StA lays claim to Farra Isla

Silverlake wrote: Brids17 wrote: If Farra Isle was a square (which it's not) it would be 14,399 squares. That kind of pales in comparison to the roughly 70,000 squares that surround all H? cities. Just saying.  Passive agressive much?  You delight in those little H? jabs, no? Jane DarkMagic wrote: I don't mean to condone the claims made by H? for 10 square radiuses...  Distort much?  No one in H? made a claim, just a request to open communication. Can't we just    it out?

Since we can't just hug it out as I had originally hoped, let's just be clear... Jane you counted the squares, made a snide H? comment, and now say it's not about H when you were the one to introduce H into this thread... own it, learn, and move on.   Birds, thank you for your frankness, but saying we "claim this whole island" versus "talk to us if you're moving within 10 squares of an existing city" has no similarities what so ever.  So the next time you want to bring H into a thread that has nothing to do with them, please don't, it's just not polite.   

Edited by Silverlake - 08 Feb 2012 at 05:57

If you are looking for something to get all hot and bothered about or argue over the semantic of your 10 space rule, please find another random target for your immaturity because I have no problem with it.

Negotiations are soon to begin between StA and interested alliances regarding the issue.  It appears nearly assured that a much less draconian stance will be taken by StA, however I request that until a final agreement is reached between negotiators that players currently without a settlement on Farra refrain from moving there for the time being. Existing players inhabiting Farra who desire to settle a new city there,  I ask that you confer with the nearest StA member to the new city's location to see if they had any plans for the square and barring them having plans for a city there we should be able to accommodate you.

While I assume there are some who would go to war over the principle of this, please consider the fact that StA is centered on islands. http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Map/125 To settle anywhere but the islands stretches us a hundred tiles or more to the mainland due to the tiles and tiles of water in between. In our last war our mainland cities were attacked while our armies from the islands had well over 5 day march times. While being on the coast wouldn't be 5 days, it's the choice between holding the islands, whatever the coast can offer plus a decent march time, or being in isolation or in relatively weak colonies in a better spot off the coast. Some StA players have already spread off the island; attempts at moving near each other have ironically been met with difficulty due to one member moving to a 'claimed' square and being forced to exodus (which he is in the process of) due to someone 'claiming' it with stationed armies not even on the square. Despite being very similar things indeed (except being perpetrated by a powerful alliance which doesn't have to put up with threats from other alliances when they claim territory), I am getting off the point I'd like to make, which is this:

As far as I am aware there is no other alliance in the same sort of position as us. Not only does StA have most of it's settlements in an area, but also that the area does not 'spread' as in a mainland where we could simply move toward another edge while still being very near each other.

Now, that said, StA will still argue very hard for a limit of some sort in negotiations that still allows players (space allowing) to settle a certain amount of settlements. The main thing StA would like to avoid is competing for space with a second alliance or a powerful player with a strong alliance's support. In this regard I was thinking perhaps a limited number of settlements (space allowing) per non-StA alliance would be fair to both sides, with more allowed if you request confederacy from StA.

Also, yes, I am well aware of the fact that there are possibly alliances out there who think might = right in this, and that they are right. This is why I am asking for negotiations through a good friend with the right people.

In addition, if you believe you or your alliance may be affected by the negotiations I'd welcome your input and I can assure you it will be weighed as well as any. Do note that I'm borrowing a computer to login until I fix my own computer, so it may be a day or three before I reply.

EDIT: The above applies to Farra Island.


Edited by Duuvian - 09 Feb 2012 at 05:41

Aurordan wrote: Duuvian wrote:   1 I'm gonna have to call BS here.  No army without a siege component should take over five days to hit the coast from anywhere on Farra.  The slowest unit in the game is still going to make it in a day or maybe two, max.  And you're still easily one of the most concentrated alliances in the game.  Being "stretched"  over a hundred squares is really nothing at all.  And none of this explains why you feel entitled two the whole island in the first place. Duuvian wrote:    2 As alluded to above, most alliances are considerably worse off in that respect.  Just move up the coast if that's the issue.   Duuvian wrote:    3   I would also like to avoid competing for space with other players, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to kick them off any areas I want. Duuvian wrote:   4 I don't feel that might makes right, and even if I did, ya'lled need a LOT more might to justify claiming an entire region.

1( In our last war our mainland cities were attacked while our armies from the islands had well over 5 day march times. >While being on the coast wouldn't be 5 days<, it's the choice between holding the islands, whatever the coast can offer plus a decent march time, or being in isolation or in relatively weak colonies in a better spot off the coast.

As to being entitled, I suppose no one is, though no one would have a better claim than us. Thus I am looking forwards to negotiations as to what seems to be a fair settlement policy on Farra that preferably respects the wishes of the current inhabitants. Feel free to send me a message if you feel this will affect your alliance and I'll include you.

2( See 1, second sentence.

3( I'm hard pressed to call into question then how an alliance member of mine is in preparation for exodus, hard pressed due to the fact we have always had very friendly relations with that alliance which I'd like to keep and due to the fact it sounds like an honest mistake that has been discussed already. I'm hoping that such a precedent applies to small alliances as well and that I have their support.

4( This is why I am asking for negotiations through a good friend with the right people. In addition I think that I'll ask if it seems fair that alliances with a confederation with us have a higher city limit once something is established to be the rule on Farra, if that's the way it's decided.


Edited by Duuvian - 09 Feb 2012 at 08:07