losing everything - so I'm not sure what the difference is between then and now that everyone keeps alluding to. It's all very simple and straightforward. Nothing in Illy warfare has changed in any way. You fight until one side surrenders at which point reparations are made and it all stops till the next war. No amount of spin will change things - if a player or an alliance surrenders no more cities will be lost so it's entirely THEIR choice - by not doing so they are actually forcing things to continue the way they are. ------------- 'Do you want ice with that?' |
Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 18:21
|
John Louis My problems in repetitive allusion to a real life war situation stem from the Consone war when players allied to H? started using terms like War Criminal and calling people Nazi's and in one somewhat disreputable case calling a member of Consone leadership by the same name as a Nazi war criminal. I find this sort of thing extremely distasteful and there is no reason to do it whatsoever. This IS a war game on a computer if people don't want to lose pixel cities then they shouldn't go to war or should leave their alliance. This is not real life. -------------
|
Posted By: Jenin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 18:26
So .?. Do your actions reflect your whole side .?. By that measure I broke the truce with my vCrow neighbor over this exact matter (him attacking small accounts) ... so should I then claim that everyone from my side had the same ideas like you do .?. I think that such an idea does not hold water ... Plus, you said that you were ordered to attack a small player and asked to be excluded from it ... I find this honorable for you, but doesn't this imply that someone else carried on with those orders .?. Deranzin, after I noticed the above, I wrote to leadership and made it clear that we did not need to go that low, that attacks be between similarly sized players and also that we would somehow need to make peace one day...I am not sure quite how any of this has applied lately because I have ben a bit out of the loop since the winter started with a great deal of work and RL family drama. I only know what I see and report it...
Maybe, but I didn't claim that no small account was ever attacked by my side because I do not know that for a fact. You, however, did falsely proclaim that. There is nothing false about the charts of cities my players had a month after the NC-Bane war started and the IGM's I have expressing their worries about time constraints in real life and the degrees of being attacked by NC players. Since this is NOT a false accusation & Sir Bradley has expressed denial, he and I are now going over these events - I do not believe that you have enough inside knowledge to refute my accusation, so I think perhaps it's time you drop the indignation over the fact that NC did INDEED attack newbs and also had NS involved in the million troops pile up as illustrated here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/awesome-war-happening-where-to-get-infor_topic5132_page2.html Myr's commanders & troops are clearly visible, she was the leader of a training alliance at the time and it gave a lot of us grave misgivings about the blurring between support and direct participation between parent and training alliance.
BANE was, and still is iirc, this game's only military force for hire ... since when they are traders I know not, but your own alliance profile page says : "Current status: Hired, under contract."
Unless you meant that you were selling troops ... but that expands a bit the concept of this game's trading, wouldn't you say .?. Yes, It certainly does and that was exactly our intent - and it was FUN! we knew NOTHING about war in here...
If you are not aware of the pre-war Hathaldir's post calling for revenge and having gathered many people with him for it, then this is not my fault. Apart from that, if it was "about NC" I would like your explanation why NC are amongst the last people standing and others (even in map positions unrelated to NC) where attacked first and foremost, like TVM for example. Also, calling people ignorant just because they happen to have some different facts from you, is a bit of a bad form imho ...  You are ignorant of the facts, Warren Gabriel attacked every newb near him and NC did as well after the NC-Bane war started. I have our city charts and their IGM's begging for help - Sir Bradley & I will be going over those soon.
So, you went to stop the "nastiness" by taking it to new unprecedented levels .?. I'll keep that in mind while my account is reduced to rubble  (I am not being ironic, I really find that comment amusing) I kept my account from becoming rubble by not getting over-zelous about my position and took surrender - you are free to do the same
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 18:28
Well, you're calling it "different" information, but it's really just information that she has and you lack, so I'm comfortable call that usage correct. |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 18:34
Team A's no surrender mentality is what places it in the dire situation of losing many more towns. What makes Team A so special that they must be accomodated with something other than surrender? Are you more righteous than us? - no. Are you more honorable? - no. So why is surrender just not possible? What is it that Team A can't afford to pay for peace? Cities? - almost none or no cities at all were taken from players who surrendered in this war. Advanced resources? - I believe you have hundreds of thousands to spare. Gold? - I believe you have billions. All previous wars have ended with surrender or death. The choice remains yours. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 18:40
)edited to fix my confusion between Team A and Team B. can we use Edward and Jacob next time? |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 19:03
/facepalm you were selling troops, but knew nothing of war ... riiiiight ... why do I even bother .?.
I am unaware of many facts and so are you, just like everyone ... our difference is that I know that I do not have every information that there is around while you pretend to know everything, even what I have in MY inbox ...
if this is so then your cause is not about "reducing nastiness" but just being the ones dealing it and with unlimited capacity
And what about the information I have and she doesn't .?. she has some information, I have some other information to disprove her grandiose claims ... she claims that they protect small accounts, I have proof that they attacked them ... so I do not see where YOUR problem is ... Branding people as ignorant for having different information, I'll say it again, is bad form ...
Again with that question .?. This is getting boring ... ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 19:19
| I've yet to see evidence that you have any knowledge of merit, Deranzin. |
Posted By: John Louis
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 19:24
|
I do not want this thread to be derailed, honestly. This thread is about discussing the possibility of a ceasefire as surrender (by Team A) will not be contemplated. Right or wrong this is what we have to deal with in reality. So, what are Team B's objectives? Have they not already been met? If all that remains is for Team A to surrender then, in my humble view, this war will never end. It will drag on forever and ever without end (or maybe there will be an end, but it will not be very pretty, that at least must be clear by now). Team B is already in a position to lead the Illy community in the direction it feels is best for Illyriad. Lead by example, don't hold on to grudges and propose viable ceasefire conditions for all to see. A show of good faith may surprise you, if peace is what everybody wants, well, sue for peace then. Surrender aside, what are your terms? Speak now, speak proud and true and lets see where this takes us. Maybe a ceasefire is not possible, but why not give it a try and see where it takes all of us Illyriads/Illyriad citizens...we may be pleasantly surprised. At the risk of being accused of using real life situations inappropriately – Ireland, ceasefire – it is more or less a success. Sure, there may be occasional mishaps, but the UK and Rep. of Ireland is a much better and safer place thanks to a ceasefire – if there is the will, there most certainly is a way. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 19:40
"Also, if players put up a Ward of Destruction I typically leave them alone. BlackBeauty has Ward of Intentions up - I haven't sent any thieving missions but I figure armies are fair game. If he put up Ward of Destruction (as Mimir, whipcracker, Kayasth, Halder, etc...) I would go somewhere else. " A part of the dialogue I was talking about ... Mimir is a 3 city account and he eventually put a ward up and made himself a not-so-tasty target ... the full IGM can be forwarded to anyone that doubts its veracity. I also wrote a full "how to defend" guide to be distributed to T-O small members in order to make themselves unwanted targets and make such attacks stop, but I am SURE that you and Jenin know everything about it ... ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 19:42
|
No one is derailing anything Although I would hope that in future posts you take some lessons in brevity, word walls tend to get skipped over. Cease fire is not a viable alternative. Why would anyone have a cease fire to allow an enemy to regroup and build more troops? Ridiculous idea. We do what Illy wars have always done, one side surrenders and the war ends. -------------
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 19:45
|
No, occasional precipitation is reality we just have to deal with. The Coalition's refusal to discuss peace is a childish tantrum that we're under no obligation to indulge. And honestly it's a little hypocritical to come here and call for peace when your alliance is so utterly unwilling to discuss it. |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 20:02
|
why should team B accept a ceasefire just because team A are loosing heavily..as others have stated the decision to end the war is from the loosing side to surrender... simple.com If team A decide they don't wish to surrender that suggests to me they are still willing to fight on...so this namby pamby post is total crap. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 20:34
|
Silly question, but has anyone asked what surrender terms Team A would accept and would they be on a par with the surrender terms demanded during the Consone war? Maybe if a sensible proposition was put forward by the other side then an agreement could be met.
|
Posted By: Canesrule
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 20:48
| How dare you John Louis. How dare you compare a conflict that endured for centuries and cost thousands of lives from both sides to a battle for pixels. Your little aside " at the risk of offending" demonstrates you were fully aware that you would offend players yet you still went ahead and posted anyway. Your real life reference is despicable. |
Posted By: Excession
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 21:06
| Reference to the real, for example calling others war criminals seems a common post from some in team A. Any comparison between a virtual game and the appalling and inhumane activities of real war barely deserves the validation of a response. The sad irony is that the only choices are to respond and give a degree of validation or be silent and allow these disgusting comparisons to continue unanswered. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 21:58
it is, though, a good example of why rl comparisons are best avoided, and how they cloud rather than illuminate issues in the game. |
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 22:16
Caco.. I think the accounts being destroyed down to respawn in this war has cause way too much damage. I honestly do not see an end in sight since the leaders of Team B allowed active players of this game that are not power players to be handled in the way they are. It sad but it is the way of Illy now constant war all the time turning it into the games many of us have tried to escape. The hate , the revenge... it is destroy the other players not try to work through anything. I hear both sides saying they want the same thing but no way to meet in the middle cause others cry revenge. If you look through the posts many of the same people say the same hateful things and hold on to the hate. Even when other realize the mistakes of things done in the past the hate filled people cant let go or even try to move on. To the ones full of hate on BOTH sides.. this is the reason Illy is changing this is the reason it if full of war so often now. This is why this war is so nasty this time around. This time it is not who has better strategies or timing it is all about who can you destroy. Shame on all ya all. Seriously I have really become ashamed on the behavior all around. Yes it a game but that is the point it a game why are you so full of hate. The alliances that are fighting for the most part the bigger members have been around for years and years... but now you are trying to drive the same players away the ones that have supported this game from the beginning. Sometimes i feel like i have a bunch of 4 year olds running around think about the behaviors of the most vocal and look at a group of 4 year olds you be surprised on how much they sound the same. Time to grow up think of the greater good ( illy) not the little alliances. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2014 at 23:01
Can I stay 4 years old .?. People tell me that it IS an improvement to my current personality ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2014 at 00:05
|
Tansi, I agree with much of your post and it is clear that you feel passionately about it. I also think that a lot of other players feel equally passionatly about the game and the 'hate' that you talk about is that same passion coming through in other players. The question is really how do we set aside that emotion and let cool heads come to some arrangement so that we can continue the game. What I would say is that any loss is hard to stomach when you've worked so hard and for so long. I think that whilst the coalition thought that their terms were reasonable at the end on the Consone war, they made some very broad sweeping demands. I had to lose two cities as reparations (to be fair to H? they allowed me to give one to a former opponent and the other to a player in my training alliance) However, the loss of those two cities cost me 60K in population. Their replacement cities are 316 and 318 days old as of right now and they are still yet to reach their former "glory" So does that compare to someone going from 3 or 4 cities down to a respawned hamlet? I'm not sure, but nearly a year to recover (including a fair amount of prestige building) is a lot to accept. I will also say that it was me that orchestrated the recent removal of TVM from Ursor. Having noticed that the bulk of TVM had relocated away from Ursor I made the decision that anything that was left up North was either abandoned as in the case of Nalleen and another player or simply inactive. There were two reasons for doing this. The first was to try and provide a wake up call to TVM to withdraw from the war and the second (a point I want to come back to) was to free up settlement space. If I have reduced an active player to respawn status then I not only wish to apologise but wish to make it quite clear that I will happily provide substantial resources to help that player recover, because you are quite right that the last thing this game needs is to force players out. I guess the point of this ramble is two-fold. One, that I have been honest about my actions and hope that others can be as well and put aside all the propaganda. And secondly that both sides are capable of decency - H? (in regards to the allocation of my towns) in the last war and our side as well. When I was informed by TVM that Barash was still active but for personal reasons unable to play I not only withdrew my sieges from his towns and those of his alt but strongly asked that my alliance respect his towns as well. These are two examples that I have a personal connection to, I am sure that there are many more. I am also not so naive as to think that there aren't far more incidents of unpleasant behaviour than positive given the current climate. But if we cling on to those negatives then we might as well just pack the game in and play Evony. Finally to come back to the issue of land clearance. As a community we have been bemoaning the lack of space for new players to settle in to and that ALL alliances keep hold of inactive and abandoned accounts for no real purpose other than to bolster their size and importance in the rankings and to retain fictional land they believe belongs to them. I would strongly advocate that as part of any peace accord BOTH sides of the conflict agree to get rid of these inactive or abandoned accounts so that we can let smaller players flourish. These are just my thoughts and sentiments. I do not speak for anyone else. Caco |
Posted By: Finwë Aldaríon
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2014 at 09:22
This I think it is a good point (among many others) that all alliances should seriously consider. Instead of perma-sitting dead accounts. .. but we don't need a war (this war) to achieve this point. -------------  
|
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2014 at 08:11
|
