Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Whither Forever War?

Tigari
Well, I think i'm done in this thread for a bit. Getting tired of repeating myself, in different ways. If you don't get it by now, IDK if you ever will, and I'm losing interest here. If the game survives, I'll be there to attack Phaeros until it's burnt down, or they surrender under Phyllian's demands (assuming he has any..)
Midnight
The beautiful thing about the forever war is that no one talks about anything until after all the combat.

AGC's status could have been determined through communications, but Phaeros is the most bellicose settlement on the map. The only question is: did they not communicate because they are bellicose, or does not communicating lead them into their bellicosity?

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. I just thank the gods that I have had a dependable opponent in what otherwise could have been a boring early enrollment.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
tribuzio
Midnight
The beautiful thing about the forever war is that no one talks about anything until after all the combat.

AGC's status could have been determined through communications, but Phaeros is the most bellicose settlement on the map. The only question is: did they not communicate because they are bellicose, or does not communicating lead them into their bellicosity?

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. I just thank the gods that I have had a dependable opponent in what otherwise could have been a boring early enrollment.

And EoX declaring war on EBA because a non member had been attacked isn't bellicose? It couldn't have been resolved trough communication?

For the point of view of Phaerso someone had attacked them and they did retaliate against it. Your people say that it wasn't member of EoX. Fine, so EoX hadn't been attacked. EoX attack was in open violation of the treaty they had signed while Phaeros attack was not a violation of the agreement as AGC wasn't a member of the empire that signed the treaty.

A and B have a peace treaty
A member of A attack C
B attack A

Who is in violation of the treaty?
Beinion
tribuzio
Midnight
The beautiful thing about the forever war is that no one talks about anything until after all the combat.

AGC's status could have been determined through communications, but Phaeros is the most bellicose settlement on the map. The only question is: did they not communicate because they are bellicose, or does not communicating lead them into their bellicosity?

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. I just thank the gods that I have had a dependable opponent in what otherwise could have been a boring early enrollment.

And EoX declaring war on EBA because a non member had been attacked isn't bellicose? It couldn't have been resolved trough communication?

For the point of view of Phaerso someone had attacked them and they did retaliate against it. Your people say that it wasn't member of EoX. Fine, so EoX hadn't been attacked. EoX attack was in open violation of the treaty they had signed while Phaeros attack was not a violation of the agreement as AGC wasn't a member of the empire that signed the treaty.

A and B have a peace treaty
A member of A attack C
B attack A

Who is in violation of the treaty?
+1
Pontius Pilates
Isn't this supposed to be where you push someone off the swing and then all run to see who can be first to tell the teacher?
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Pontius Pilates
Isn't this supposed to be where you push someone off the swing and then all run to see who can be first to tell the teacher?
"Beinion said, Phyllain said, Decius said, Tink said a bad word!"
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Nihimon
Hey, as long as they can get people to shut up, they win, right?
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Nihimon
Hey, as long as they can get people to shut up, they win, right?
That's one way to look at it. It's not clear that the current form of the disagreement is generating any sort of win condition for anyone. Or even a not-losing condition.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Nihimon
No "win" condition - same problem Duffy eloquently described very, very early in EE. And there's still no "win" condition other than harassing your enemies into not playing/posting.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Elsworth Sugarfoot
Nihimon
No "win" condition - same problem Duffy eloquently described very, very early in EE. And there's still no "win" condition other than harassing your enemies into not playing/posting.
This is actually a huge problem, and I've always felt that GW chickened out on having consequences, especially when it came to level support. With the WoT everyone was given tier2 even if they held no towers, mostly due to small inactive settlements crying about how it was impossible to get towers (hint: Don't be a small inactive settlement). Now with Bulk resources everyone is level 20????? Ridiculous. It's should be dropped to 0. You should have to pay those bulk resources every week to to have that support. Also currently settlement capture is basically impossible if the defender is at all active. Bulk resources are flush and no one will ever run out. Even if they do the rest of the map will probably be more than happy to sell them some.

They could also never fully implement character reputations effecting your DI. I always thought having 2 alts on every account was just an invitation to game the system.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post