Surrender terms for wars in Illyriad |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 4567> |
| Author | |
ES2 
Postmaster 
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 550 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 17:35 |
I have no idea
|
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
 |
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General 
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 17:31 |
|
I was under the impression that when your last city is destroyed, all your items in the hubs are destroyed as well. Is that not the case?
|
|
|
|
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 550 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 17:19 |
Can people keep the resources stored in hubs even when they lose their cities? If so, then they could just stash all the advanced resources they want in hubs, then when they rebuild their cities they could pull them out of the hubs.
|
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
|
|
|
ickyfritz
Greenhorn 
Joined: 10 Sep 2012 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 40 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 17:16 |
|
I think simply eliminating reparations might be the better strategy. Everyone takes their licks and bears the brunt of their own costs for waging war. Wars would be shorter since the pain of surrender reenforces the reluctance to do so. If you grind them into the dust you won't have any problems later, but then you have dust for a neighbor. Terms don't have to be generous, just not punitive.
I can easily see how reparations to the loser could be used as a twisted tool of the truly Machiavellian. I see how it would induce wars that wouldn't naturally occur in the natural order of things. Smaller alliances with nothing to lose could in fact achieve certain strategic goals during the course of the war (even as a loser) and receive reparations to boot. just another opinion... |
|
|
|
|
Sir A
Wordsmith 
Joined: 26 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 121 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 16:00 |
Yeah I know this would never occur in reality and honestly don't expect anyone from either side to take this suggestion seriously (not even sure that I can lol) but was just curious to see where some people stand. Its way too nice even for Illyriad, and also the fact that some alliances are choosing to fight until their total destruction means that they don't care what the terms are. Its just annoying that some of them choose to cry in GC about their cities getting wrecked when they chose to fight to the end. You would think someone who chooses to fight to the end has come to terms with what that means but I guess not everyone has. So lets keep fighting and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 550 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 12:25 |
Who says? You? I long have preferred Illyriad to it's first year than the cold war climate it faced for such a long time, imo, it is far better in recent times than it has been for a very long bit.
|
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
|
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 05:37 |
assisting a defeated opponent in rebuilding is only appropriate in certain situations. it will be much easier to scoff at this suggestion than to assess how the conditions might be created that would make it effective. |
|
|
|
|
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 768 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 03:09 |
|
This would be a good idea in a community that cares about the game, but we need to come to terms with the fact that Illy has changed for the worse.
Sure, we still feed the newbs because sending basic res to dozens of players every day has no effect on fully built accounts. The part that has changed is the destruction of accounts, the trolling in gc, the revenge and all around negative feelings that take root in most games that become stagnant. Are the devs to blame for hyping up new updates and then not bringing them out? Are the vets responsible because they're bored and just want to have 'fun', regardless of consequences? Who really knows anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Miklabjarnir
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 18 Feb 2014 at 03:05 |
|
This sounds like the Marshal plan. Of course, people who want to fight more wars will not go for it. Grudges and desire for revenge do not thrive when the winner treats the loser decently.
I think a better solution would be to make the cost of offensive warfare more realistic. In the pre-gunpowder era, succeeding in a siege was a very iffy thing. An army far from home could run out of supplies long before any besieged city. Sieges would take months, not days. They would also lose part of the army every day away from home - to disease, accidents, hunger and desertion. A change in that direction would balance the situation between the winners and losers, and might also make the winners more likely to offer decent terms in order to limit their own expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 22:07 |
|
So what is the point of winning .?. "Oh, we fought and we finally won ... here guys, we will pay for your trouble and do not mind our damages and expenses ... "
 This is the most unreasonable thing I have ever heard ... |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 4567> |
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 |
Topic Options
Brandmeister wrote: