cRPG

Strategus => Diplomacy => Topic started by: Nessaj on September 29, 2012, 06:14:51 pm

Title: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Nessaj on September 29, 2012, 06:14:51 pm
The Annexation of Ismirala

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 29, 2012, 06:50:53 pm
http://forum.meleegaming.com/diplomacy/nords-and-templars-nap-and-trade-agreement/

Hum? So your claiming lands of ppl you have a NAP with?

€: Can you rephrase this 3. paragraph "In an era....." into more easy words for me. I cant see what it means after reading it for 5 times now. Thanks!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 29, 2012, 06:57:21 pm
http://forum.meleegaming.com/diplomacy/nords-and-templars-nap-and-trade-agreement/

Hum? So your claiming lands of ppl you have a NAP with?

Noctivagant posted that (http://forum.meleegaming.com/diplomacy/fief-agreement-between-templars-and-mercs/) 5 seconds before we posted.  8-)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tomas on September 29, 2012, 06:58:27 pm
Noctivagant posted that (http://forum.meleegaming.com/diplomacy/fief-agreement-between-templars-and-mercs/) 5 seconds before we posted.  8-)

10 minutes by my count but its still before.

3:04 - > 3:14
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 29, 2012, 07:05:01 pm
Preety sure the 1000 man army approaching them, made them swap their agreement with Alpha from Senuzgda Castle to Ismirala Castle with great haste. Since our army was under way and spotted before the Castle ownership swap took place, we consider this agreement to be after our passive agressive action was launched and therefore invalid in relation too the NAP.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 29, 2012, 07:08:04 pm
10 minutes by my count but its still before.

3:04 - > 3:14

Cool story bro! But also;

Travel time to Ismarala Castle was a bit more than 10 minutes.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 29, 2012, 07:11:16 pm
we consider this agreement to be after our passive agressive action was launched and therefore invalid in relation too the NAP.
So your claiming lands of a faction you have a NAP with?
Your canceling a signed NAP with a faction after you signed it 4 days ago ( which - btw- was your first offical diplomatic action as new leader of the nords)?

That makes a decent first impresson! You ever thought about joining the Fallen Brigade?  We need guys that think like you :)! If you ever have problems with the Nords you might want to think about it!

And I was serious about this 3.paragraph i really dont get it...can someone please explain?

€ me reading 3. part again:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Casimir on September 29, 2012, 07:22:01 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: IR_Kuoin on September 29, 2012, 07:28:16 pm
Where is my cottage on the map? I don't see one.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Nessaj on September 29, 2012, 09:02:31 pm
Changing the Night Time so now the battle is at 03AM (03:00 UTC+2) instead of a nice prime time attack at 8PM (20:00 UTC+2) where everyone could enjoy it. We could even have attacked at 7PM, but as a courtesy we waited...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Blueberry Muffin on September 29, 2012, 09:06:51 pm
Please dont try to take the moral highground, it is not befitting.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gurnisson on September 29, 2012, 09:10:58 pm
03AM (03:00 UTC+2)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 29, 2012, 09:11:20 pm
Please dont try to take the moral highground, it is not befitting.

But its true.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: okiN on September 29, 2012, 09:22:39 pm
Changing the Night Time so now the battle is at 03AM (03:00 UTC+2) instead of a nice prime time attack at 8PM (20:00 UTC+2) where everyone could enjoy it. We could even have attacked at 7PM, but as a courtesy we waited...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Seriously, what is it with Templars and night battles?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: arowaine on September 29, 2012, 09:27:59 pm
Seriously, what is it with Templars and night battles?
alpha strategy relay on late people or na merc :)

no offence
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: okiN on September 29, 2012, 09:28:51 pm
alpha strategy relay on late people or na merc :)

You'd think he'd be more concerned about his own members. Oh well.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: arowaine on September 29, 2012, 09:29:55 pm
You'd think he'd be more concerned about his own members. Oh well.

nha he is concern of winning :)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Nessaj on September 29, 2012, 09:41:39 pm
You cannot in any way justify setting the night time in order to avoid fighting actual battles. What's the logic behind it? If everyone did that we might as well be playing a board game.

Battles is what Strategus is about. Prime time battles allow for as many as possible to enjoy them and have fun.
What fun is there in morning and night time attacks where maximum 30 people participates - if even that many - instead of up to ~100, which should be no issue when its prime time.

