Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Siege Breaking Defence or Offence?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedSiege Breaking Defence or Offence?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>
Author
scaramouche View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Siege Breaking Defence or Offence?
    Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 16:14
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:







Shad-- Your implied threat that anyone who argues with you will suffer from your J. Edgar Hoover style records of past behavior is rubbish. Nobody has better records in this game than H?.

And I love the recent presumption upon many fronts that Consone was some sort of innocent group of friends that would never have gotten into war if it weren't for the mechanics of the instigation of this war. First of all, if you go back in time, it was Consone, not H?, who was the big swinging, d*%k in Illy before this. Consone had roughly 2 times H? + DLord's pop (our only public confed), was unstoppable, and any issues with Consone were most commonly were brushed aside. The fact that they were naive enough to think that we had no other friends who were willing to jump in with us is not our problem and not at all indicative of the conflict. The folks opposing Consone at the end of the war were NOT the same numbers as the ones that Consone thought were going to oppose them at the beginning. Never forget that. I do not doubt for a second that if Consone knew who was going to ultimately oppose them, they would never have acted the way they did. Bullies never like equal odds.


Was you in Consone?..no?...then what gives you the right to contradict whether Consone wasn't a group of friends and new friends in the making?

The only naivity Consone showed was not taking your obvious contempt and disgust seriously enough at the beginning when Consone made themselves public.

OFC the numbers at the beginning of the conflict wasn't the same as the one at the end, due to the reasons stated before/during and after the war...Consone wasn't started to become solely a military power...but obviously that still hasn't sunk in.

As for being bullies..lol, this comes from one of Illy's biggest GC bully's.

The war is over..can you not stop your propaganda b******t

most seasoned players know H? aint no angels in this war so stop trying to paint yourselves whiter than white.
NO..I dont do the Fandango!
Back to Top
Ossian View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 456
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 13:10
Originally posted by Shadar Logoth Shadar Logoth wrote:

Ok, lets break the dude's file open...
 
it seemed inevitable that when a long standing player like Shads starts pointing out the contradictions and changes in H? policy concerning breaking of sieges that The_Dude from RES would chime in, not with a reasoned argument, but with a "snide comment"  designed to provoke and offend.
 
Shads reply, in contrast, has been restrained.   We could break The_Dude's file open a bit further from early days at MK right up to his most recent inference concerning the mysterious dissappearance of his own troops to reveal a far more fuller picture, but we must not stoop to personal attacks, smears and character assasination. 
 
Shadar Logoth's experience and reputation as a fair minded player speaks volumes against the muck that is being heaped upon him by both TD and DD in this thread. It is true that there are posts written by killerpoodle which show that H? 's position on siege busting used to be a lot different to what is stated in thread.


Edited by Ossian - 21 Apr 2013 at 13:23
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 13:09
Originally posted by Hora Hora wrote:

Either normal crowd dynamics, or good propaganda skills from your side Wink

The crowd believes what they feel 'safer' to believe. 

Originally posted by Llyorn Of Jaensch Llyorn Of Jaensch wrote:

Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:

What does that mean? "If you criticise us, you could be next"?
 
Sure.

Thats exactly what it means.





Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 12:21
KP, yes you're partly right. 
As said in my post, noone has a white slate in this conflict.

In those negotiations I witnessed, usually we tried to find a way agreed by both sides, but, of course, when there's a big side and a smaller side, the bigger one has the ultimate word on it. There may have occasions, where this has been exploited by Consone alliances, but I can't remember to be told of more than two or three from the various forum posts...

But is this bullying? For years, H? has had the sole ranking leadership in Illy, and all other alliances (perhaps apart from the Crow fed) had the option of "take the deal, or else" in negotiations.
That's nothing against your style of play, that's only natural. As all negotiations in here ultimately are backed up by military, a smaller alliance always will think twice when talking against.

I remember times, where the forums where full of Anti-H? rhethoric for exactly this reason, and I found it rather shocking to find this flipping into mostly Anti-Consone rhethoric all in one go. Either normal crowd dynamics, or good propaganda skills from your side Wink

That's what is still startling me, and I still see this as one big reason for us loosing the war. We all at once found us at the wrong end of some sort of Cruzade Against the Evil Consone, when we actually slided into it by defending (which usually yields positive PR points...). Suddenly we had to defend us in forums for defending against sieges. (And yes, because of that additional RES/WE conflict...)

I know we weren't all the nice peaceful people we wanted Consone to be, but hey, we weren't that bad as some of the posts accused us to be.
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 10:31
Originally posted by DeathDealer89 DeathDealer89 wrote:

No actually it appears clear, that you are attempting to troll this thread by..

Every other post, you call someone a troll. You can see it for yourself - A quick search in the forum for the word 'troll' will have your name repeated several times. Wink 
  
Namecalling is against the forum code of conduct. It is here, if you havent seen it before

Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 08:25
Shad-- Your implied threat that anyone who argues with you will suffer from your J. Edgar Hoover style records of past behavior is rubbish. Nobody has better records in this game than H?.

And I love the recent presumption upon many fronts that Consone was some sort of innocent group of friends that would never have gotten into war if it weren't for the mechanics of the instigation of this war. First of all, if you go back in time, it was Consone, not H?, who was the big swinging, d*%k in Illy before this. Consone had roughly 2 times H? + DLord's pop (our only public confed), was unstoppable, and any issues with Consone were most commonly were brushed aside. The fact that they were naive enough to think that we had no other friends who were willing to jump in with us is not our problem and not at all indicative of the conflict. The folks opposing Consone at the end of the war were NOT the same numbers as the ones that Consone thought were going to oppose them at the beginning. Never forget that. I do not doubt for a second that if Consone knew who was going to ultimately oppose them, they would never have acted the way they did. Bullies never like equal odds.



Edited by Kumomoto - 21 Apr 2013 at 08:33
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 05:24
Hora - I typed out a whole set of words in response to your comments above. But TBH - I can't be bothered to go back into that can of worms again.

All I will say is that many alliances ended up on the wrong end of "consone matters" and are now much happier with their lot and secondly I think those involved would dispute your (unproven) assertion that "negotiations were going well".   They were going the way things always seemed to go when one consone (or friend of consone) was involved - e.g. with an implicit (and sometimes explicit) "take the deal, or else."
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 04:03
Hora, I see no black/white juxtaposition. Shad set out to make me look silly. That lies in the eye of the beholder. My history is my history. I doubt anyone has a " richer" history.
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 03:06
Ahhhh.... Confused

Let's start like:   Good points for both sides, thus both are right in some way.

The defense/offense role of a siege, or of breaking the same, always depends on the distance and wide angular objective you use Wink

Very, very near, an attack on a camp always is an attack (point for the coalition)...

One step further apart, the siege itself does harm to a city, destroying it thus is defense (point for Consone)...

And it goes on like that, where even the foundation of a defense pact can be seen as offensive against another powerblock.

So, I'd stop that part of the discussion as a draw... Hug

BUT:
Me as a former Consone player (and as I conduct from all those other posts, not me alone), still feel quite wrongly accused when it comes to the start of the war.

Yes, the fact that there had been a war out of various reasons, and that we lost it because of various reasons is out of question. This war might have started any other way, too...

The one point in all this is, that at the very beginning, Consone had been accused of ganging up against another Top 20 alliance, just because different players sent forces to destroy sieges on a confed. As this had been claimed to be bullying, H? got pretty much PR for their following war...

Has the destruction of those sieges been an act of bullying? There hadn't been, nor would have been any retaliation against enemy towns, as we still were trying to negotiate. And those negotiations went well for both sides, as I dare to state from my point of view.

A common statement on such cases would be nice, as during the war (and even now) it gets quite drowned by propaganda rhethoric from both sides...


And TD and Shad...  no Veteran staying with Illy for more than 2 years has an entirely white slate (from different points of view), with coalitions, confeds and wars mingling the whole system about once a year. I know that, as I'm here for quite some time, too.
Thus please try to let the past rest in peace, or you two gang up to write an historybook Hug
All this black and white (no reference to former alliances... Tongue) painting doesn't serve anyone in here...

Always answering to nice (and sometimes even to other) remarks, tips and anotations...
kindest regards,
Hora


Edited by Hora - 21 Apr 2013 at 03:11
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2013 at 01:33
Originally posted by Shadar Logoth Shadar Logoth wrote:

Ok, lets break the dude's file open.