I also would like to be honest and state that my support for this war was almost solely driven by the treatment EE received during and at the end of the previous war. Terms of service prevent posting of IGM's so there is no way to show the broader Illy community the egregious messages we were subjected to, but please believe they exist, and I'm sure could be forwarded to those probably non-existent few who haven't already formed their opinions one way or the other. My personal experiences in that war such as losing cities and a 100K drop in population due to the forced exoduses truthfully didn't bother me nearly as much as the threats and insulting IGM's I received. And in all fairness, during the war these did not come from H?, but from their allies. I was perfectly happy to go the route our opponents seem to want, and lose every city I had, as long as doing so cost an even minimal loss and continued effort on the part of our opponents. Cooler heads prevailed and we accepted terms, for better or worse. Like Elmindra, I have no hesitancy about continuing to raze cities of an alliance we are at war with until they surrender. I have said all of this with the idea that it may highlight a point that others have mentioned regarding the issue of terms. Here I speak solely for myself and not as a representative of EE or our allies. I think any notion of a unilateral or even mutual ceasefire is naive, especially at this stage and scale of events. Reparation payments have been and should be a part of any surrender. Personally, I don't care if in ending a conflict it's called a surrender, or think that any public declarations are needed beyond what can be observed by a change in status on the diplomacy page. I do think that the continued practice of demands for loss of cities as part of terms in concluding a war is something we could and should do without. This is one of if not the major causes of resentment and desire to even the scales at some future point that drives new conflicts. War itself is punitive, that is the time to capture or raze cities, not after. I would actually like to see a thread that discussed the whole issue of terms, not solely in this instance, but in future conflicts as well, One that came with no new rehashing of past or current events, except to the extent that specific instances or examples were presented solely as factual backgrounds to the discussion, minus any sort of judgement. Apologies for the length... ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2014 at 17:28
|
Peace proposals that include a cease-fire will be an automatic non-starter in the current conflict. I am certain that peace could indeed be achieved in some fashion (it certainly has for a large number of former combatants, and without mandatory city razing of active players), but I frankly think the most likely outcome is continued war until all armies on one side or the other are exhausted. There is always a tipping point in Illy warfare where one side is no longer able to muster any realistic defense, and sieges become trivial. once that point is reached in the current conflict, I expect an exodus of core players to greener pastures while claiming with righteous indignation that Illy is no longer worthy of the effort. I do not expect surrender or acceptance of terms, no matter how mild they may be, simply due to pride. How long it takes to reach that point is a good question, I sense that people will eventually grow weary of the conflict and mustering the will to raise troops will fade, perhaps the advent of BL or AoA will accelerate the process . . . of course that presumes they exist as more than vaporware or figments of someone's imagination . . . .. but a ceasefire will simply never happen ...
------------- 
|
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2014 at 17:47
|
While I am a supporter of really light or even no surrender terms, lets face it, it's just not going to happen. Wars have always been fought this way and just because the alliance that has dominated the server since the start of the game is finally losing that is not going to change. The fact is that this war has been turning into extermination because Team A can't defend their players. I believe once that starts to happen the leadership of the losing team need to consider surrendering to protect their members from being wiped out. Either way once you start taking enough damage your members will start to leave and only the leadership and your most loyal/stubborn members will remain. Believe it or not, not everyone in your alliance wants to lose all of their cities because they can't admit defeat. I'm not asking anyone to surrender, I honestly don't care at this point. Just pointing out the fact that soldiers morale keeps deteriorating the longer a war is. Especially if they are on the losing side.
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2014 at 19:21
|
many castings here, but at the end of it the war will not end without a surrender, not because of vengeance or hatred or because "wars have always been fought this way" but because Team B faces little danger of reversal at this point and has no incentive to end the conflict without a definitive victory. this is precisely the same place the victors of the Consone war were in when they threatened the continued loss of cities until a surrender was made. in that sense, the victors in this war seem to be treating their opponents in just that same way (which may be a source of pride or shame depending on one's particular outlook and position). Sisren made a comment some time ago in gc that Team A would not surrender because it would mean agreeing that Team B was "right". i would like to understand if this is a common view across Team A, and if so, what Team A feels it would be admitting by surrender. iirc, the dogma of surrender in the Consone war was that it was simply a capitulation to the military reality that more would be lost by continuing to fight than would be lost by surrendering...and if there is a theme to this thread, it is that nothing has changed since the Consone war. |
Posted By: Maccam
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2014 at 22:09
|
"Team B" is not one alliance but several, and it is obvious these alliances have a range of motivations for this war. Some wanted to see their alliance overtake the alliance that was #1, some believed "Team A" were too powerful, while others simply wanted to cement strong confeds. Several are driven by revenge. In a game, who is to say one motivation is better than another? For me though, the revenge angle interests the most:
The below cartoon was printed in 1920, showing the Big 4 allies leaving a conference having signed the Treaty of Versailles at the close of WW1. Their desire was to weaken Germany to prevent a repetition of WW1. However the harshness of terms to such an extent pretty much guaranteed that German children during WW1 would be willing to have a re-match 20 years later. The cartoon illustrates this with the "1940 class" weeping and the treaty thrown on the ground behind them, predicting WW2 some 20 years in the future.  I must stress Illy is just a game & I am not comparing EE to Nazi's before anyone gets carried away. However a feeling that the surrender terms are harsh will create a thirst for revenge in Illy or in RL. It is not for me to say that anyone should surrender now or that peace should be without a price, all I am saying is that Nokigon's point was well made. If people are not given the opportunity to move on after this war is concluded, we are destined to see another war 6-9 months time when everyone has large armies once again. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 08:41
Which, at this moment, seems to be all of us ... Well, believe it or nor Sir A what you say is false because everyone that wants out of the war, is indeed allowed to do so, by both sides.
Not exactly ... unless you mean that words and actions are equal as "treatment" goes and so they can be compared ...
That is the theme of one side that tries in vain to claim that nothing changed. Imho the point of Consone surrendering was not that of military might, but proving in practice that their kind of organization was not optimal and that it would lead to many future problems ... by surrendering they accepted that maybe this was so ... and by their next actions, which were forming a network of alliances in a similar organization plan like the Coalition's, they intrinsically accepted that the Consone idea was done for and that the Coalition's idea of organizing was better. So, imho, the Consone war was not about "who would be first", but "how should you organize in order to be first" and in that regard the Coalition won in the two steps I described above. Now many of our former opponents along with others, having settled that organization issue and having in fact agreed with our point of view, is waging a war on which of the two similarly organized sides (note: only similarly organized, the similarities end there) will be first. So the Consone war was about "how to be first" and it was settled This war is about "who will be first" and is, in that regard, settled as well. Not the same wars at all when seen by this point of view ... Now, why we will not surrender has been already explained very eloquently by HonoredMule who is in the position to speak for more people than himself, so I will not really go into it again ... I will take a guess though on why our opponents would like our surrender : Cohesion via the continued existence of a common enemy. This is tactically first and foremost because the winning side is simply organized like the Coalition, but lacks many of its other characteristics. It has many inherent problems which are now masked only by the "same goal". Once that goal is achieved then those problems will eventually arise. Now if the goal is achieved via surrender such a thing will not happen in the same magnitude because the "common enemy" will act both as a future scarecrow and thus will be a "binding glue" for the winning side. If however the common enemy is totally gone or totally incapacitated, the scarecrow and the glue are gone and the problems will start from day 1. Good PR. Surrender terms would be hidden, as in previous fights, so via the surrender avenue they will be able to mask their power grab with good intentions. This can be also seen on how they are making a show in GC of sending resources on surrendered players they had just stomped. On one hand surrender terms are secret, but benevolence is a public show .?. I do not think that many people buy that one, but you never know.Satisfaction and revenge. Many from the winning side, having once been subjected to surrender terms, now they lust to subject others to it (preferably the ones they once subjected them to it). If anyone remembers my analysis over Consone, they might remember that I was more on the mark than out of it and I guess that this time it will be no different ... For the "good natured people" who are always keen to brand someone's personal opinion as a generalized dogma, I specify that the above are my OWN views ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 12:50
|
The fact that you believe that Consone's surrender indicated that Harmless? was in the right was indeed very telling, Deranzin. That is a case of the victor attempting to write history. It IS true that the folks now assembled against Harmless? are both less idealistic and more militarily capable. It is also true that there is not really one dominant alliance in the mix -- rather, it is guided by the consent of the participating alliances. This is very DIFFERENT than the Coalition, which is predicated on the ability and interests of Harmless? Where you are correct is that unlike the Coalition, the intention of the partners on the other side of this war is NOT to create an ongoing cabal that will dominate the server. While we hope to remain friendly with those who are fighting with us, we also stand ready to befriend those we are fighting against. It's difficult to predict what the future political landscape of Elgea will be. Up until now Elgean politics has been predicated on the idea that someone has to be top dog, and that someone might as well be Harmless? Personally I hope for a future in which no one is top dog, but rather multiple strong alliances provide checks and balances for each other, preventing exploitation of the weak by any party both out of concern that it may generate opposition from other large alliances and out of desire to appear fair to smaller, non-aligned groups. You speak of the various motives of those involved on the other side as a weakness, but I see it as a strength, for those of us who don't want to go through another few years of domination by a single alliance or group of alliances (even if said alliances are us). As for why I personally would like to see folks surrender at some point, it is because I believe those who surrender and rebuild are more likely to stay in the game long term than those who fight to the last city for a dying cause. And there are many folks on the other side that I think are interesting and capable of making positive contributions to the game -- if they are able to come to terms with the reality that there is now a different political landscape in Elgea than the one they created and perhaps preferred. Many alliances and players have already done this and expressed their desire to be part of Elgea's future. I hope that others will joined them.
