Carried over from Nokigon's thread

BellusRex wrote: KP. here is where you are wrong- We would indeed be hypocrites if we acted the same in a similiar situation. The difference here is every other war one side has surrendered and accepted terms. If you and others categorically state you will never do so, then you cannot even compare the two, much less draw a conclusion.

I think that there have been many examples of accounts losing a vast percentage of their population, even before any surrender talks started ...

The difference between the usual tactics of previous conflicts used by both sides ( which were hitting a target for a couple of cities and then moving on to the next target) and the tactic used in this war explicitly by your side ( which was pounding on the same account again and again till he has nothing left) is there for everyone to see ... and I do not really need to go far to find an example on that tactic, do I .?. Heck, you guys even came back and tried to raze a 50 pop hamlet that was created when I managed to save a 20K pop city from being raze ...

Mahaut wrote: Dera stop 'going on' about how you lost cities, sigh.

I will, when some people stop pretending they didn't have fun during the process and express false sadness and remorse only in words (obviously I am not referring to you) ...

I admit that I had quite a lot of it, btw ...

Mahaut wrote: I appreciate it's sad for you, but as soon as the political geography changed you could have moved.

Actually I am not sad about my cities at all and I am casually making jokes on the matter on many GC occasions ... I played the game to the fullest and I believe that I took the maximum fun that I could, out of them ... so, there is not much to be sad about .... well maybe excluding the fact that I hate rebuilding ...

Mahaut wrote: It must have been obvious to you that you would be targeted, you had taken part in previous military actions in the area.

It was ... I had predicted the future a week before the events and, indeed, they were obviously in the coming ...

Mahaut wrote: You could have spoken to us and to vcrow, said you were moving and asked for time to do so.   You chose not to.

Your policy concerning that matter is probably different than vCrows ... you might have let some of my cities go, but vCrows wouldn't imho ...

Mahaut wrote: You also chose to exo one city with an attack inbound to just a few tiles away instead of into H? core area, which would probably have given you enough time to exo another.  You chose not to.

Considering that the trip is 8 days, I would only have saved one city ... which I actually did.

Mahaut wrote: You could have left H? for the duration of the war and sought individual surrender terms, as other players have, and not lost your cities.  You chose not to.

Not really ... when you sign up somewhere it is my personal belief that you are supposed to stick to your word even when things turn sour and not only while you are on top of the horse ...

and personal ways of thinking are much more important than cities imho ... some people mistake that for pride, but it is nothing of the sort ... I just do not view defeat or annihilation as a bad thing, even in real life and important issues, let alone in a game where we are supposed to have some fun ...

Show me a person that claims that he has never lost or faced defeat and failure and I will show you a liar ... so, it all comes down in how you handle or face defeat (it is a part of crisis management I think) and my personal view is that the best way is : "with a smile" ...

Mahaut wrote: You chose instead to stay put and stay in H?. This placed a big red enemy blotch on the map near to our more northern players and you, as a player known to built military and use them, therefore constituted a threat to their peace and security. We need no justification in removing a known threat to our players in wartime.

Indeed and I was even actually defending that choice in GC yesterday as a sound tactical move (CanesRule was there, ask him) with no bad feelings or vindictiveness involved on VICX's behalf (I did joke around with that vCrow siege though which a totally different story) ... what I will not defend though is the false idea/claim that somehow this is something that our side habitually took a similar tactical approach.

Personally I do not harbor any ill-will by the choice you guys made and I totally appreciate posts like yours who do not beat around the bush and do not pretend that "hey we didn't want to", but they stand up to their choices and their actions.

Mahaut wrote: Vicx certainly didn't bother sieging what was effectively a hamlet with a wall round it, after all we'd made the city into one in the first place - we saw no need to carry on sieging it! One day there was a siege there and the next day the siege had gone and the village was still there, so stop banging on about what didn't happen huh?

Actually it DID happen and we had quite a lot of fun in GC when it did, but it was not your alliance that did the deed so you may have missed it ... off the top of my head from your side, Pongo was in GC when it happened so you can verify that I am telling the truth.

As for this :

Mahaut wrote: Presumably the player involved hadn't realised what he or she was doing and recalled when they did or were told.

... no he did not recall ... that vCrow siege was actually taken down by Dlords.

I can forward you the report if you are interested, btw.

The bottom line is... Rhetoric aside, when we conducted the Consone War, we moved our targeting during the war to make sure enemy accounts didn't lose more than 3 accounts and you all have not done so...

We tried to be compassionate in our war conduct and you have had no such compunction. So all this speculation of what H? might have done if you hadn't surrendered is just that... speculation.

The fact is we avoided killing more than 3 cities per account during the war, often times when it was not the best military option for us to do... You (and we) do not know whether we would have taken it further if you refused to surrender. We simply never got there. You all surrendered. So please, please stop trying to project this behavior upon us. We never behaved like this. We never killed people off like this. We actually stopped one of our allies, DARK, from doing so... So please, please stop morally equating the extinction event that is this war with what we have done in the past, because what is happening now is unprecedented in the history of Illy...

Kumomoto wrote: The bottom line is... Rhetoric aside, when we conducted the Consone War, we moved our targeting during the war to make sure enemy accounts didn't lose more than 3 accounts and you all have not done so... We tried to be compassionate in our war conduct and you have had no such compunction. So all this speculation of what H? might have done if you hadn't surrendered is just that... speculation. The fact is we avoided killing more than 3 cities per account during the war, often times when it was not the best military option for us to do... You (and we) do not know whether we would have taken it further if you refused to surrender. We simply never got there. You all surrendered. So please, please stop trying to project this behavior upon us. We never behaved like this. We never killed people off like this. We actually stopped one of our allies, DARK, from doing so... So please, please stop morally equating the extinction event that is this war with what we have done in the past, because what is happening now is unprecedented in the history of Illy...

To apply the same rule of thumb that H? applied then- that we are doing now- If you choose not to surrender then you will lose more cities. Period. 

Kumomoto wrote: We actually stopped one of our allies, DARK, from doing so...