HAN B|B STARK Peace
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance int the Broken Lands, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=6532
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 19:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: HAN B|B STARK Peace
Posted By: Bimoda
Subject: HAN B|B STARK Peace
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 02:00
|
I am happy to announce that a peaceful resolution has been agreed to by all parties involved in the HAN / STARK / B|B war. All hostilities will end immediately with the understanding that troops in motion will be recalled once they land. It may take time for all parties to formalize the peace declaration on the diplomacy page due to RL issues. Although HAN gets it’s name from the Shu-Han Dynasty, I think that the Korean definition of Han is fitting in this case. The word has a very complicated meaning. Oversimplified, it is a feeling of sorrow and isolation, which is tempered by a belief that things will get better in time. Hopefully in the future, all parties involved will be less isolated and do better working together in The Broken Lands. ------------- Bimoda - Dragon Fairy: Illyria Fairy Nation [FAIRY] |
Replies:
Posted By: Han Dynasty
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 02:05
We are happy that we have peace. It only took the persuading of the military firepower of Elgeans to show this BL alliance that what they say goes, and we should start licking their boots instead. We were more than willing to submit gold to our new overlords, despite taking all the significant losses. We also take pride that we are being forced into a meaningless diplomatic stance of Non-Aggression with House Stark. Nothing makes us happier than being forced to make pacts that everyone knows means nothing. We are also more than happy that we are forbidden, under presumed threat of said Elgean firepower, to settle in PhoenixFire's DoH. We are pleased to learn that no matter how much of an aggressive expansionist you can be, if you run to the right people with powerful connections, all distasteful actions in the past will be overlooked. Thank you for enlightening us. ------------- The official forum profile for Han Dynasty. |
Bimoda wrote:Posted By: Nero
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 04:55
| I don't speak for the entire alliance of Han, but I am grateful that the peace terms were very fair. Not something I would expect from someone that refused a Nap with Han or went to war with us and almost forced us to move to newlands. It is very obvious to me that Stark had nothing to do with the peace terms. <3 Wot. |
Posted By: phoenixfire
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 05:26
| Actually nero. Hawk and Covenant wanted nothing to do with the terms. I told Bim I wanted everyone who lost troops to be compensated with either res or the gold to buy res and for Han to stay away from us. I had Bim negotiate for us with those guidelines as I wanted to be fair and I was dealing with a family matter. |
Posted By: Han Dynasty
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 06:04
What Nero is saying is the terms are completely unlike you. You are remembered well in our alliance by your past actions. We remember how you ignored our friendships and instantly tried to start conflict between our alliances. Remember that we got Kajor purely because he was uncomfortable with your desire to start a war with Han (for those of you reading, this was round February). If they were so interested in stomping out aggressive behaviors, where were they when you tried shoving us out half Almenly a year ago? We can easily blame you for our loss of population due to exodusing out of Almenly. That is what Nero is getting at. I’m honestly surprised these terms didn’t demand our capital cities and the drop of the LC, as well as tenfold the demanded gold. That, is what we expected from the barbaric likes of you. ------------- The official forum profile for Han Dynasty. |
Posted By: phoenixfire
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 06:22
|
Ok Constantine. I get it you dont like me. However repeatedly calling me just plain mean isn't the greatest thing you could do at this very moment as you already know. Also why would we demand your cities? You have taken months to build those and it would be rather cruel of us to demand more from you when we have already destroyed one. Third, why would we ask for tenfold the gold we did when all we want is for those who lost troops fighting you to be compensated enough to rebuild. The amount we asked wasn't even actually enough to do that as the real number didn't seem fair to me.