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 13:47
Had you actually read my points you'd know that I simply claimed that the Coalition (and not H? alone) proved what the most efficient way to organize was ... who said about anything about being "in the right" and all that stuff you attribute to me .?.
H? for the Coalition, vCrow for this association ... if you want to pretend otherwise that is fine by me ... 
It is actually quite easy ... if you think it is difficult then please apply that thought only on yourself.
Oh really ... and who will coordinate all those "benevolent" people .?.
In the case of the bolded part, I wonder what they'll do about that ... As for motives, I didn't talk about their war motives, but only took an educated guess over their motives specifically on the matter on wanting to force a surrender ... and this, if you want a simpler wording, is because of their inherent weaknesses and not a weakness unto itself ...
So, as I said, you want them here as scarecrows ... "positive contributions" ... like what .?. future target practice maybe .?.
This sounds like our prime minister ... "the sacrifices of the Greek people shall not go to waste" ... are you stealing his speeches .?. ahahahaahah ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 13:59
Well, Deranzin I am not going to argue with you about whether or not what I said is true or false but you will see what I mean in the next few weeks ;)
|
Posted By: John Louis
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 15:13
|
OK, my request for a ceasefire seems to be falling on deaf ears. I apologize if this is not the correct place for music, but, as the saying goes: “Music is to the soul what exercise is to the body and reading is to the mind”. Can I ask that when people read this post they also listen to the following music (sorry if it is not to everybody’s taste, but Bob at least should be universal!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loFDn94oZJ0 (Ok, the Illy war is not about race but it is still think this is a good song which can inspire peace among all Illy peoples). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrBmHf5XUG0 (The funky leaf in this song is not the important thing here, just the lyrics…unless you wanna smoke da peace pipe with me – we may need to visit Amsterdam for this so as to avoid breaking any laws). Finally, this last one may not be to everyone’s taste but I still think it is relevant, though the names of the protagonists may need to be imaginatively changed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs Those who have ears let them hear! |
Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 15:48
|
John Louis, I think it was a noble attempt to encourage players and alliances to speak openly about how to best go about reaching an acceptable conclusion to the war. As is the problem with internet forums, they tend to get hijacked by people more interested in the sound of their own voice than adding anything meaningful to the discussion. Anyhow, a thought struck me. The idea of paying reparations for surrender is something that sticks in the throat of many players, especially those that have already lost so many troops and so much T2 resource. The idea of then saying to the other side "please, take all my gold, my precious resource and go gloat" only further encourages the war to continue. So my suggestion is this: that each member of Team A agrees to NAP's with each member of Team B and puts up a significant amount of escrow. This could be arranged on a sliding scale based on the size of each member of Team A. For example, Harmless? pay 1 billion per escrow, BSH pay 1 million. This would mean that Team A is "punished" and I know from my dealings during the Consone war that this was, in part, part of the justification for the scale of reparations imposed on EE. However under this proposal, Team B wouldn't actually benefit unless the NAP was broken by a constituent member of Team B. This is as close to a win-win scenario as I can see for both sides
|
Posted By: John Louis
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 17:21
|
Thanks for your thoughts Caconafyx, at least you are being constructive with your posts. Also, I cannot believe I forgot to include this song in my previous post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM |
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 17:33
One of the reasons for this war is related to previous wars reparations. Surely it would be far better to break this cycle and stop trying to punish and take revenge, as it will just be an endless cycle of wars based on previous wars. Maybe the only way to move forward is draw a line and move on, without punishment or vengeance. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 17:38
Those are my thoughts exactly.
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 19:39
What else can happen excluding that bold part, I wonder ... as for the "next few weeks", I think you missed the "at this moment" ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 20:59
I think this a pretty clever idea. As I've said, I think the time to be punitive is during a war, with some exceptions that don't really figure in at this point. I also think some sort of agreement as to the amount of military sov that can be used is a possible alternative term in future conflicts, although it might be more of a pain to monitor than it's worth... ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 21:53
|
re. Sir A and Bansisdead. I had meant to emphasize the word "punishment" so as to infer more of a slap on the wrist or a symbolic gesture rather than a crippling body blow of a punishment. Part of me agrees with you that no reparation should be forced on another alliance. The other part of me thinks that it would actually do those alliances that have never lost a conflict some good to know what it feels like to not just be defeated but then humiliated with repayments. I called my suggestion a win-win scenario. I was wrong. What makes it hopefully an agreeable solution is that it is actually a lose-lose result. Team A lose some money (note I am not suggesting loss of cities or valuable resources) and Team B get absolutely nothing from it. Hopefully with no one winning in this scenario then we may think a bit harder about future conflict knowing that there will be no spoils for the victor but also no need for the defeated side to continue the war beyond what is necessary. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 22:12
It was indeed ... its only problem is that it has 0% of actually being implemented
Might as well ask for the account passwords while you are at it ... what is the next idea .?. Regulating the amount of farms .?. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2014 at 22:48
|
Deranzin, I don't see why there is no chance of it being implemented. I think it is easier for some to go down in a "blaze of glory" than admit that this time they were on the losing end. And let's be honest. Even if peace is secured we all know that it's not the end of the war. It's the end of round 3 of a war that has been going on since the game started. Most of all we all know that we will be back here in October 2014 squaring off against each other over some silly squabble. And I welcome that. This game needs war to keep it interesting. What it doesn't need are worthy opponents such as H? or Dlords being reduced to empty husks. So let's find a solution to the current situation and get ready for you lot trying to kick our butts in 6 months time. And, Deranzin this isn't meant to be antagonistic but if you think my proposal is unworkable then what do you suggest? |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 00:06
|
Yes, Deranzin, your line by line dissection of almost every post from anyone not on your side gets old. Maybe try to make a serious suggestion yourself, and we'll try to refrain from quoting every line you post and making dramatic use of bold type in our responses. I'm pretty sure we can also hold back from more than one emote per post, too... ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 01:27
|
Haist.... "if you really want to STOP the WAR" - then SURRENDER even if you think you are on the WINNING SIDE. /me thinks that would be the noblest move ever. ------------- 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: 06 Mar 2014 at 14:09
Because noone will ever accept it, especially the winning side.
Only if you consider losing such a bad thing ... I'd like to keep playing the game, win or lose I do not really mind ... but suggestions that I might somehow have a posted list of things that are prohibited would transform the game from a pleasant activity to a chore, especially since BellusRex is now not only making suggestions for the issuing of directives on how to play, but also on how to post on forums ...
I appreciate your honesty, but this belief is one of the reasons that we will be hunted down till then, regardless of how many topics or propositions you make ... and then you wonder why your idea will never be implemented .?. On a more serious note, you just confirmed that what is in the agenda here is a bogus peace (the reasons for it I analyzed in the previous page) and not an actual one ...
Opponents will be found aplenty, worry not ... you will not run out of them any time soon ...
Do I have to have a suggestion in order to have an opinion .?. That is a novel argument, but I might as well humor you ... so my suggestion is to accept the fact that rivers do not flow backwards ...
I was very critical of the OP's ideas as well and I do think that he is on my side ... On a different note, you can add this to any surrender terms : "Keep Deranzin on low sov and off the forum" ... ( I think our Directors might actually be more keen to agree on those terms )If you find my posts tiresome, exercise your freedom and do not read them ... last I heard only GM Luna was an active moderator, so I if you do not mind I cannot take that suggestion into consideration ...
I did ... and many times ... what did you not understand from my previous posts .?. I even analyzed the tactical reasons on why you keep pestering us to surrender, just a single page ago ...
