The History of Illyriad (incomplete) |
Post Reply  |
Page <1 56789 10> |
| Author | ||
Nokigon 
Postmaster General   Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply  Posted: 18 Mar 2014 at 20:10 |
|
|
2010- TMM
2011- Valar
2012- Consone
2013- Coalition
Trend is irrefutable :P
Also, thanks for the nudge. I got badly distracted by the war, but I will do some work on this on the weekend.
|
||
 |
||
| Kumomoto
Postmaster General Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Status: Offline Points: 2224 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 04:20 |
|
Totally not the case in previous wars. There are less 5 folks who have been actively run out of this game (had more than half their cities wiped out) in all the wars in Illy combined until this recent one. In this most recent one, there are more than 40 already. You do the math. |
||
|
||
| Mr Damage
Postmaster   Joined: 01 Jan 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 05:05 |
|
|
I actually agree with you there Kumo, you may have threatened to do so but it never actually came to pass because the other sides have always surrendered. You guys won't be surrendering and your opposition won't be relenting so destruction/extermination whatever you want to call it seems inevitable.
On a side note, if you want to talk cease fire/peace treaty with me I'm happy to do so, perhaps it may influence others to do the same. Despite neither parties wishing to relent, I am happy to agree that H has lost and will continue to lose this war unless the balance shifts dramatically, I don't need you guys to admit it or pay me to say so. Its only a small step but its a start, you guys have been great to fight with across all of the wars. Igm me to discuss further or if not, ignore this post.
|
||
|
||
| Deranzin
Postmaster  Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 10:01 |
|
And, unless I am mistaken, all those previous cases were also leaders in their alliances/sides. Which is obviously not something that one can claim now ... 
|
||
Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
||
|
||
| KillerPoodle
Postmaster General  Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 16:24 |
|
I know several people have said this recently but I checked over several of the negotiation threads in our forum and I don't think we ever threatened anyone with total destruction. I'd love to see an official statement where we did. |
||
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
||
|
||
| scaramouche
Forum Warrior  Joined: 25 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 432 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 19 Mar 2014 at 16:48 |
|
I'M not a mathematician tbh...but hypothetically...the 5 people run out of the game in the past, can it not be the equivalent to 15 people in todays war considering the far greater numbers of people and alliances involved at this present time?? |
||
|
NO..I dont do the Fandango!
|
||
|
||
| Mr Damage
Postmaster Joined: 01 Jan 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 03:34 |
|
Perhaps not in your forums, I was referring more to GC comment. I was not making aspersions that it was a good or bad thing either way, just that it has happened and the main reason it didn't occur was that the opposition conceded before it could. You KP cannot say it hasn't been said via IGMs from your members categorically either because you do not see every mail they send. I may have one or several from one of your members offering annihilation of one of ours, I'll send it if I get time to search for it. As I said, its not a judgement, threats are part of war.
|
||
|
||
| BellusRex
Wordsmith  Joined: 09 Jul 2011 Location: Mountains Status: Offline Points: 156 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 16:32 |
|
|
I'd have to say there may be some truth in what Kumo says about 5 people being "run out" of the game, in the sense that deliberate efforts were made to destroy their cities until they left Illy. That's not the same as someone continuing to lose cities because they refuse to surrender and keep fighting. It's just not credible to think one side unilaterally ceases operations in a war because the other side won't consider terms.
As for what KP says, it may not be in H?
forums, but it was certainly said to us many times in the last war that EE would keep losing cities until we surrendered, and would also suffer even harsher terms of surrender the longer we did not. Many of us have
iGM's to this effect, from H?
directors, not just random
members. It's easy to point to forum posts that support that as well.
H?
has undeniably told others on many occasions that the more the community tried to force a course of action on them or question their decisions, the more determined and possibly greater those punitive actions would be. People were punished for
forum and GC statements, and we have "official"
communication where we are told a player must lose cities because they were "stupid".
My point, I suppose, is if the actions occurring now are so terrible, then seek or offer terms. We were told it was our own pride that kept things going. I can only point out that that goes in the other direction as well.
|
||
|
"War is the father of all things..."
|
||
|
||
| John Louis
Greenhorn   Joined: 18 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 99 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 16:57 |
|
|
@ BellusRex
With the greatest respect, I wish to point out the following: 1. In your first paragraph you state that it is not credible to think that one side will unilaterally cease operations because the other side won't consider terms - I must respectfully disagree. In war (from experience I will refrain from drawing RL comparisons, however tempting) once a side has accomplished its goals they will happily agree or even propose an end to hostilities with the other side because their goals have been achieved, without demanding that the other side must "surrender" first. And besides, no terms have been offered other than Team A must surrender - those are not terms they are called ultimatums. 2. I have come to accept now that your side will not propose a ceasefire or even suggest real terms for an end to this conflict - so be it. I suspect this is because your side's true aim (and I also accept not everyone from your side may feel this way, but the ones that count clearly do) is to destroy Team A (as they know they will never surrender - this is simply a fact). Sure, you will deny it, say that we just need to surrender or whatever. However, the simple truth is (in my humble view) that the facts speak for themselves. Beware Team B - the world you are creating is the world you will have to live in when everything has finally been said and done. Happy gaming everyone. |
||
|
||
| Nokigon
Postmaster General Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 20 Mar 2014 at 17:22 |
|
|
I would like to request that you have this conversation elsewhere, so this doesn't get locked.
|
||
|
||
| Post Reply |
Page <1 56789 10> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
scaramouche wrote: