Training Alliances

And let's be honest Eternal Fire/Subatoi, were you not on GC making statements about training alliances and attacks?

Edited by Sinatra - 14 Oct 2012 at 20:55

ES2 wrote: Starry wrote: Grego wrote: Absa will do best to prevent such cases, even if it's about T? ( question mark again ) I am just curious how this works with H's politics:  KillerPoodle wrote: It's been a while since a real war happened so I want to give the average player some insight into how H? does things. We don't attack random folk just because they happen to be in an alliance we are having a disagreement with. We concentrate on the leadership, the active participants (those using their armies), the passive participants (those supporting with their resources) and the forum mouth-pieces. So, if you want to miss out on all the fun, simply keep your troops and resources at home and you likely won't be bothered. TOOTHLESS? We are a temporary peaceful alliance formed to help those who are new to the game. Not only do we train members in the nuances of the game, we support them with resources and materials.  We require that our members be active and building.  Members are not allowed to attack any player without permission from an officer, active or inactive. Our members are free to leave and join any alliance when they feel comfortable with the game or must graduate when they are between 3rd or 4th city. We are a sister alliance to Harmless?, however, since we are peaceful training alliance, we are not involved in Harmless conflicts/wars nor do our members provide any support to H? members. So T? can decide to become toothed any time they choose....Can we get some insurance that T? will change their name into Toothless until this war ends?   ".. T? has never been a military alliance, they have never attacked anyone..." I seem to recall a trader by the name of Pedi more or less executed by Toothless members, Ladyluvs included.

ES2 wrote: Not saying that Starry..   I should make TLR a training alliance then, send a few resources to a few members, give a little advice, someone scouts me i can raze him and whoever aids him and have such immunity that more or less prophibts alliances from attacking me in revenge.   such wonderful benefits for training alliances..

ES2 wrote: Not saying that Starry..   I should make TLR a training alliance then, send a few resources to a few members, give a little advice, someone scouts me i can raze him and whoever aids him and have such immunity that more or less prophibts alliances from attacking me in revenge.   such wonderful benefits for training alliances..

You have got to be kidding. Multiple people just explained that the player attacked T? SEVERAL TIMES and did not agree to diplomatic resolutions. What do you want, for them to sit their and allow themselves to be assaulted repeatedly?

The only way you could have interpreted that the way you did is by assuming T? was lying and the player did not actually attack them, and then you have nothing to back that claim.

Read the posts that are relevant before jumping to wild conclusions.


Edited by Hadus - 14 Oct 2012 at 22:05

I think some of this has grown out of unfounded fears that training alliances attached to warring alliances will targeted by the warring parties.  KillerPoodle has stated that only warring parties are targeted by their side.  He made clear that if a player does not fight or supply the warring parties then such a non-participant would have nothing to worry about - even if they are a member of a warring alliance.  I think he did except Officers and Key members of warring alliances.  But rank and file members should be fine as long as they do not involve themselves.  Extrapolating that, affiliated training alliances should also be safe.