Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Great War
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Great War
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 20212223>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:48
Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

At some given point, i couldn't tell how we could be called "the good guys" when we were doing the exact same thing that we accused the "bad guys" of doing...
And what was that?
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 

I'm sorry Tyrande, but this simply isn't true.
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:42
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.
this is so clearly propaganda it should require no correction. "on good terms" is in the eye of the beholder; had the opponents felt the terms were better than annihilation, they clearly would have opted for them.
The expression "I disagree", implies opinion and is subjective by definition.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms.
emphasis added. again with the emotional language.
Moot argument, considering that subjectivity has already been established.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)
As a connoisseur of pre-war illyriad as well as my own personal reasons and motivations for being involved in the war, you know the above did not apply to me or my alliance. You also seem to have read over my first post in this thread, so I'll quote it below for the sake of clarity...

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I suggest drafting a list of questions, and sending them to the leaders of all the alliances involved in the war. You might not get many responses, but you'll undoubtedly see that every alliance had it's own reasons for being involved

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.
So you resort to conjecture and unnecessary accusations of bias, while forgetting that you lack both the knowledge and the facts to back up your words. 

I just want to say that I would very much appreciate it, if you would stop baiting and harassing me Angrim. You did not participate in the war, nor did you suffer any consequence as a result of its existence. By your own admission, you do not know the details of the surrender terms, so I would advise you to stop making arguments from a position of ignorance.

The war is long over, and those of us who did fight are moving on.
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
Back to Top
Tyrande Whisperwinds View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2013
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 177 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyrande Whisperwinds Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 20:02
Sieging every single thing that was in range just because you could... or with the argument "better kill them now b4 they come for me"... 
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 19:56
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.
this is so clearly propaganda it should require no correction. "on good terms" is in the eye of the beholder; had the opponents felt the terms were better than annihilation, they clearly would have opted for them.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms.
emphasis added. again with the emotional language.

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.
i continue to find this a very interesting defence of the conduct of the war, which was from the outset said by many participants to be fought because the terms of previous wars were so egregious. (i am a connoisseur of irony, but...can you hear yourself?)

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
it is logistically impossible to force players sieged back to the newb ring to surrender additional cities, and since the victors made secrecy a part of any surrender, it is also impossible to demonstrate without violating surrender terms that the amounts of gold and materiel demanded instead set new records.
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 19:51
Originally posted by Tyrande Whisperwinds Tyrande Whisperwinds wrote:

At some given point, i couldn't tell how we could be called "the good guys" when we were doing the exact same thing that we accused the "bad guys" of doing...
And what was that?
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
Back to Top
Tyrande Whisperwinds View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Mar 2013
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 177 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tyrande Whisperwinds Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 19:32
Originally posted by Ukkonen Ukkonen wrote:

Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

it was the first war to see total indiscriminate annihilation of active player accounts. It should be added that the 'peaceful' alliances were the ones doing the total indiscriminate annihilation.

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms. In fact, we even helped some players rebuild.

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms. Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
 
Having fought in the beginning on the victors side I must agree with Epidemics version and it is one reason amongst many why I left the war. People can quote what they like but it just became a mauling with no honour.

Having also fought in the beginning on the victors side, i can confirm that. It was one of the 3 reasons that made me quit my alliance and renounce the war... At some given point, i couldn't tell how we could be called "the good guys" when we were doing the exact same thing that we accused the "bad guys" of doing...
Back to Top
Ukkonen View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 30 Jun 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ukkonen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2015 at 16:38
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

it was the first war to see total indiscriminate annihilation of active player accounts. It should be added that the 'peaceful' alliances were the ones doing the total indiscriminate annihilation.

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms. In fact, we even helped some players rebuild.

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms. Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
 
Having fought in the beginning on the victors side I must agree with Epidemics version and it is one reason amongst many why I left the war. People can quote what they like but it just became a mauling with no honour.
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 21:04
Originally posted by Orik Orik wrote:

I am looking for the names of every involved alliance, moments of heroism and especially the cause of the war and the crow history leading up to the event . Please do not hesitiate to contact me. I do realise this is a sensitive subject. therefore it cannot lay dormant. Finally, a account from a neutral would allow me to now have info from all 3 sides of the war.

Here's a link to a spreadsheet which shows a snapshot taken about 6 months into the war.


It would be great to have someone document the war for historical purposes. But achieving an actual objective account will be next to impossible. I'd be happy to share some of my knowledge.

I suggest drafting a list of questions, and sending them to the leaders of all the alliances involved in the war. You might not get many responses, but you'll undoubtedly see that every alliance had it's own reasons for being involved Wink
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
Back to Top
Tamaeon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: Centrum
Status: Offline
Points: 152 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tamaeon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 20:25
Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

it was the first war to see total indiscriminate annihilation of active player accounts. It should be added that the 'peaceful' alliances were the ones doing the total indiscriminate annihilation.

I disagree with this. We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms. In fact, we even helped some players rebuild.

Yes, some people were practically sieged out... but this was an inevitable consequence of their (and their alliance's) refusal to accept reasonable surrender terms. Those who sympathise with the other side often accuse us of being ruthless, conveniently forgetting that the great war was fought by same terms as previous wars.

The only real difference between our approach and that of previous victors... is that we did not require players to forfeit towns as part of the surrender terms, and gave everyone a way out from the very beginning.
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
Back to Top
Epidemic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epidemic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2015 at 19:25
Some details you'll want to put in your neutral history record; Permasits played a major part in that war and it was the first war to see total indiscriminate annihilation of active player accounts. It should be added that the 'peaceful' alliances were the ones doing the total indiscriminate annihilation.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 20212223>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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