|
Posted By: Bimoda
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 15:02
|
Please, we just settled this war, why stir up a new one in the forums. If there were issues in the past, leave them in the past. If you can't work together, then at least work silently. Remember, at the time, both of your alliances were land claims. That by default will mean a higher level of aggression is likely. This is a game and that is fine if you want it to be part of your experience. It does not mean that you have to be disrespectful of each other in public forums. When dealing with the peace between Stark/Stomp and between Han/B|B/Stark I had good, constructive & polite conversations with all parties involved. So, I know you all can do it. ------------- Bimoda - Dragon Fairy: Illyria Fairy Nation [FAIRY] |
Posted By: The Borg
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 15:42
| So if I understand this correctly Bimoda. Han cannot move cities into Stark's DoH. Doesn't that make it a land claim then? |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 16:52
The squabble you see here is what has been going on for months between the two leaders (it can be found in previous Illyriad Forum threads). Phoenixfire was indeed the initial aggressor and has, for just as many months been trolling Han, both militarily and diplomatically. I do not particularly care for Constantine's tack in response to the 24 hour a day baiting but it is understandable. I do, however, enjoy watching the likes of ex-Stomps members coming up against it,. Bicker on! ------------- |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 19:14
|
The idea that the peace terms were "light" is a matter of opinion. I think the terms were harsh, given the circumstances. This should have been a "white peace" where the alliances agreed to just stop fighting. The reason being is that this war was clearly stopped because of WoT's involvement. Any "damage" that Han caused (which is difficult to even calculate since they were on the losing end of all of the battles from what I can see) should have been balanced out by WoT's few but key additions to Stark, which played a major impact in the outcome of the war (didn't one of its members break Han's last siege?) Also, putting limits on Han to settle in Stark's DoH, which by definition is meant to not enforce limitation of settling and exodusing players apart from the 10-square rule, is only going to cause more potential animosity. I don't know who came up with these terms for Stark, but I can't imagine they will bring more peace to Almenly. Seems like it will set the stage for more animosity. Again, this was clearly a case for white peace. In my opinion, negotiators made a big mistake demanding any gold and the DoH limitations. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 20:28
| I question larger accounts from outside alliances getting involved...make certain you don't try this tactic in my backyard and it might be time for broken land alliances to start uniting to take protective measures land claim or not...harsh terms..leave the old lands out dated play up north....we got faction play down here..we don't need corrupt play down here! go play amongst yourselves! |
Posted By: mjc2
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 21:12
|
first off this is my personal opinion and has not been aproved by T-SC. i have to agree with jejune on this one, i think it should have been a white peace as well, personally i was about to jump out of T-SC to help Han regardless of what others said when i saw what those terms were looking like but when i finally had time to catch up on all the news on the war the treaty was already signed. as for the counter offer from AJ with the high/BB peace, what is he thinking? BB offered him great terms, sign the treaty, end the war and rebuild for later, dont force grudges and have some fun.
|
Posted By: Bimoda
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 21:15
|
Jejune, you are entitled to your opinion, but HAN, as the aggressor in this conflict is paying the price for that aggression. It is immaterial as to whom joined in. They thought they were going to take care of a weak target, took a calculated risk and failed. There are penalties to pay when this happens. If there were not repercussions, every alliance would have incentive to attack another alliance and if they failed say "Hey, my bad" and skip out without penalty. As for not settling in STARKs DoH, it was a consequence of their own actions. STARK abandoned their LC stance and publicly stated that they would not impede alliances from settling outside of 10 squares. HAN, showing that they were going to be aggressive, was required to forfeit that option. HAN didn't have to ask for peace, they didn't have to accept the terms once they did. ------------- Bimoda - Dragon Fairy: Illyria Fairy Nation [FAIRY] |
Posted By: Bimoda
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 21:23
Twilights, this game is built upon relationships, politics, alliances, confederations and so on. I don't think that you will ever see (we never have in the past) a time where players outside of an alliance won't come to the aid of others. I am a true sandbox player. I have nothing against an aggressive style of play. But the smaller, newer alliances will need to learn what the established ones have long ago. You can't judge an alliance/player by their current size. You need to consider who else might become involved. You need to politic, you need to have intelligence on the other side, their friends, their friends friends. You need to know who you can count on. You need to know who may flake on you. And that is part of what makes Illy so intriguing.
------------- Bimoda - Dragon Fairy: Illyria Fairy Nation [FAIRY] |
Posted By: Han Dynasty
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 21:48
So where were you half a year ago? You're right, you need to know politics. You didn't care about the Han HS conflict that was started by Phoenixfire then because it didn't aid your political agenda. This isn't someone interfering to protect some poor, down in the dirt alliance. This is a group of
------------- The official forum profile for Han Dynasty. |
Posted By: Bobtron
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 21:58
|
Do you know what this 'peace' treaty reminds me of? The Treaty of
Versailles, which later on caused the embittered Germans to rise up and
fight WWII. You know what they say, "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, while those who do learn from history are doomed to watch those that fail to learn from history repeat it." Jejune is right, there should have been a white peace. ------------- I support the Undying Flame! |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 21:58
I respect your opinion on this Bimoda, but I don't agree. It is not even disputable that Hawk joining Stark and breaking Han's siege, plus the addition of yourself and a couple other WoT players with a large footprint in the BL, precipitated Han capitulating. Ask Han and they will tell you the same.
There are similarities here to the recent war that my alliance was in against your former alliance Stomps. Stomps did substantially more damage to SIN and other land claiming alliances than Han did to Stark; Stomps razed He-Man's city in Elgea and destroyed hundreds or thousands of troops. Where they were able to be competitive, they fought very well -- yourself included. We didn't impose any gold remuneration on Stomps or any player whatsoever. I know that charging gold is something that has been done in the past in Elgea, but in the BL, we are trying to set a new precedent where gold and cities don't need to be offered up as surrender terms. In both wars SIN has been in, gold and the loss of cities have not been a part of surrender. Han accepted the terms and have agreed to pay the 20 million or whatever in gold. I think it would be a great gesture on Stark's part -- who are after all a BL alliance -- to either cancel that term or give that gold back.
------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: phoenixfire
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 22:19
| The Gold isn't actually meant for Stark alone as many of you are thinking. When i said "anyone" i meant it. So Botchface, Evilbanking7, Constantine, Nero, Myself, Hawk, and Metal aswell as anyone who lost troops in the war regardless of side will be receiving the gold to rebuild. |
Posted By: Bimoda
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 22:21
Please don't take this the wrong way or as be-littlement, but neither alliance or the war that you're speaking of even made a blip on my radar 6 months ago. Neither group was related diplomatically to me or my alliance and geographically, we weren't close. I do monitor many alliances as part of my duties to Fairy, but to be perfectly honest, at that point, all the players together in both alliances didn't have enough pop to even equal me by myself, and I'm not a large player.
------------- Bimoda - Dragon Fairy: Illyria Fairy Nation [FAIRY] |
Posted By: Bimoda
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 22:27
Jejune, BL is not isolated in a vacuum. There are players and alliances that span both continents. There is easy flow (barring travel time) between both. You can attempt to change the ways wars end, but you cannot dictate it barring total decisive victory and forcing your terms on the other side.
------------- Bimoda - Dragon Fairy: Illyria Fairy Nation [FAIRY] |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 23:57
| BIM this is the second time you stepped in..the first was acceptable with stomp...the second time was just interference that determined the outcome of a war...shame on you....broken land sisters and brothers take note...our weak are being preyed upon from the vultures to the north |
Posted By: Nero
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 01:06
| The game is broken if every action small alliances take is dictated by the wishes of a large confederation on the other end of the illy world. What would WoT, or any alliance, do if an alliance of equal size, who is known in the past to be aggressive towards you, switches from helping your confeds to appeasing your confeds enemies? From my perspective the alliances that were at war with our allies were getting a new base in Bl to attack Han and her allies. To say that Han attacked a weaker alliance is ridiculous. The fighting was pretty even until larger members started showing up in stark. |
Posted By: Janders
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 02:31
|
I still don't fully understand the uproar. If HAN/STARK or any other two alliances want to agree to conditions of war, such as "this is a 1:1 fight, no outside joiners, max 3 cities razed per account, etc etc" I think that is AWESOME and a lot of fun. We should do more of that, is my personal opinion. A lot of us have played war-of-walls (with battering rams instead of pults) to have the fun of war with less risk of total destruction; perhaps there are other ways to settle conflicts and have military "fun" without risking the 10 cities you've spent years building. HOWEVER, if one alliance wants to attack another without any preset rules of war, and expects them NOT to ask for assistance from outsiders, BL or ELGEAN based, they are playing the wrong game. Granted any outside assistance can cause positive/negative repercussions for the joiners, but that is true of all game actions and forum posts. HAWK and METAL were entirely BL-based players who wanted to join the fray. I think we all know even little skirmishes like this could lead to a domino-effect of confederations and declarations similar to the first world war. That said, if a member of our alliance wants to leave and join someone else in a war, I certainly don't have the power to stop them. I can (and do) tell them they aren't allowed back in until they have ended their war commitments (i.e. you can't attack and then jump back into the alliance as a shield). WoT, as many of you know, has almost always remained neutral in war, and we tend to be a friendly, goofy, fun bunch. But in most of the larger wars in years past, we have had members leave for extended periods to fight on both sides of these conflicts. They aren't allowed to drag the alliance proper into it, without a vote of the alliance, and can't use us as protection. Has this tarnished our reputation as "true neutral? I suspect so! However, I think its more important to let our band of misfits play the game as they intend, and get involved in conflicts if they find them important. PS are we really fighting over 20million gold? I'm sure if any little players on either side were damaged we can hook them up! [I wasn't privy to the peace negotiations] |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 02:49
the game is a sandbox. all the other players get to do what they like with their units, too. if small alliances are susceptible to this sort of pressure, that will be exactly the result, and should be. i will be more interested in this sort of thing if/when agents of the Elgean powers participate in a losing contest and retreat to their home alliances for safety. Bimoda's enduring allegiance is well-known and here mentioned. are there repercussions for Fairy's diplomacy as a result of Bimoda's participation? it seems said participation is being interpreted as Fairy involvement at some level. |
Posted By: phoenixfire
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 02:51
|
I wasn't actually around for the negotiations. I gave Bim guidelines and then said ok once she was done negotiating. Han didn't have to accept the terms. They also didn't have to declare war on us and expect no one to offer help.
|