You certainly never learned anything from it. So we might as well, right?

It's a long story. So i will try keep it short. 

Did he and I have a past at that time, we sure did? And we were both struggling with it. (My alt was in his alliance). 

The_Dude never mentioned anyone about the fact that Warrior Bunny (Invictus) came to his aid when he was in trouble. 

The_Dude joined other alliances, fine, good on him. That alliance chose to war on H? 
Fine, no problem with me either. 

That war was cause of it's leader who lied to his people. Shoot! Most of the community felt bad for him. 

His bad ex-leader decided to wage a war on The_Dude, but first went for an invictus member as this person had agrood him enough, called Kaboom. The community came together, and yes, The knights who  say Ni, got repelled. 

What truelly was a terrible thing to happen, was that he then decided to go after T_D again. (oh there go the sad feelings for t_d up a notch)

T_D was even right that the members in the new to be formed TMM (which i jokingly called, the marshmallow man) were in fact just the one old remaining member of the Knights who say Ni, going after him with a vengeance. And he did. 

TMM in the meantime also insisted on all malmothians to join them, or get killed. 

H? had members who were befriend, or claimed to be so, with other players that were hunted by TMM. In forum posts they will explain that H? members have a large autonomy with regards to which wars they do, and do not involve themselves in. (A lot more alliances joined in, and history does not tell u that Invictus, with me as its leader, had offered T_D to take him on in our alliance and thus shelter him. Sure, it would take some work, but the offer was there). Eventually a lot of alliances helped bring TMM down, T_D and me cleaned up the rest. And in this case, T_D and I can still agree, it was necessary. 

Now.... going back to the question of this forum post. 
When is breaking a siege an aggressive action or not, to suddenly make it more sense? 

I know no one will like me for asking this question, just like Hath MUST HAVE BEEN wrong to dare ask it... but next time i go to war. I would like it to be it for a valid reason. Not just some lie. 

And if go to war alongside someone next time... then i also would like to be certain that their reasons are truethfull. 

People might have a lot of thoughts about these hundreds of people that were part of Consone, but no one really ever wondered why not even ONE of these members EVER spoke up against the so-called aggressiveness of their leaders, unlike the fact that their were h?/coalition members, who at the very least, doubted the reasons for this war.

Again, this post isn't about the last war. But I, and a lot of other people, would surely like to know when, and when not, they are expected to be causing grieve to some other alliance if they are ever to undertake such an action again in the future. 



 
WOW!
>The_Dude never mentioned anyone about the fact that Warrior Bunny (Invictus) came to his aid when he was in trouble.

This is just ignorant.  Everyone knows that Warrior Bunny saved The Alamo.  I have always trumpeted this.  Read the forums Shad.

>The_Dude joined other alliances, fine, good on him.

Good on me!  I made sure that WarriorBunny understood that destroying the siege on The Alamo obligated me to nothing as it was a loss I was committed to.  WB said the XP was enough compensation.  What's your beef, Shad?

>That war was cause of it's leader who lied to his people. Shoot! Most of the community felt bad for him. 

Wow!  OK.  Nige sieged me cuz I quit his alliance - SWQ.  As to "community", there was no GC at that time.  And I did not participate in the forums at time.  There was no siege board.  There was no global announcements of sieges.  I would venture to guess that 20 people or less were aware of the siege.

>but first went for an invictus member as this person had agrood him enough, called Kaboom. The community came together, and yes, The knights who  say Ni, got repelled. 

I think I was on an Illy-vacation at this time.

>T_D was even right

Remove the modifier "even" and I love this phrase.

> (A lot more alliances joined in, and history does not tell u that Invictus, with me as its leader, had offered T_D to take him on in our alliance and thus shelter him. Sure, it would take some work, but the offer was there). Eventually a lot of alliances helped bring TMM down, T_D and me cleaned up the rest. And in this case, T_D and I can still agree, it was necessary. 

Ummm.... Nige moved TMM way out east was of no concern to me.  Having been twice burned by bad alliance leadership, I decided I would only join an alliance that I lead.  [Did Shad talk about the MK episode?  I think I missed that.]

OK.  Shad, you said this history would make me look "silly."

I don't think it does.  It is a very condensed history, and ends in October 2010.  There is much more to my history than this.Star

 


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 9>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.