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

Topic ClosedPhew

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 1.00   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Albatross View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 14:38
Quick Qs:
  1. Are interested parties being proportionate in their military response?
  2. In cases of misrepresentation, is it  possible for those 'responsible' to retire from their places, or to separate their 'offenses' from the body of their alliances? Would others allow them to rest?
  3. Can those itching for a fight just have an organised fight to burn off their excess military power, or does there need to be a causus belli having a traceable origin in-game?
Back to Top
Darmon View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2012 at 06:53
Originally posted by Albatross Albatross wrote:

Quick Qs:
  1. Are interested parties being proportionate in their military response?
  2. In cases of misrepresentation, is it  possible for those 'responsible' to retire from their places, or to separate their 'offenses' from the body of their alliances? Would others allow them to rest?
  3. Can those itching for a fight just have an organised fight to burn off their excess military power, or does there need to be a causus belli having a traceable origin in-game?

I've been told that sometimes I use language that is inaccessibly dense, but I'm still not able to decode your inquiries.  Are you worried that it's not a fair fight?  Are you worried that weaker players are getting the business-end of siege weapons from stronger players?  If those sorts of match-ups are happening in the first place, it might be hard to remedy, since compromise on anything seems difficult at the moment.

I do get the last questions though, and I'm guessing the unanimous answer will be no.  From what I've read the what-nots and goings-on escalated to military-grade on October 1st, which is when the tourney started (and was at least posted on the tail-end of the previous day).  So if people didn't want a full fight, couldn't they have just done what you suggest via the tourney?  Or do you think people are reconsidering now?
Back to Top
Uno View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Location: Torino
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2012 at 17:38
The involved parties that first declared war (RHY and then H?) didn't just want "a fight". They wanted much more, specifically the elimination of what they deemed a potential threat. This is what I gathered from KillerPoodle's post.
Eréc of Caer Uisc
King of Dyfneint
Indomiti Alliance
Back to Top
Darmon View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2012 at 18:04
Originally posted by Uno Uno wrote:

The involved parties that first declared war (RHY and then H?) didn't just want "a fight". They wanted much more, specifically the elimination of what they deemed a potential threat. This is what I gathered from KillerPoodle's post.

That's generally the impression I get as well.  Which makes me suspect they won't settle for anything less than the complete dismantling of Consone, one town at a time...

Of course, that also sounds like a lot of work, so maybe they'll just settle for some more strategic victories with regards to essential opponents or regions.

Like I mentioned in another thread, nobody knows what H?'s intentions are, so it leaves a lot of room for speculation.


Edited by Darmon - 16 Oct 2012 at 18:20
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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