You are more than welcome to do so ... I, on the other hand, will keep posting in the way I like, since it is within the forum rules. ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 15:57
| Oh well, can't say I didn't try... |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 16:11
Weeeeell ... don't bet on that ... you are obviously interested in a fake temporary peace, so that you can ROFLstomp us on a later day on some other "squabble" and just claim that we were just "persistent" and "beyond redemption" and just had to "go" ... Sorry, but I am not buying that offer ... ------------- Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 18:16
lmao...+1 ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Sir A
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 18:21
| Deranzin I think you just like to argue. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 19:21
|
Deranzin's responses remind me of this interesting news article http://healthland.time.com/2014/03/04/nothing-not-even-hard-facts-can-make-anti-vaxxers-change-their-minds/ and http://time.com/13297/vaccine-denial-can-kill/ Google "confirmation bias" for more information on why no amount of discussion is likely to change the positions some people take on certain issues. Or as an alternative explanation, perhaps he does just like to argue. Please note: I am not suggesting that holding certain fixed beliefs in an online game is in any way as serious as the fixed beliefs held by some in the real-world that create effects in the real world. What I AM suggesting is that fixed beliefs held about an online game may affect the way people play an online game. |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 20:12
|
And, yet again.... ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 20:51
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 21:00
It is not the same place at all. In that war 1-2 cities (and in some rare cases 3) were razed from a player and then we moved on to another target - completely different to this war. What would we have done if we'd have run out of new targets? I'm not sure but I'm pretty certain it would not have ended up like the current state. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 22:01
I like this Idea the Nap in place.. yes you lose gold.. if you break it... My question is.. If team A and team B have a nap and Team A put up the gold... what happens if team B breaks it does Team A get the gold back cause they did not break the Nap. I think Team B had some valid points I think Team A has valid points.... I think this war has caused much more damage to the game in general. Many on Team B are getting the same hated titles and perception of them that many in Team A have had for years. Right is right no one is perfect and this war has aired a lot of dirty laundry and the normal bad PR and spin that happens in GC is not working this time around. Oh and how do i know?? cause people talk to me... why cause i am not so stuck in tunnel vision and can admit that neither side is right and the egos and pride need to be put aside on both sides to make a compromise to end it. |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 22:25
This again? We moved towns before you could raze more than 2-3 because we knew we couldn't defend them. But your igm's and embassy posts from both you and your allies stated complete destruction awaited if we did not accept terms. It was either a bluff or the route you were more than willing to take. Judging from your terms we gaged it to be a legitimate threat. After all, someone who demands almost 40 towns razed as terms for peace settlement is bound to be serious about further threats. -------------
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 23:12
|
How many cities have been sieged this war? ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 23:36
| I dunno, I thought you where keeping score? |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2014 at 23:54
|
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 01:36
Quite a few, mainly due to your arrogance in thinking you couldn't lose, and the rest due to your ineptitude at geography and inability to realize you were losing before you lost everything. -------------
|
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 02:40
|
method in the Consone war for cities razed was; Cities razed by h? = X divided by half with a handful of salt added. + add a heap on for surrender terms This war = # of Notches in Mona's Belt* 5 or greater. We are encouraging Mona's weight gain to ensure a larger belt to accomodate more notches. ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 10:00
|
I have yet to see us ask for anyone to lose a city for "being stupid" or for the reason we found their GC and forum post trolling or offensive. If that was the case, we could build a huge list of cities to raze based on the posts and statements we find offensive. I'd be more than glad to post these threats and demands to refresh KP's memory, as they were all in terms delivered by him...another memory refresher....you demanded 5 towns from lady eira alone as part of our surrender terms... ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 22 May 2014 at 05:56
| Seems peace is slowly returning and the great war is winding down(check diplo pages). Any of the combatants want to provide an update? |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 22 May 2014 at 06:29
|
H? is no longer at war with Shade or Soon! We all realized that this war had run it's course. |
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 22 May 2014 at 08:27
|
gratz H?, Soon and Shade. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The Electrocutioner
Date Posted: 22 May 2014 at 12:20
|
NC has made peace with Shade, SOON, Altaira, and Celtic Knights. Many thanks to each of them, and we look forward to good relations in the future. We have been waiting for a couple of weeks now to receive terms from the rest of the Grand Alliance, and hopefully those negotiations can resume once the tourney is over. We agree that this war has run its course, and we are eager to settle the matter and move forward in a peaceful Illy. Hopefully the leaders of the Grand Alliance will see fit to give this matter their attention soon. Regards, ELECTROK EDIT: I see on our diplomacy page that we have a peace offer from DARK, so add them to the list above. Thanks to all of these alliances for accepting peace without surrender or other terms. This graciousness is noteworthy, and much appreciated.
|
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 22 May 2014 at 15:23
|
Congratulations on the latest peace. I believe it has been made public who you should talk to to resolve other diplomatic conflicts. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 May 2014 at 17:24
| It is good to see NC and H? moving forward with peace. Congratulations also to Soon and Shade. Hopefully the peace will spread. |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 23 May 2014 at 23:32
Great result for all concerned and a terrific outcome for the game in general.
|
Posted By: DaniSuper
Date Posted: 24 May 2014 at 05:37
|
Its great to see the peace process underway finally! :D Good to see everyone coming to terms, was hoping for the war to end for a while. Congratulations to both sides. |
