|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 6789> |
| Author | |
scaramouche 
Forum Warrior 
Joined: 25 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 432 |
 Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 11:00 |
not quite the same analogy...Hath states , player C is from the same alliance as the sieged player, Britain isn't from the same country but only a confed (so to speak) TBH, IMO, it's a clear cut case for defence, although opinions will differ amongst people. |
|
|
NO..I dont do the Fandango!
|
|
 |
|
|
Halcyon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 360 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 10:22 |
|
If you have an army reinforcing a city under siege, you are conducting an act of war.
If your reinforcing armies are used in Sally Forth, you are conducting an act of war. Haven't ever had Sally Forth conducted against me, I think it may be hard even with a battle report to know whose troops are reinforcing the city (unless the armies names disclose this), but it is an act of war. This defensive/offensive is confusing, you either fight or surrender - unless someone tells me something highly convincing, there is no middle way.
Edited by Halcyon - 13 Apr 2013 at 10:23 |
|
|
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster 
Joined: 23 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 894 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 09:51 |
|
Sallyforth is also offensive, it means you intent to fight back. not that you can be blamed for it seeing as you are already being attacked anyhow :P
|
|
|
|
|
HATHALDIR
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Status: Offline Points: 380 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 09:14 |
|
or we can look it at it in another way, is sally forth then the only true defensive action in illy? The rest is aggression and war?
|
|
|
There's worse blokes than me!!
|
|
|
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 894 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 09:02 |
|
how can a attack NOT be offensive?! the same if you send troops to reinforce the town or some camp, I will make you suffer for doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
Halcyon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 360 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 08:37 |
|
If I set to siege a city, I aim to capture or raze it.
Whoever tries to break my siege is conducting an action of war against me. Defensive...offensive, who cares? It is an act of war and whoever does it must be ready to face the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General 
Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1269 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 08:24 |
|
You should ask the spider queen, Hath.
If the spider queen says defence, it is defence. If the spider queen says offence, it is offence. In the city of lies, the Spider queen is always right. |
|
|
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 08:14 |
|
Note that the broken mechanic of armies in a city not defending against an attack has since been corrected, but the inherent weaknesses of Sally Forth remain as a consideration, so I stand by my position.
|
|
|
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 08:13 |
|
I quote from a post I made on the nCrow public forum (in-game alliance forum) on October 12, 2012, entitled "Breaking Siege Camps is a Defensive Act." The text of the post can be found in-game at http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Forums/523/-2/5952, but I paste it here for your convenience.
I want to make a statement about an issue that has troubled me for some time. This is the idea that breaking a siege camp is an attack against another alliance. It is not. Breaking a siege camp is an act of defense of a city. If one breaks the siege camp on one's own city, it is self defense. If one breaks a siege camp on the city of a friend or ally, it is an act of defense of the friend or ally.
I am not arguing that all sieges are bad, that people shouldn't siege, etc. There are instances in Illy when it may be necessary or desirable to attack someone. In those instances a siege may be used. The fact that breaking sieges is a defensive act should be readily apparent to anyone. However, since various people at various times insist on characterizing breaking siege camps as an attack, I will spell out my logic. I base this opinion on the following grounds. 1) A siege is an attack on a city. Anyone who contends that sieging a city is somehow a defensive act is simply being silly. 2) In order to stop a siege (attack on a city), the siege camp must be eliminated. The only ways to eliminate a siege camp are to 1) persuade the sieging player to recall or 2) attack it in some way. Stopping an attack is a defensive act, therefore eliminating a siege camp is also a defensive act. Ergo, breaking a siege camp is a defensive act. It could be argued that another way to defend an ally is to send reinforcements to his/her city which can then be used in Sally Forth. Some would contend that only reinforcements are purely defensive. This argument is disingenuous for a number of reasons: 1) Sally Forth can only be used every six hours and can never eliminate more than 1/3 of a siege camp, since it is a Raid command; 2) with the currently broken siege mechanic, reinforcing forces do not defend a city against raze/capture; they simply die in an attack by as little as one unit. Especially because of this second fact, it is stupid to reinforce a city, which essentially volunteers one's army as sitting ducks. Demanding others use a broken mechanic to defend their allies when another mechanic is available is unfair and poor sportsmanship. Having said that, please do not construe my remarks as endorsing people going about breaking siege camps willy-nilly. People should continue to evaluate whether participating in the defense of a player or alliance is justified. For example, if a player has sieged and attacked someone and the other person is sieging and attacking back, breaking a siege camp on the second person could be considered an endorsement of the first action (or it might not be, depending on the circumstance, such as whether the response was disproportionate to the original act). I am not expressing an opinion about whether specific acts of attack or defense are justified. I am simply saying to those who contend that breaking sieges is an attack against the sieger: It is not. Breaking sieges is a defensive act. People are of course welcome to present their spin and propaganda any way they like. I'm just saying that I don't buy it. |
|
|
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 at 06:19 |
|
Germany attacks France. Britain destroys Germany's attacking tanks. Even though Britain and France are allies, it's pretty clear that Britain has joined the war between France and Germany. Unless there is a pre-existing convention for defense vs offense, smashing an offensive army in the name of defending an ally is a declaration of war, or at the very least, the initiation of hostilities.
It might be a gray area, but only from the perspective of the attacker considering whether or not they want to broaden the front against a second opponent, or allow them to engage in limited war with some level of impunity. Traditionally the only reasons to do that are because you 1. Have a reason not to fight them, or 2. Don't believe you can defeat both allies simultaneously. Otherwise you drag them in too, or let the threat of that stand as a potential deterrent against involvement. |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 6789> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Siege Breaking Defence or Offence?
Topic Options
Brandmeister wrote: