| Author |
|
SergioDK 
New Poster
Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 14
|
 Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 05:42 |
|
Qaal, read Neytiry's IGm first please. Thanks.
|
 |
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 05:43 |
 Salararius wrote:
... I really don't know what happened 2 years ago, I've only been playing for 14 months or so but I've seen nothing but an arrogant, rude H? on the forums but a very effective H? in the game. Whatever happened 2 years ago was likely as close to wargame situation as Illy will see and H? played the white hat role (actually, the winners are nearly always the white hats but I'll respect that portrayal). Well, there aren't black hats now, H? destroyed them all....
|
There's an awful lot of envy, mean-spirited, and spiteful words and deeds performed towards H?. How long would you want to be cast the villain because of your past successes?
Let's not limit the hate to H? though, to be fair Crowfed receives a good deal of it, and now Consone.
What you see as rude and arrogant I have seen as upfront and blatantly honest, if not somewhat snarky.
What I see here, is clashing differences of what is good and what is not. What I call gathering resources, others call greed. What I call defensive positions, others call a land grab.
Perception is (sometimes) reality (unless you are bonkers, of coarse). If you believe that a group is evil, you will likely continue seeing them that way. Text is a difficult medium for getting the feel for posturing and body language.
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 05:43 |
Rill wrote:
Sieging someone else's cities is not self defense. I thought arguments like that went out the door with Dubya.
It is ironic that RHY has claimed that sieging is an act of self defense and that attacking siege camps is an act of aggression. What kind of crazy logic is that? Seriously, it's mind-boggling. Have you really thought this through?
Interesting on the journalism thing, Sergio, I did a stint as an assistant editor at the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service. Where were you a journalist? |
Mostly just been reading the thread and this post sort of made me lol. I mostly wanted to inquire as to how you feel dealing with a threat should be handled? Perhaps RHY should place economic sanctions on Absa? Just posted as I was curious..
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 05:52 |
My personal approach is that if there is a dispute over a mine of course I try to work it out diplomatically first. Failing that, I'd do combat on the mine until one side or the other was sick of the whole matter and gave it up.
There are many other options such as blockades, thieves, saboteurs, etc., that could be employed, short of sieges. Personally I think a blockade or series of blockades would probably be most appropriate for this sort of dispute. Now that blockades prevent people from sending gatherers or intercept their gathering when they return, I think they can be used very effectively, particularly when a mine is in dispute, since it prevents someone from exploiting the mine (or other resource).
I am not telling anyone else how to play Illy, for those who are sensitive to that. I was asked what options might be available other than siege and I have outlined a few of them.
Although it's tempting, I have not yet sieged a city out of spite, although I did once siege after a series of repeated military and diplomatic attacks on my and alliance mates' cities; the offender was given many chances to simply apologize and be shown mercy but chose to quit the game while my siege was en route. In fact, he indicated that his attacks were an attempt to provoke such a siege. Honestly, sieging the city of a player who is no longer playing is a rather sad experience. This is part of why it surprises me that RHY is demanding Absa stop defending itself -- that would seem to make sieging a lot less fun. |
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 06:01 |
|
Folks. Folks. Please hear this. This war is not about a mine.
|
|
Drejan
Forum Warrior
Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 06:04 |
Salararius wrote:
... |
Sorry but your is just propaganda, Consone are actually bigger than H? and all their potential allied, most of Consone alliances are the top militarized one... And for the peacefull confederation please...
Edited by Drejan - 13 Oct 2012 at 06:08
|
|
The_Dragon
Greenhorn
Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 06:10 |
Rill wrote:
My personal approach is that if there is a dispute over a mine of course I try to work it out diplomatically first. Failing that, I'd do combat on the mine until one side or the other was sick of the whole matter and gave it up.
There are many other options such as blockades, thieves, saboteurs, etc., that could be employed, short of sieges. Personally I think a blockade or series of blockades would probably be most appropriate for this sort of dispute. Now that blockades prevent people from sending gatherers or intercept their gathering when they return, I think they can be used very effectively, particularly when a mine is in dispute, since it prevents someone from exploiting the mine (or other resource).
I am not telling anyone else how to play Illy, for those who are sensitive to that. I was asked what options might be available other than siege and I have outlined a few of them.
Although it's tempting, I have not yet sieged a city out of spite, although I did once siege after a series of repeated military and diplomatic attacks on my and alliance mates' cities; the offender was given many chances to simply apologize and be shown mercy but chose to quit the game while my siege was en route. In fact, he indicated that his attacks were an attempt to provoke such a siege. Honestly, sieging the city of a player who is no longer playing is a rather sad experience. This is part of why it surprises me that RHY is demanding Absa stop defending itself -- that would seem to make sieging a lot less fun. |
Next time if someone want to use his siege engines, ask permission from GM Rill first. He is the only one who can decide it is time to use siege engines or not.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 06:40 |
The_Dragon wrote:
Rill wrote:
My personal approach ... I am not telling anyone else how to play Illy, for those who are sensitive to that. I was asked what options might be available other than siege and I have outlined a few of them.
|
Next time if someone want to use his siege engines, ask permission from GM Rill first. He is the only one who can decide it is time to use siege engines or not. |
Next time perhaps read my post before ridiculing me. If you must ridicule me, please try to pick something original. I'm worried people will be bored by the repetition.
|
|
SergioDK
New Poster
Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 14
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 06:59 |
|
Let's go back to Illy please. Salalarius, I agree with many things, but I also disagree on others. Mainly while you're trying to show H? or RHY as dictators. We are all playing the same game. Nothing else. It's a game. Let's not forget it. Nothing more than a game.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 13 Oct 2012 at 07:26 |
|
Illy is indeed a game, but you fail to make a connection between that indisputable fact and the idea that H? and/or RHY are or are not dictators. Are you contending that people do not attempt to exercise control over others in games?
|
|
Tweet
Rhyagelle Responds To Absaroke Aggression
Topic Options