The Great War

I appreciate the time you took to compile these links and add commentary. It does provide a window into how your leadership team viewed the events leading up to the war.

Tamaeon wrote: The issue wasn't H?'s willingness to defend NC, but rather our perception that they were deliberately shielding them from any kind of accountability, for their indiscriminate targeting of alliances that were either unfit, unequipped or inexperienced in the art of warfare.

I can believe that Celtic Knights was unfit, unequipped, and inexperienced in the art of warfare. They are a casual gaming alliance, by all appearances similar to eCrow. But it does strain credulity to apply that same description to BANE. Military competence is their signature.

Tamaeon wrote: One thing that was particularly shocking to some leaders of the soon to be GA, was the stated casus belli and the reasoning behind NC's war declaration on BANE.

I'd give it a 7 on a scale of 1 to Trove Mine.

Tamaeon wrote: Obviously we did not expect, and could not have foreseen... the massive resistance the Coalition would put up, or the amount of destruction that ending the war would ultimately require.

The begs the question, what did the Grand Alliance anticipate as the resolution to the war?

In reading the original NC-BANE thread, I still have the same question. I didn't see BANE desperately requesting intervention by DARK. They barely even said anything on that thread. That does make Halcyon's statements seem more like a pretext, and less like a genuine concern about fairness.

It always seemed to me like both NC and BANE wanted to fight. Both were trash talking in GC, both were escalating by adding players, and neither seemed to be suffering severe city destruction. I never understood the argument that it was fair for DARK to intervene on BANE's behalf, yet it was apparently an outrage that H? did the very same for NC. Their war seemed to be typical MMO fare--two guilds fought, one was starting to lose ground and thus called in allies, provoking the other guild to do the same. And it did seem very conspicuous that the allies called in for both sides already had an axe to grind with each other over different issues.

KillerPoodle wrote: Tamaeon wrote: For me the war started when H? threatened war against DARK for intervening to stop the NC vs. BANE conflict. Elsewhere in illyriad Kumo and KP were making very public comments to the effect that Crowfed was getting too large, and was starting to smother the game. And in yet another corner of illyriad... H? was threatening to siege a player called Hannibal Foulwind out of the game. There might be some protest/upheaval about that last claim, but make no mistake; its a confirmed fact. It would ultimately take a few weeks before the first war declarations; but in my opinion it was these events, which lead to the conversations which ultimately gave birth to a Grand Alliance. I was gonna stay out of this but I'm compelled by the sheer egregiousness of this biased doublethink and slander. Case 1 - Dark/Bane/NC Doublethink Exhibit A:  Dark threatened war to defend an ally, H? responded with a similar threat and yet Dark = Good and H? = Bad.

Hora - if those "honest facts" manage to contradict themselves within the first 4 pages of a thread then I think you can pretty safely say that they are neither honest nor facts.


Edited by KillerPoodle - 14 Jan 2015 at 15:01

Tamaeon wrote: For me the war started when H? threatened war against DARK for intervening to stop the NC vs. BANE conflict. Elsewhere in illyriad Kumo and KP were making very public comments to the effect that Crowfed was getting too large, and was starting to smother the game. And in yet another corner of illyriad... H? was threatening to siege a player called Hannibal Foulwind out of the game. There might be some protest/upheaval about that last claim, but make no mistake; its a confirmed fact. It would ultimately take a few weeks before the first war declarations; but in my opinion it was these events, which lead to the conversations which ultimately gave birth to a Grand Alliance. As far as timelines go, I'd say this happened in August and early September 2013. edit: Corrected dates from 2014 to 2013

I was gonna stay out of this but I'm compelled by the sheer egregiousness of this biased doublethink and slander.

Case 1 - Dark/Bane/NC
Doublethink Exhibit A:  Dark threatened war to defend an ally, H? responded with a similar threat and yet Dark = Good and H? = Bad.

Doublethink Exhibit B: The reason NC/Bane war was still going was because Bane didn't want to surrender. So Tamaeon is using an alliance defending another alliances right not to surrender as his excuse for war.  Have a look at the other posts he's made about surrender in this thread and see if you can reconcile that piece of fancy footwork

Doublethink Exhibit C: Dark chose to break the former ties of the coalition by siding with Bane against NC (their former ally) so despite the fact that every H? action was only in response to a Dark move they proceeded to whine in GC for over a year about how H? betrayed them.

Case 2 - Crowfed: 
Firstly, I said nothing about Crowfed being too large (but as we know Tamaeon does not let facts get in the way of a good story).

Secondly, Kumo's concerns (despite the poor way they were voiced) proved to be completely accurate and valid based on the subsequent behavior of vCrow, uCrow, nCrow.  Fortunately other crows like mCrow and eCrow showed they had a little more moral fiber.

Case 3 - HFW
There was a period in time when HFW would regularly login to one of the accounts he was sitting and rant about H? in GC under that cover - not realising it was perfectly obvious who it was. Then he went silent and we were informed he had quit so we decided to take a few cities for our members (especially since one was still owed from the Consone settlement).

Once we found he had not quit and he finally started being somewhat reasonable we quickly came to an arrangement where he stopped trying to trash us all the time and we left him alone.

At no point did we threaten to remove him from the game.  We did threaten to do him some serious damage if he didn't stop being obnoxious but no threat of sieging out of the game. I did say to Hath that if the poor behavior continued then it would be of benefit to the entire game if he just abandonded but that was as far as it went.

Case 4 - more hypocrisy

Tamaeon wrote: We gave everyone the option of individual surrender on good terms.

Tamaeon wrote: You know full well that we ultimately held you and your former alliance responsible for the enormous toll of the great war. It's rather obvious that you wouldn't be afforded the same treatment as the other alliances

Even in the context of this thread, you're still making stuff up to suit whatever argument you are trying to present.  The fact is that the surrender terms were much harsher than previous wars, did include city surrender (in some cases) and you also admitted that even if H? had surrendered we would not have received reasonable terms whereas at the time you were all "Just surrender and it will be fine" in public.

Case 5 - looking for the facts

Tamaeon wrote: Everyone in the GA knew the war was won from the very beginning.

In this very forum The Duke himself claimed that he had no idea if GA would win or not - so who's lying, you or him?

Conclusion
I think the main issue here is that Tamaeon has been fed a such a steady diet of Anti-H propaganda that he just comes out with a constant stream of whatever he can think of to say that is anti-H? regardless of the fact that is self-contradictory rubbish at best and flat out lies at worst.


Edited by KillerPoodle - 14 Jan 2015 at 04:25