| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
SunStorm 
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979 |
 Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 16:03 |
 Raatalagk wrote:
. . . they didn't bother to ask if a war would be entertaining for us . . .
. . . there is something a bit unsatisfying about fighting a war you don't really understand the reason for. |
I hope that these can be sorted out. Before this thread, I was under the assumption that his was a mutually agreed upon war.
Have terms been set for duration, what forms of attack are and are not acceptable, who is and is not to be targeted, and under what conditions a surrender might be established?
I will provide examples for these:
Duration:
This war will continue until (1) the beginning of the next tournament (2) one side loses a city (3) one side successfully steals 25k advanced resources from the other (4) one side has depleted all armies...
etc.
What attacks are and are not acceptable:
Acceptable: (1) Scouts, Spies, Thieves (2) Army attacks, Feints, Raids, Blockades (3) Instant Blights
Not Acceptable: (1) Saboteurs, Assassins (2) Sieges (3) Prolonged Blights
etc.
Who is and is not to be targeted:
Yes: (1) Any town that is over 3,000 population (2) Any town that has * placed before the name
No: (1) Any town that is under 3,000 population (2) Towns that have no * before the name
etc.
Conditions for surrender:
(1) The losing side will pay tribute to the winners in the amount of 20mil gold (2) The losing side will give up 3 cities (over 5k population) to be sieged and leveled by the winners (3) The losing side will issue a public notice of the superiority of the winning side (4) The losing side removes, through Exodus, any cities which are within 50 squares of the winning side
etc.
Disclaimer: This is not by any means a recommendation of how you should run your war. Far from it! (^_^) This is just to get the brain juices flowing.
War can be fun with set parameters - or it can be utterly devastating. In the future, I would like to see more alliances engage in mutually consented war - not with the intention of "removing" an opponent, but with the goal of excitement, training, fun, and with a sense of respect for one another.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
 |
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 17:48 |
SugarFree wrote:
Lord, let them slug it out far away from the lime light please...
there is no need for the overprotective community to stick it's brown nose int this.
|
Agreed. No reason for anyone to step in unless either one of the parties currently at war request aid from their allies.
|
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian
Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452 |
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 18:32 |
SunStorm wrote:
Raatalagk wrote:
. . . they didn't bother to ask if a war would be entertaining for us . . .
. . . there is something a bit unsatisfying about fighting a war you don't really understand the reason for. |
I hope that these can be sorted out. Before this thread, I was under the assumption that his was a mutually agreed upon war.
Have terms been set for duration, what forms of attack are and are not acceptable, who is and is not to be targeted, and under what conditions a surrender might be established?
I will provide examples for these:
Duration:
This war will continue until (1) the beginning of the next tournament (2) one side loses a city (3) one side successfully steals 25k advanced resources from the other (4) one side has depleted all armies...
etc.
What attacks are and are not acceptable:
Acceptable: (1) Scouts, Spies, Thieves (2) Army attacks, Feints, Raids, Blockades (3) Instant Blights
Not Acceptable: (1) Saboteurs, Assassins (2) Sieges (3) Prolonged Blights
etc.
Who is and is not to be targeted:
Yes: (1) Any town that is over 3,000 population (2) Any town that has * placed before the name
No: (1) Any town that is under 3,000 population (2) Towns that have no * before the name
etc.
Conditions for surrender:
(1) The losing side will pay tribute to the winners in the amount of 20mil gold (2) The losing side will give up 3 cities (over 5k population) to be sieged and leveled by the winners (3) The losing side will issue a public notice of the superiority of the winning side (4) The losing side removes, through Exodus, any cities which are within 50 squares of the winning side
etc.
Disclaimer: This is not by any means a recommendation of how you should run your war. Far from it! (^_^) This is just to get the brain juices flowing.
War can be fun with set parameters - or it can be utterly devastating. In the future, I would like to see more alliances engage in mutually consented war - not with the intention of "removing" an opponent, but with the goal of excitement, training, fun, and with a sense of respect for one another.
|
I see no reason to add to the others explanation, partly because I see no way I can ;-)
But I must admit, I see no reason why you're trying to turn a war into what seems to me to be a tourney. War is war, I'm afraid, and there are no rules. The loser gets some surrender terms, the winner get a pat on the back and a nice fat wad of gold. There's not much more to it than that.
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979 |
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 19:33 |
Nokigon wrote:
. . . I see no reason why you're trying to turn a war into what seems to me to be a tourney. War is war, I'm afraid, and there are no rules. The loser gets some surrender terms, the winner get a pat on the back and a nice fat wad of gold. There's not much more to it than that. |
I was not attempting to turn anything into a mini-tournament. Furthermore, I am not saying that my standards should be another player's/alliances' standards - but exactly what is the war over?
If it was started because one side felt the need for a little "excitement," then this war should be handled as such and terms should be set down so both alliances can smash each other up in a civilized manner. If either alliance begins to wipe the game clean of the other, then (just as CoK became involved) you should expect to see a lot more involvement...
Once again, I will direct you to the point of the whole post (not just for LWO vs BSH - but for everyone):
SunStorm wrote:
War can be fun with set parameters - or it can be utterly devastating. In the future, I would like to see more alliances engage in mutually consented war - not with the intention of "removing" an opponent, but with the goal of excitement, training, fun, and with a sense of respect for one another. |
War should be more than mindless violence brought about on a whim.
Disclaimer: I am speaking only for myself.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 |
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 21:25 |
|
See this is exactly why this should never have been brought to the forums. SunStorm, all due respect but this war has absolutely nothing to do with you and you're opinions on what war should be or how it should be fought is completely irrelevant. People need to let others do as they want without inserting their opinions on it. If either side wanted the help or the opinions of the community they would have posted such.
|
|
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979 |
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 21:51 |
|
I rather feel this has been blown out of proportion.
I appreciate your honesty Brids17 and Noki. Perhaps I should not have posted - but then again, thoughts and personal opinions are the point of the forums. I clearly stated I was not telling anyone how they should run their war, and I clearly stated that war can be fun. I am not encouraging this, and I am not discouraging this.
The whole point of my post was to give alliances something to think about - ways more alliances in the community could participate in war activities without the fear of utter annihilation on the side of the losers. As I said, it was simply ". . .
to get the brain juices flowing" - nothing more...
If this is out of line, I am sorry.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 |
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 22:04 |
@ SS
[??:??]
<
RusstheRed
>You can't even fart in illy without someone analyzing it.
Not your fault per say.
Edited by Subatoi - 12 Mar 2012 at 22:07
|
|
invictusa
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 488 |
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 23:00 |
|
It is none of my business and I hope it works out for the best.
I must say though, strange that this seemed to begin around the beginning of this tourney. It makes me wonder if pulling BSH out of the tourney and thus drastically taking competition away from Mal M tile and neighboring regions, was the entire purpose of this.
|
|
...and miles to go before I sleep.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 13 Mar 2012 at 01:00 |
|
If someone was trying to reduce competition in Mal Motsha, they seem to have failed miserably. Last I checked that square has 866k casualties. No lack of action in Keshalia, Kul Tar or Perrigor either. DLords is being thoroughly snuggled in Taomist, and a bunch of smaller folks are duking it out in Laoshin. I'm not sure BSH's lack of participation is affecting many folks other than BSH, and indeed it's too bad that they haven't gotten to join in the fun.
|
|
Nilock
Greenhorn
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 73 |
Posted: 13 Mar 2012 at 02:12 |
i, on behalf of all the
The Horde, apologize to those who hoped to meet us on the field of battle in this
tourney. Regrettably, we had to attend to more important matters, as you have read.
Our eternal allies/partners/best buds in The Colony Fight this tourney, and i wish them best of Fortune
getting back to the point...
we expect this war to end soon, hopefully with a surrender, however considering the fact that in
LWO all members have complete control, we cant be sure.
this war teaches a good lesson to all alliances out there: Careful what you wish for, you might get it
So sayth Nilock BloodHammer
|
|
Tweet
LWO war