Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Æsir's Crusade vs. TLR
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Topic ClosedÆsir's Crusade vs. TLR
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 15>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 5 Votes, Average 5.00   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Hereward The Wake View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 13 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 16:14
Hey Duke,

They did ask for help, unfortunately Illy politics and Thordor accepting terms without informing us, prevented us from entering otherwise, given another day we would have.

Which is a shame as that treaty killed The Red Order.

Finally and to be honest, if you read all the alliances descriptions in Illy, all claim to uphold the weak, protect the innocent........

But who has really done this? Why not? Illy politics, too afraid of the outcome and everyone else perception on GC.

We have done this, we do stand up, no claim needed.

But at least we do agree on something, EF is a terrible leader.


Back to Top
Sloter View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 16:31
I dont think that TRO is killed ,I dont think Thor is a guy that would give up, they will recuperate over time.Especialy if you manage to "negotiate" withdrowal of terms that were set by TLR to TRO.As for protecting weak and innocent in that TLR TRO conflict it was hard since TRO declared war first (which is mentioned less and less for some reason), so there was little room for anyone to help TRO.Anyway all is working out for the best, TRO payed heavy price for starting war, TLR is now paying heavy price for their imposible terms of surender for TRO.
Back to Top
Fromfrak View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 30 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 35 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 16:42
Originally posted by Hereward The Wake Hereward The Wake wrote:

Hey Duke,

They did ask for help, unfortunately Illy politics and Thordor accepting terms without informing us, prevented us from entering otherwise, given another day we would have.


That is a totally false statement. G0dsDestroyer was asked for help by TRO and he aided TRO by attacking TLR siege encampments during the TRO/TLR war. If you like, I have the BR. So does GD. And for your information, TRO and TLR are now on good terms. Ask Thordor.
 

Originally posted by Hereward The Wake Hereward The Wake wrote:

Hey Duke,

But at least we do agree on something, EF is a terrible leader.



So now this is about personally attacking EF? That's not cool. Please stop.

Back to Top
Endrok View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 104 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 17:18

I often follow GC and read the forums, but only post when there is something I feel strongly enough about.

I am in Aesir, but do NOT post here on behalf of the leadership .....

There were items in the TRO/TLR surrender terms that I had no objection to and others that I felt were harsh, but not really ' game killers'

Many in GC objected to the demand for prestige & medals, but in the long run that isn't a game killer and people get over it, rebuild and get on with the game.

However, for me the main problem with the TRO/TLR surrender terms was limitations put on players city populations -  I genuinely believe these will have a far reaching effect on TRO members ability to play the game ( peacefully or otherwise) - It is essentially a game killer for anybody subject to those terms.

Items 3 and 4A

I know the 10k pop cap (item 4a)  was an option , however limiting TRO cities to 3k population (item3) within 700 squares of EF's capital.  This 3K cap was a demand not an option!
Have a look to remind yourself of the distance 700 squares represents.

Those sort of terms would have a crippling effect on any alliance.  Who would really argue that these conditions would not damage your enjoyment of the game if they were applied to yourself.
And if the only way to avoid those conditions is to leave an alliance .....  that is in effect the destruction of an alliance by proxy!

People only need to look around their own cities to see the impact that would have.

And anything that has the effect of damaging a persons/alliances ability to enjoy the game should be challenged.  If these 'game killer' demands/conditions were not in place I would be less convince about our reasons for being in the fight .....  but they are, so I am!

This 3k/700 sq limit doesn't seem to get mentioned much & I am a little surprised that people seem to think it is acceptable .....  maybe it is just me!

I know there are many who will argue against my views -  but they are my views! 

Again .......  I speak only for myself and not on behalf of AEsir as a whole, so don't think this is an ' alliance message' to the community or official stance.

Regards to all ......  friend & foe alike!
Endrok


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

Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Location: Cuiviénen
Status: Offline
Points: 211 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 17:52
Wow there has been a lot of personal abuse in this thread. A lot of it seems to have been directed at Eternal Fire and from people who not even directly involved.  It's funny that it seems that the people from Aesir and  TLR have been careful with their words but others have been really nasty. (well not funny - that's the wrong word)

Edited by Gilthoniel - 26 Jul 2012 at 17:54
Back to Top
Saura View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 18:02
I'm from aesir & yes we are not going to attack anyone in tlr who is below 15k pop. 
Back to Top
Saura View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 18:14
Well, with such a harsh peace settlement , any1 would have to act to be in good terms with u folks.
Back to Top
Aquennomi View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2012
Location: IN
Status: Offline
Points: 32 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 19:12
So this war is because of a surrender term for medals?

Ok, here is my take. (not that anyone asked)

Medals cost Prestige.  Prestige can be had without any RL financial doings.
The amount required for this term of surrender,  can easily be gotten without RL cost to anyone in the amount of time given to acquire it.  Especially since we are talking about an alliance cost.  8 members saving there daily for 3 months would easily get this. (the alliance in question does have more members than that).  8 months were given. 
If this term were unreasonable then the alliance in question had every right to argue this before the terms were made public. 
The winning side in this dispute in my experience is not an unreasonable person and negotiations were had.

Now assuming the terms were unreasonable,, who appointed AEsir  as the defender of what is right.
If this is only reason they declared then it was declared without any good reason or forethought and AEsir could quite possibly find themselves on the other end of it from an even bigger Alliance or Confederation of Alliances in the future. 
Just my opinion  but had to let it out.
Back to Top
lorre View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Location: Groot Kortrijk
Status: Offline
Points: 446 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 19:27
Originally posted by Aquennomi Aquennomi wrote:

So this war is because of a surrender term for medals?

Ok, here is my take. (not that anyone asked)

Medals cost Prestige.  Prestige can be had without any RL financial doings.
The amount required for this term of surrender,  can easily be gotten without RL cost to anyone in the amount of time given to acquire it.  Especially since we are talking about an alliance cost.  8 members saving there daily for 3 months would easily get this. (the alliance in question does have more members than that).  8 months were given. 
If this term were unreasonable then the alliance in question had every right to argue this before the terms were made public. 
The winning side in this dispute in my experience is not an unreasonable person and negotiations were had.

Now assuming the terms were unreasonable,, who appointed AEsir  as the defender of what is right.
If this is only reason they declared then it was declared without any good reason or forethought and AEsir could quite possibly find themselves on the other end of it from an even bigger Alliance or Confederation of Alliances in the future. 
Just my opinion  but had to let it out.


these terms are unacceptable. even if it would not cost anyone RL money prestige should never be asked. 
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 19:33
Originally posted by Hereward The Wake Hereward The Wake wrote:

They did ask for help, unfortunately Illy politics and Thordor accepting terms without informing us, prevented us from entering otherwise, given another day we would have.

So clearly your objection was not with the terms of surrender, as you were planning on entering before they were signed.  So why are you attacking then?

Originally posted by Hereward The Wake Hereward The Wake wrote:


Which is a shame as that treaty killed The Red Order.

Um... no, I don't think that is even remotely true.  While you can argue the principle of Prestige terms, the actual effects of the terms were very minimal.

Originally posted by Hereward The Wake Hereward The Wake wrote:

Finally and to be honest, if you read all the alliances descriptions in Illy, all claim to uphold the weak, protect the innocent........

But who has really done this? Why not? Illy politics, too afraid of the outcome and everyone else perception on GC.

We have done this, we do stand up, no claim needed.

T.R.O. is neither weak nor in this instance innocent.  They declared war to satisfy the ego of their leader.  It's an easy mistake to make, and I'm certain they've learned from it, but don't try to pretend they were being victimized here
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 15>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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