And when the going gets tough......

Starry – from my position (a non-leadership role in VICX), I see things slightly differently to you.

I do not believe the intention is to siege players out of the game.  I do however, believe that the intention is to siege logical targets (quelle surprise in a war).  Whether these targets all belong to a single player or not is irrelevant.

By “logical”, this would typically mean towns closest to our hub – but other criteria might also come into play.  What I wouldn’t deem as logical is specifically targeting towns on the sole basis that they belong to a certain player (e.g. “He’s only got two towns left, let’s go get him”).

By “target”, I mean towns belonging to members of alliances we are at war with (de facto or declared) that have not yet surrendered and accepted terms.

So, in my view, it is perfectly within the power of each of our adversaries to change one of these parameters;

Logical:  Move your towns to a position where they present less of an obvious target.

Target:  Surrender (either as an alliance or individual) and accept the terms given.

So, I disagree that we are intentionally sieging players out of the game; but what I do see is players choosing to be sieged repeatedly rather than be seen to surrender – but that’s their choice.

Personally, I would like to see a surrender....but you've made your position clear on that (for H? or for yourself though?)