Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - TRIVIUM
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

TRIVIUM

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789>
Author
Caconafyx View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Location: Stamford, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 87
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Caconafyx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 23:22
In the Consone war I had to withdraw for personal reasons (periodically RL gets in the way of the important things in life).

When I approached H? leadership they were generous with the personal terms for my surrender. As it was the war ended 2 days later and I accepted my "fate" along with the rest of EE.

Anyway, my point is that however recalcitrant TVM leadership elects to be, I am sure that any player looking to leave an alliance mid-war will be treated fairly and equitably.
Back to Top
Sloter View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Sloter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 11:45
If there were no harsh surrender terms for loosing side in wars Illy would probably have more wars  and both military oriented alliances and peaceful alliances would get all aspects from game that they want.

For BANE to lose 22 cities as surrender terms is completly insane ( how many cities of NC have BANE sieged?, maybe 4-5 and they had to lose 5 times that number)If it was done differetly there would never be any bad blood, and also NC and other military alliances would have more oportunity for fights.People complain about lack of PvP and that is direct result of crazy surrender terms.

If wars were fought so that no alliance has to lose cities after they accept loss of war Illy would be different.

As for NC being outnumbered by BANE i dont see that anyone has mentioned of over 500k troops that were  used in first siege that belonged to one leader of training alliance and two 2 others from NC who just used up huge reserv in that siege and then left NC to be replaced by other military players mostly from TVM.While it looks that NC had 20 players its politics of revolving doors allowed them to use huge amounts of troop from players who joined in only to unload all troops they had and then remove them self to safety.One player even used up all his troops then left to other alliance to rebuild his troops then came back to NC after a month and used his freshly trained troops to form siege.

Tcol declared war to II , they say it was ment to keep war fair.If they did same to leader of training alliance who used all deff troop from one acc to suport NC siege,or to any other alliance that suplied NC with military acc during war i might have belived they only had fair play in mind.


Back to Top
Janosch View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Janosch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 16:41
Originally posted by Sloter Sloter wrote:

If there were no harsh surrender terms for loosing side in wars Illy would probably have more wars  and both military oriented alliances and peaceful alliances would get all aspects from game that they want.

For BANE to lose 22 cities as surrender terms is completly insane ( how many cities of NC have BANE sieged?, maybe 4-5 and they had to lose 5 times that number)If it was done differetly there would never be any bad blood, and also NC and other military alliances would have more oportunity for fights.People complain about lack of PvP and that is direct result of crazy surrender terms.

If wars were fought so that no alliance has to lose cities after they accept loss of war Illy would be different.

As for NC being outnumbered by BANE i dont see that anyone has mentioned of over 500k troops that were  used in first siege that belonged to one leader of training alliance and two 2 others from NC who just used up huge reserv in that siege and then left NC to be replaced by other military players mostly from TVM.While it looks that NC had 20 players its politics of revolving doors allowed them to use huge amounts of troop from players who joined in only to unload all troops they had and then remove them self to safety.One player even used up all his troops then left to other alliance to rebuild his troops then came back to NC after a month and used his freshly trained troops to form siege.

Tcol declared war to II , they say it was ment to keep war fair.If they did same to leader of training alliance who used all deff troop from one acc to suport NC siege,or to any other alliance that suplied NC with military acc during war i might have belived they only had fair play in mind.



Personally I think this is even more the case, if the reason for war is totally random (=just for fun). That some players come to the forum and declare a war between NC and CK as “fair” (or just) is also a rather funny idea (although their pop might suggest something else). It would have been nice not to have this “take city policy” after wars. But probably it is too late for that.

I do hope in the new Illyriad after the war (however this will look like and who will be the new (or old) masters) will be managed by a different approach to war and punishment of the looser or aggressor. But escalation to something else might be very possible.

Do you refer to NS and their leader concerning the BANE war? I did hear rumours that also NS supported the war against BANE and had not so nice experiences with NS-players myself.

BANE/II vs. NC was eventually a “fair” war (considering army size, battle knowledge, troop building speed, player activity, etc.). But the moment TCol engaged against II players was maybe the moment that made this coalition against “the” coalition possible? My feeling was the peace treaty created some additional bad feelings and particularly NC have made themselves ex-II and BANE players as enemies same as EE might not like H? anymore? It would have been great to say: “Thanks for fighting a great six month war which you did fairly well. Let us return to peace now!” But some humiliation and city destruction from the winners (NC in this case) seems to be part of the game, sadly. Just for fun is only good when all players have fun. And I think an easy peace would have led to a more calm situation then what we experience now. There is now even the risk to move to a more hateful stage then what we experienced before. But only time will tell…

I tried to wage war once with one of my players to capture a mine. An unaligned player occupied the mine (after it appeared and “fairly” close to my player while the other player was about four times further away) and did not respond to any mails which suggested sharing the mine. We decided to use force with the aim to get the player to share the mine. The player turned out to be an H? alt. It took about one day and I had a big siege from H? directly next to my capital. I was told: “Accept our conditions (pay a fine) or loose cities!”


You like Democracy? Join the Old Republic!
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 17:18
As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. This whole conversation would be a lot more sensible if people started talking in specifics, instead of using vague accusations like "an EE player" or "some TVM players". I think both sides are purposely keeping things vague in order to draw sweeping conclusions, which is pretty obvious PR FUD.

I don't know why everyone is screeching about warriors joining and leaving, and various escalations. Both sides have done it, ad nauseam. NC, BANE, TVM, II, DARK, uCrow, H?, Tcol... the list is long. Isn't that what happens in a war? Your friends jump in to support you? Whenever someone is in danger of losing, they bring in a few more tough guys (or entire alliances) to their side of the conflict. Frankly, I think we should prefer that individual players join the alliances at war, because it keeps wars contained to the two alliances fighting, and restricted to only voluntary combatants of significant experience.

Let the fighters duke it out. That's what MMO wars are supposed to be about.
Back to Top
Halcyon View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Halcyon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 17:32
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around.
Back to Top
Sir Bradly View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2012
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sir Bradly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 19:57
This thread is getting derailed just like every other thread in the forums.  

/me goes back to building troops.   :)

SB
[04:46]<HATHALDIR> okay,I'm a bully
Back to Top
Le Roux View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 30 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Le Roux Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 21:33
... I am sure players are free to pick their own way out of a conflict, one who did had a city ready to be razed (the button had indeed popped) ,  in the end, the city survived ...  there is always a way out, it is the choice of those in conflict how far they wish to press their position.  

If accepting terms is too distasteful, then the conflict just goes on until ? 

I presume that is really the way of all Illy wars . . .  this one no different than any other....  just larger in scale....
Back to Top
Myr View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 437
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Myr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 22:34
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around.

You are wrong, as was Sloter. The war started over a player of mine that had troops next to his city. I sent my troops to surround his city to protect him from a retaliation siege. When this lie was being spread during the war I and many others who had been contacted by BANE leadership with the accusation, asked for proof of this accusation. None was ever produced. 

BTW, thanks for thinking I have 500k troops. Big smile
Back to Top
Halcyon View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 360
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Halcyon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 23:21
Originally posted by Myr Myr wrote:

Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

As I've heard the story told in GC, Myr fought in the original NC-BANE battle because the player getting pushed around was a tiny ~NS~ newb and one of her students. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around.

You are wrong, as was Sloter. The war started over a player of mine that had troops next to his city. I sent my troops to surround his city to protect him from a retaliation siege. When this lie was being spread during the war I and many others who had been contacted by BANE leadership with the accusation, asked for proof of this accusation. None was ever produced. 



Again: There was no tiny ~NS~ newb getting pushed around. Nobody was interested enough in your nwebs to push any of them around. NC were looking for an excuse and found a very flimsy one.


Back to Top
Myr View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 437
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Myr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2013 at 23:28
Halcyon, you are welcome to your opinion. I disagree and will stand up for any of my members if anyone is parking armies next door to their cities to claim sov. Also, if anyone is not familiar with the incident and would like the facts they are welcome to contact me in game.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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