The Great War |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 23456 23> |
| Author | |||
Rill 
Postmaster General 
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:33 |
||
|
We can say with martyrdom was their preferred path because they said so repeatedly themselves. In mails and in global chat.
|
|||
 |
|||
|
Artahm
New Poster 
Joined: 22 Jan 2015 Location: Polska Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:30 |
||
From my perspective the key aspect was not the harshnes of terms, but that fact that they were not universal. How can have the audacity to blame somebody for not surrendering even on 'good' terms, when you say to him - "you surrender now and don't bother me and I will then siege your friends out of the game". The terms offered to the player become irrelevant as betrayal is a part of them. Betrayal of friends, of long time blood brothers and of the values they share. How could you expect anybody to accept such terms and say with a straight face that "Martyrdom was theier prefferd path"? Had the GA wanted to really control the bloodshed they had to know that and take account of it. Im actually pretty sure that this too has been a tactic to entice more people to actually follow the path of martyrdom. And please don't tell me that some players bared the blame for the war as in previous posts you yourself have admitted that the war was GA's idea. It can be debatable had it been a preemptive strike or not, but the fact that the GA was the agressor seems undeniable.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:28 |
||
|
Brandmeister, I received many mails from players, including alliance leaders, that they would not make peace under ANY terms, so the actual peace terms offered and accepted or rejected are not necessarily relevant to the belief of people like myself who took those people at their word and believed it was possible that they would not make peace at all.
The other side's rhetoric repeatedly stated that they would fight to the last city, never make peace, etc. Under those circumstances the fact that we were able to stop the war well short of that circumstance is a good thing. I would have preferred for there to be a lot less destruction, period, but I am glad that it was not any worse. Edited to clarify that I'm not opposed to the idea of the terms being posted. I myself don't know what they are and of course I'm curious. But I don't think the terms offered or accepted are relevant to the discussion of whether people on the winning side believed during the war that continued destruction was needed in order to increase the chance of ever arriving at peace.
Edited by Rill - 24 Jan 2015 at 22:32 |
|||
|
|||
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:23 |
||
|
The martyrdom argument would be much more convincing if the specific surrender terms were made public. Then it would be obvious to everyone that those players clearly refused reasonable terms of surrender.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:14 |
||
|
I was thieved by a DLords player, and I did siege his city. His action in thieving me and others in nCrow definitely moved him up on my target list. However, I did not siege all his cities, and helped arrange for him to make peace and Exodus his cities out of the "hot" zone. In fact, I even successfully persuaded my alliance mate to recall a siege launched on one of his cities after he broke a term of his peace agreement. (He did not intend any harm by what he did, and I tried to make sure no harm came to him because he had been acting in good faith.)
His name was Thorgrim. I remember his name, even though you do not. He later went inactive, which I was sad to see. I received many mails from players insisting that they were going to fight to the death. Some were rather insulting. Mona received much worse. In spite of this, we persistently offered to make peace and urged our opponents to reconsider their path.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mona Lisa
Wordsmith 
Joined: 22 Feb 2012 Status: Offline Points: 120 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 22:04 |
||
Epi , I am certain you have repeated your stories so often you may actually believe them yourself . . . The rubbish of one side being more "brutal" than another is amazingly entertaining drivel . . . and also shockingly found on those with axes to grind one way or another . . . . all well and good . . everyone is entitled to opinions, whether based on reality or not . . . Those who were in the Coalition like to speak of how "Brutal" the GA was as it appears to better rationalize their obstinate choices for prolonging the war well after it was decided, I am sure there are many in Consone who viewed that war as "Brutal" or the surrender terms "harsh" as well . . . everything is indeed relative. It is fortunate that those opposed to Coalition forces in past wars chose the more rational path and accepted terms without having those conflicts go the distance the Great war did. Hard for the GA to control that when faced with inevitable defeat, many in the Coalition decided not to accept terms and fight to oblivion. . . it was indeed their choice. . . Martyrdom seemed the preferred path when the prideful could not accept defeat. For your or the Coalition's logic to have any merit, it would mean that had Consone chosen not to accept terms, the Coalition would have called it quits and not pursued the Consone war to the end . . . somehow, I have a had time believing that the Coalition would have stopped at any point until terms were reached, and like those who call the GA "brutal", I am equally entitled to my opinion. I have never been one to shade my views, frankly if all of those in the Coaltion felt that I was any more "brutal" than any of their other foes, I have utterly no problem in dealing with it. I will not lose any sleep if Gragnog still has an axe to grind, my shoulders are broad enough to bear that cross . . . . War is War, I do not for one milisecond believe that H? practiced "War-lite" at any time in their history. It is indeed quite impossible to siege someone out of the game, if the will is there, there is always the option to rebuild. Spare me the violins for those who chose to fight until their cities were laid waste, it was indeed their choice . . . they all had options. Despite all the spin and the post war PR, I do not buy for one minute that the Coalition was any more of a kinder and gentler foe than any other out there. They were able to achieve their victories against foes that simply did not share their view of martyrdom . . .
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 21:46 |
||
I also observed this phenomenon. Item prices fell throughout the war, even when the tournament started. Many sellers were recognizable alts and probable farm accounts. I believe the reason for this seeming price drop is that gold consumption skyrocketed during the war, as both sides built large armies. Their item stockpiles were more than sufficient (an effect of permasats), so they started selling large quantities of items in order to have more gold for bigger armies. In short, I do not believe the value of items truly fell, so much as the value of gold steeply climbed. Gold is, after all, both a consumable resource and a medium of exchange. This appeared to make item prices crater, when in fact it was just an adjustment in the balance between the consumable commodities of items and gold. Edited by Brandmeister - 24 Jan 2015 at 21:46 |
|||
|
|||
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 21:37 |
||
|
I'm not sure I agree that a standard can be very flexible, and still remain a real standard. I don't recall hearing about TMM, maybe it was before my time? Please elaborate.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hora
Postmaster 
Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 21:24 |
||
Nope, noone has to. "Community standard" is flexible, as all it needs is to plan a good propaganda to bend at least the forum talks into any direction. And there never had been a standard for players, who are waiting far too long until agreeing to those stupid surrender terms, more because of pride than for the damn towns or money. I guess the fact that there actually were terms offered quite from the middle of the war, still lets me see lot's of difference to other MMORTS! I for myself (and I guess I can talk for VIC in this case, too) will always offer some reasonable way out of any war we might have the upper hand in the future. And if the loosing side refuses to sign terms, maybe take some towns as reparation by force and then stop... even more embarrasing to the looser, as he's not worth the effort anymore. And the "community standard" has always had a backdoor for guys not backing down and keeping on attacking. Might I bring back to mind the "Crusade" against TMM...?
Edited by Hora - 24 Jan 2015 at 21:27 |
|||
|
|||
|
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 768 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Jan 2015 at 21:20 |
||
Actually the war was extremely unprofitable, prices dropped to record lows, and I really didn't bother offering any sells for most of the war. Most large sells were done when individual players contacted me. Just ask any reputable trader and they'll agree with me. 1)Your 'grand' alliance prepared for the war at least 6 months in advance and started the war once you were ready. 2)Your 'grand' alliance destroyed entire accounts right from the start of the war, you were the bad guys from the get go, you brought 'all-out war' to Illy...under the banner of being peaceful players wanting to protect Illy from the evil H?, who never actually stooped to your level of warfare. Do you remember the name of the Dlord player you made sure was sieged from the game after he had the nerve to send thieves to your town, or an ncrow town, because he got tired of being thieved nonstop for months? You may be able to trick the newbs, but you don't fool the vets. |
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 23> |
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
Mona Lisa wrote: