| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Halcyon 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
|
 Topic: Training Alliances and War
Posted: 12 Dec 2013 at 17:02 |
 KillerPoodle wrote:
Halcyon wrote:
I counted the war as beginning on Oct 30, when we declared on H? |
And again the real reason for all this slips out....
|
Oh, pretty simple:
When Dark declared war on NC on Oct 28, the danger did not seem very high, so we did not remove accounts like Julius71 who were both inactive and far from Dark's powerbase.
When we declared war on H? on Oct 30, the danger increased and such accounts were removed from Dark so they won't be a part of the war.
Edited by Halcyon - 12 Dec 2013 at 17:03
|
 |
Spheniscidae
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 117
|
Posted: 12 Dec 2013 at 13:20 |
KillerPoodle wrote:
And again the real reason for all this slips out....
|
QQ
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 12 Dec 2013 at 03:43 |
Halcyon wrote:
I counted the war as beginning on Oct 30, when we declared on H? |
And again the real reason for all this slips out....
Edited by KillerPoodle - 12 Dec 2013 at 03:43
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
Meagh
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
|
Posted: 12 Dec 2013 at 00:16 |
|
Is the training alliance directly affiliated (a sister or other derivative) with an alliance currently at war? If so the training alliance likely assists the main alliance, not only with fresh troopers but also indirectly through supplies and magic.
Does this indirect support and their immediate association/affiliation make them fair targets in the conflict? Were I the opposing party I would say yes. The idea that you would allow an alliance, especially a sub-alliance, to directly support your enemy in a conflict with fresh troops and supplies is not good strategy imo.
Edited by Meagh - 12 Dec 2013 at 00:20
|
|
|
|
Halcyon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
|
Posted: 11 Dec 2013 at 17:29 |
Sorry Sir Bradly, you are correct.
I counted the war as beginning on Oct 30, when we declared on H? I did not count the previous 2 days when we were at war with NC.
|
|
Sir Bradly
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Sep 2012
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 228
|
Posted: 11 Dec 2013 at 17:17 |
Halcyon wrote:
The Roman Empire is sieging a member of Dark's training alliance.
This member is a non combatant who left Dark before the war began, was unaligned and joined Dark's training alliance only yesterday, December 10th. He is unders siege since Decmber 6th. Do the other combatants see him as a fair target? |
That detail is false. The war began on Oct 28. The player left Dark on Oct 30th.
Nonetheless, I hope RE and Dark find a suitable agreement
SB
|
|
[04:46]<HATHALDIR> okay,I'm a bully
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 11 Dec 2013 at 16:59 |
|
Sounds like a fair enough explanation
|
|
<Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that
[21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted
<Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps
|
|
Halcyon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
|
Posted: 11 Dec 2013 at 16:35 |
RE has explained to me that Julius was under siege not as part of the war, but since he was inactive for 30 days.
I accept their explanation. They also agree that since he returned to be active (there is no Dark sitter on his account), he should not be targeted anymore. I too believe that training alliances must not be part of the war, and must never be used as a safe haven for combatants who wish to leave the war. No Dark member will seek refuge in our training alliance without 1st offering a personal surrender and promising not to rejoin the war.
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 11 Dec 2013 at 16:09 |
|
If he's a fair target then we need to look at the members of training alliances on the other side and assess if they are also suitable.
Personally I would say NO he is not a fair target and it is disgraceful that an alliance would target such a player in this way.
|
|
<Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that
[21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted
<Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps
|
|
Halcyon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
|
Posted: 11 Dec 2013 at 15:52 |
|
Julius71.
|
|
Tweet
Training Alliances and War
