| Author |
|
SugarFree 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
|
 Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 04:35 |
let it burn then! let illy burn a cleansing fire , the flames will destroy both sides in the end. i see the valar story is again a reference in this.. yea.. it will end just like that.
|
 |
Juswin
Wordsmith
Joined: 04 Aug 2011
Location: Philippines
Status: Offline
Points: 119
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 04:06 |
 Endrok wrote:
However, for me the main problem with the TRO/TLR surrender terms was limitations put on players city populations - I genuinely believe these will have a far reaching effect on TRO members ability to play the game (peacefully or otherwise) - It is essentially a game killer for anybody subject to those terms.
Items 3 and 4A
I know the 10k pop cap (item 4a) was an option , however limiting TRO cities to 3k population (item3) within 700 squares of EF's capital. This 3K cap was a demand not an option! Have a look to remind yourself of the distance 700 squares represents.
Those sort of terms would have a crippling effect on any alliance. Who would really argue that these conditions would not damage your enjoyment of the game if they were applied to yourself. And if the only way to avoid those conditions is to leave an alliance ..... that is in effect the destruction of an alliance by proxy!
People only need to look around their own cities to see the impact that would have.
And anything that has the effect of damaging a persons/alliances ability to enjoy the game should be challenged. If these 'game killer' demands/conditions were not in place I would be less convince about our reasons for being in the fight ..... but they are, so I am!
This 3k/700 sq limit doesn't seem to get mentioned much & I am a little surprised that people seem to think it is acceptable ..... maybe it is just me!
|
As stated in that post:
"To limit the threat that TRO presents to The Long Road by prohibiting all TRO cities of three thousand population and higher within 700 squares of the coordinate 610, 891 in diameter."
There you go. That is unacceptable, imo.
I do find it strange that so few reacted to this surrender term. I know, all that shiz about the terms being agreed on blah blah. But we all know that TRO has no choice but to accept them since they lost. The winner, imo, should be reasonable in their demands. Limiting TRO city sizes? 700 squares radius is a pretty large area. Basically, TLR is prohibiting TRO cities of 3000 pop and above in a 1,538,600 square area. That is a huge area. Not all of that is within the existing map, but you get my point.
Aesir acted strongly on their convictions, and Endrok showed one clear reason why. Let em have a go at it.
And finally, Daufer makes a good point:
Daufer wrote:
I don't really care one way or the other what happens, but this feels a bit unfair the way people are jumping all over Aesir. I quote from HonoredMule back in Sept. 2011:
"Azreil believes that he has toed some political line that gives him the upper hand PR-wise should we attack first, that he is orchestrating a clever balance of warmongering and disassociation. If you believe we're wrong to attack him simply because we're tired of his attitude and the sensibilities of his crew, perhaps he's a little right.
Were Valar a peaceful alliance, Harmless would feel much greater onus to justify "starting" a conflict with them. But given their taste for blood and our similar size, I firmly believe that "because we don't like you" ought to be wholly sufficient motivation--understanding of course, that our distaste is not some random happenstance but rather a reaction to real attitudes and behavior toward us.
KillerPoodle posted our reasons for going to war (aptly summarized as "we don't like you") and that, along with the fact that they're entrenching themselves in conflict with our confederate partners, is what we deem wholly sufficient justification so far as the public need be concerned."
No, I didn't care about that war either. Is this really that much different though, because I don't remember people lining up to help VALAR to kick H?'s butt. Quite the opposite in fact... I Just don't understand the mentality. |
|
It may be that you are right. Then again, you may be wrong. 
|
|
Wolfgangvondi
Wordsmith
Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Location: Orc Grand Arena
Status: Offline
Points: 106
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 03:36 |
This Orc just got two things to say.
One, i have always see G0ds take action on what he feelt it was right thing to do.
Two, Even if "The Horde" does not, I am joing Him. Cuz he was there when i need help.
And for an Orc that's all that is need.
Edited by Wolfgangvondi - 27 Jul 2012 at 03:38
|
|
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 03:27 |
I have no dog in this fight and I'm not supporting either side. I don't really care one way or the other what happens, but this feels a bit unfair the way people are jumping all over Aesir. I quote from HonoredMule back in Sept. 2011:
"Azreil believes that he has toed some political line that gives him the upper hand PR-wise should we attack first, that he is orchestrating a clever balance of warmongering and disassociation. If you believe we're wrong to attack him simply because we're tired of his attitude and the sensibilities of his crew, perhaps he's a little right.
Were Valar a peaceful alliance, Harmless would feel much greater onus to justify "starting" a conflict with them. But given their taste for blood and our similar size, I firmly believe that "because we don't like you" ought to be wholly sufficient motivation--understanding of course, that our distaste is not some random happenstance but rather a reaction to real attitudes and behavior toward us.
KillerPoodle posted our reasons for going to war (aptly summarized as "we don't like you") and that, along with the fact that they're entrenching themselves in conflict with our confederate partners, is what we deem wholly sufficient justification so far as the public need be concerned."
No, I didn't care about that war either. Is this really that much different though, because I don't remember people lining up to help VALAR to kick H?'s butt. Quite the opposite in fact... I Just don't understand the mentality. Maybe hanging out in global chat all the time really is good for you.
|
|
Meagh
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 03:23 |
|
To reitterate what Kumomoto posted earlier, attacking a smaller player in an alliance you are at war with is not wrong. That smaller player has the option of leaving the war at any time by leaving the alliance (even temporarily) you are at war with at any time. Smaller players can contribute much to a war effort. They can scout, they can send resources, they can cast spells. They can reinforce. Excluding them from any war effort is bad strategy imho. Aesir and TLR and anyone else is entirely justified attacking anyone they are at war with. None of you need to defend that or explain that action. You are at war, explanation enough.
It is true, there are some constraints on wargaming that arise through good play... Zeroing out a player, sieging any player out of the game even in war would be foul imho. Refusing to enter talks when one side surrenders would be foul. Battling players who you are at war with? Not foul, good call imho.
I have no comment on anything else i think and really no real interest in who wins as none are my allies. That said, I'm surprised that others have not joined in this war. TLR is accepting allies... I would have expected Aesir's allies to step up.
Good luck and have fun to all. - M.
Edited by Meagh - 27 Jul 2012 at 03:26
|
|
Taron
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Hell Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 81
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 02:52 |
Brids17 wrote:
Taron wrote:
Caesarus10 a population of 40,000, Princess Xanax has a population 115,000 |
Oh come on now...You can't be seriously trying to play the victim now all of a sudden? Besides, the size difference between your alliance and TLR is larger than the size difference than those two players so your argument is double the moot is already was. |
The main argument of this ENTIRE thread is that smaller players are being picked on! I am not playing victim. I am showing that the side that is being bullied and treated "horrible and will be destroyed"(community words not mine) is not even holding up to there own word. All the evidence they have shown is that Aesir threatened TLR, and that some Aesir players attacked before the war was declared. Sorry to say but most wars start before they are declared. If the game was to be about fair fight and everyone having the same armies, with the same stats, with the same outcome (which to make everyone happy with out having losers, it would be a draw every match) they would have made the game like that. I am not supporting killing newbs, I am stating that they put out there that we are killing small people, where they went and got someone to go and siege someone two times smaller then them.
|
|
I am Responsible for what I say.
I Am not responsible for what you understand.
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 02:45 |
some people here understand. some others DO NOT. you dislike TLR ideas, so you think you can kill them. this is all a silly excuse to move war to them. TRL WON an war they did not wanted, forced by the ego of a prominent 15 years old. the community was in denial, so they started challing out at EF to make him do/say something that they could use against him. that did not work. now you say aesir is the poor poor victim if they get exterminated? they ( aesir) deserve the fate they had in mind for TRL, as i see it. and the sugar proved to be brown on the coat after all. i am glad i am sugarfree.
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 02:35 |
|
Edit: Misunderstanding understood.
Edited by Brids17 - 27 Jul 2012 at 03:05
|
|
Taron
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Hell Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 81
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 02:20 |
Aurordan wrote:
Taron wrote:
So this is what has happened, we are supporting a cause we believe
to be right. Our actions we thought would be the right actions. We were then
questioned and answered the question. We explained our reason of what and how
yet TLR grew in members joining there cause to destroy Aesir now.
|
What cause exactly is that? It wasn't the surrender terms, because you were planning to enter before that. Are you defending T.R.O.'s right to attck whoever they want? |
I Don't know how else to make this any simpler... GD stated our motives earlier in this thread... and sense the community wants to know the actions of this war I will post some nice war news for this thread: The Siege of Durolipons belonging to Caesarus10 [Æsir] by Princess Xanax [~NC~] has begun Caesarus10 a population of 40,000, Princess Xanax has a population 115,000 Aesir is a bully then? When we are being attacked by people who are not in the TLR alliance who are as of now picking on a person who is not even half there size...
|
|
I am Responsible for what I say.
I Am not responsible for what you understand.
|
|
Quackers
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Jeff City
Status: Offline
Points: 435
|
Posted: 27 Jul 2012 at 02:16 |
abstractdream wrote:
Quackers wrote:
Brids17 wrote:
If Æsir loses, I wonder if they'll be given the same peace treaty terms TRO was given...
|
Guess since they started this war no one will back them up when it comes to the terms. They will be forced to give medals or be razed off the game. Then demanding medals for a peace treaty will become normal. If only someone would stop this..oh wait they would just be attacked for fighting newbs. When will this ever end!
|
Your circular arguments hold no water: TLR has not received any medals, clearly will not receive any and at this point would live up to the inflammatory rhetoric if it chose to pursue such a term again. |
You need to relax. Your blowing what I said out of the water. I just find all this stupid and I'm a bit concerned for the outcome of this mess. Ya'll are way to hot headed over this. Specially the people on TLR side.
|
|
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so you will not be dependent on anybody.
|
|
Tweet
Æsir's Crusade vs. TLR
Topic Options