Morning attacks should IMHO only be done if someone is threatening you at that hour (e.g. S&D terrorism in Strategus 4).
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: BASNAK on September 29, 2012, 09:45:44 pm
Should be forced night time for everyone from 00:00 to 08:00 :)
Manual night time is just messing everything up.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: okiN on September 29, 2012, 09:48:28 pm
Should be forced night time for everyone from 00:00 to 08:00 :)
Manual night time is just messing everything up.

According to chadz, this is impossible because it's too unfair towards people who can only play at night.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on September 29, 2012, 10:36:46 pm
Should be forced night time for everyone from 00:00 to 08:00 :)
Manual night time is just messing everything up.

I could play at 01:00, but I wont be able to play at 10:00. Damn, some of us have jobs!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gingerpussy on September 29, 2012, 11:15:50 pm
haha

First attack then realize they forgot to check night time of fief owner.
Run to forum and blame chadz..

Good job guys.

 :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Osiris on September 29, 2012, 11:43:51 pm
You cannot in any way justify setting the night time in order to avoid fighting actual battles. What's the logic behind it? If everyone did that we might as well be playing a board game.

Battles is what Strategus is about. Prime time battles allow for as many as possible to enjoy them and have fun.
What fun is there in morning and night time attacks where maximum 30 people participates - if even that many - instead of up to ~100, which should be no issue when its prime time.

Morning attacks should IMHO only be done if someone is threatening you at that hour (e.g. S&D terrorism in Strategus 4).

where have you been the last few years :D Strat isnt about battles it never has been. Strat has always been about who can hold the most land through whatever means. be that multi accounting mass alliances, shitty attack times etc strat has never been fun for the general member :P like all games where you build up over months and take and hold land its not about the fairness of war ^^ its about who can win.

tis why strat is boring. there are hundreds if not thousands of games out there with the same principals and better mechanics. the only difference is we get to fight the battles every so often :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: bredeus on September 29, 2012, 11:54:27 pm
I am gonna appy for Nords
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Nebun on September 30, 2012, 12:14:46 am
funny when i click on ismirala castle i can see Merc as a owner. He just joined Templars to avoid being attacked :) nice move. But FAIL.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Jarlek on September 30, 2012, 01:06:02 am
funny when i click on ismirala castle i can see Merc as a owner. He just joined Templars to avoid being attacked :) nice move. But FAIL.
It's so weird. I have the same issue! It's like; they changed his strategus faction to Crusader Alliance right before they attacked (while still having the name Merc_Canjhon) just so that the Crusader Alliance can help them out without having the ones to break the agreement! It's like they are desperatly looking for reasons for their totally not a carebear alliance to help them out in the war! This is obviously a bug, because they don't stoop that low, do they?

What we get when we press on Ismirala Castle on the map.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tears of Destiny on September 30, 2012, 01:10:30 am
totally not a carebear alliance
No one has ever claimed that our alliance is anything but carebears. Thomas and I refer fondly to it as such openly. I would fondly post the Calradian carebear banner for c-RPG but alas I can not find it.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 02:09:54 am
3 am battles are fun...makes you to awake to sleep the rest of the night at all! :shock:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Harafat on September 30, 2012, 02:32:08 am
Derpadootilydorp!

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Cicero on September 30, 2012, 02:43:41 am
lol

Merc_CaNJoHN
Member of:Crusader Alliance

hahahahah
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tyr_ on September 30, 2012, 02:49:29 am
It's like they are desperatly looking for reasons for their totally not a carebear alliance to help them out in the war! This is obviously a bug, because they don't stoop that low, do they?


Yeah Zapper, as far as i know you are in the most independent strat faction and your leaders threaten nobody with a carebear-alliance that backs you up

<20:08:57> "A_Cunt": Andswaru: we wouldnt of engaged in any kind of talking with mercs
Andswaru: btw deadline is 8pm.
Andswaru: Okay
Andswaru: just saw the nighttime.
Andswaru: If you dont change it, or give us the castle, were gonna declare for the UIF.
Andswaru: You got 1 hour.

Have fun in non-english ts :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: arowaine on September 30, 2012, 04:22:01 am


Druzhina_Rohmir, member of Occitan


try harder cicero

ho he is taking care of battle roster when none of us cant take care of it and want to still have battle for fun if you guys attack us some of us work at that time so sometime it is hard to make it.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Lemmy_Winks on September 30, 2012, 04:26:21 am
Arrowine there is plenty of room in the desert in NA for you guys. Come back you know you want to.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: arowaine on September 30, 2012, 04:27:28 am
Arrowine there is plenty of room in the desert in NA for you guys. Come back you know you want to.

no thanks we enjoy eu side rigth now lot more action still drama cause some young guys but well who care still a lot of action and battle.

anyways arent we french scum ? :)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Falka on September 30, 2012, 04:44:49 am
Should be forced night time for everyone from 00:00 to 08:00 :)
I'd say there should be "night" time between 8 and 16  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Lt_Anders on September 30, 2012, 05:51:53 am
anyways arent we french scum ? :)

French CANADIAN scum. Get it right.

You lower your standards if you say you are JUST French.:wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: DaveUKR on September 30, 2012, 08:41:26 am
Mercs getting fooled and attacked by a big faction who says "we didn't lie, we promised you nothing and we didn't backstab you!" in the early stages of Strategus - classic  :lol:

I never believed in Nords without UIF this strat, but some of our leaders were charmed by some of your cool members and harboured illusions about you when it was obvious that you don't see any other way to exist if not with UIF and already decided to be with UIF before talking to Mercs :rolleyes:

Anyway, I hope everyone will have fun and nice time fighting there  :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Falka on September 30, 2012, 09:22:37 am

I never believed in Nords without UIF this strat, but some of our leaders were charmed by some of your cool members and harboured illusions about you when it was obvious that you don't see any other way to exist if not with UIF and already decided to be with UIF before talking to Mercs :rolleyes:

Seeing Nords in rosters - always with UIF, never against them - it really didn't require great diplomatic skills to know a part of which alliance they are, so don't be so proud of yourself  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: the real god emperor on September 30, 2012, 09:25:41 am
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: okiN on September 30, 2012, 09:55:19 am
No one has ever claimed that our alliance is anything but carebears. Thomas and I refer fondly to it as such openly. I would fondly post the Calradian carebear banner for c-RPG but alas I can not find it.

I don't mind the carebearing, that's hardly anything new, but acting all indignant while it's completely obvious to anyone with two brain cells that they're just manufacturing an excuse out of thin air to break the NAP and join the war on the Mercs' behalf? Come on, show a little class. :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on September 30, 2012, 10:18:11 am
Basically Mercs have tried to keep Nords as neutral as possible by doing naive favors in fiefs. Nords have played smart reserved their armies and got rid of the Mercs when Mercs had no importance for them anymore.
This was a decisive moment in Strategus 4, it was important to see the possible changes in diplomacy dynamics. I expect Nords to pull out
and anyone who tries to gank us can count on having a ferocious enemy for the rest of the round,allying with whoever will put us in the best position to wipe them.

card

Which we all know where this is leading and please don't make a wall of text of about it. I believe this is exactly what Muffin meant by claiming the moral high ground.  I wish good luck to neutral or small maybe new clans in this upcoming boredom of who hates the other one more than anyone else. I hope it can go without a massive flame war. Which it eventually will (I see some minions at work already)

As long as this mentality goes on, Strategus will never become a dynamic game but a massive football match run by bunch of hooligans.

Good luck.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 10:43:41 am
Basically Mercs have tried to keep Nords as neutral as possible by doing naive favors in fiefs

Nocti, the only fief that mercs owned in our claim, the village of Aldelen, was traded from the mercs to the SoA, we have then respected this fief transfer by allowing the SoA to keep this fief.
The other SoA fief,Chalbek Castle belonged them at the start, Kulum was a fief they had taken which we had plans for. Therefore I told the SoA guys that they could either stay and fight us, or take up there claims for promised eastern fiefs with the Mercs and hand over those fiefs without combat. They chose without combat and are now as a result of that deal are allowed free passage in Nord territory.
So if you could explain what fief favour you did us, I would be happy to gain a fuller understanding of the situation, especially since i dont see currently the SoA having recieved a new set of fiefs in the Eastern regions as they were promised in exchange for there votes at the beginning of the round.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: DaveUKR on September 30, 2012, 11:00:23 am
Nocti, the only fief that mercs owned in our claim, the village of Aldelen, was traded from the mercs to the SoA, we have then respected this fief transfer by allowing the SoA to keep this fief.
The other SoA fief,Chalbek Castle belonged them at the start, Kulum was a fief they had taken which we had plans for. Therefore I told the SoA guys that they could either stay and fight us, or take up there claims for promised eastern fiefs with the Mercs and hand over those fiefs without combat. They chose without combat and are now as a result of that deal are allowed free passage in Nord territory.
So if you could explain what fief favour you did us, I would be happy to gain a fuller understanding of the situation, especially since i dont see currently the SoA having recieved a new set of fiefs in the Eastern regions as they were promised in exchange for there votes at the beginning of the round.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on September 30, 2012, 11:01:49 am
Nocti, the only fief that mercs owned in our claim, the village of Aldelen, was traded from the mercs to the SoA, we have then respected this fief transfer by allowing the SoA to keep this fief.
The other SoA fief,Chalbek Castle belonged them at the start, Kulum was a fief they had taken which we had plans for. Therefore I told the SoA guys that they could either stay and fight us, or take up there claims for promised eastern fiefs with the Mercs and hand over those fiefs without combat. They chose without combat and are now as a result of that deal are allowed free passage in Nord territory.
So if you could explain what fief favour you did us, I would be happy to gain a fuller understanding of the situation, especially since i dont see currently the SoA having recieved a new set of fiefs in the Eastern regions as they were promised in exchange for there votes at the beginning of the round.

Mercs wanted to see Nords neutral, as Nords presented. Therefor Merc diplomats spoke to SOA and Alpha himself about Jelbegi and the rest to hand it over to Nords without any agression. In exchange for our own fiefs. Rest of the eastern front has supported the idea.
Derchios and Shenuzgda was given to Templars, just for the friendly relations with Nords. Also Templars would gain new allies and man power in south. I thought good will would make a change. We had no intention of draging Nords into an alliance. You'd at least try to talk to us about Ismirala, before preparing a shiny army and kicking the diplomat out of the server. I don't know how the meeting went today, where I left you were saying I'm taking that castle no matter what. Excuse me but saying Free passage for several fiefs....thats a bit arrogant, I also find it quite bold to say : I made a post 10 minutes after you and you either obey it or accept the consequences. I find it quite UIF like, self rightous. But if this is how you want to handle things, I can't stop you.

At least we have tried.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tavuk_Bey on September 30, 2012, 11:42:53 am
finally drama starts again

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: LordBerenger on September 30, 2012, 11:47:18 am
Arrowine there is plenty of room in the desert in NA for you guys. Come back you know you want to.

Fuck that, there's no place for more factions in the desert. Too many already.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 12:00:23 pm
Firstly I asked Alpha if you had any influence upon his decsion to give us Jelbegi Castle in exchange for a NAP, he said NO he was just desperate for a NAP with Nords, due too his roster been weak and was hoping to cement this deal with a mutal roster support deal later on. This NAP also would of prevented us signing against the Templars. If we were mislead by the Templars regarding your role in that fief swap that is not our fault, take issue with Alpha regarding that.
Secondly if Dave is your Diplomat then may the lord have mercy on you. The man is a liability of the highest level, he came on TS and made an ass out of himself by repeatedly talking over others and claiming to know all the facts when all the previous dealings Nords had had were with Tyr or Muffin. That was the reason why he was kicked. He then spent over an hour in our IRC channel asking questions which we answered reasonably and honestly (due to the fact he cant talk over others in IRC so we could actually communicate with him successfully).

Edit: The SoA actually begged us not to attack them and let them pass peacefully through or lands, in exchange for the fiefs, they never mentioned once that you told them to give up the fiefs without a fight.
It must be hard having been such great diplomats and having no-one give you the credit you deserve, but I would take issue with the parties involved not making your contribution clear at the time.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Falka on September 30, 2012, 01:09:00 pm
Edit: The SoA actually begged us not to attack them and let them pass peacefully through or lands, in exchange for the fiefs,

Hm, you know what, you sound like a prick. Just saying  :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 01:09:47 pm
Hm, you know what, you sound like a prick. Just saying  :wink:

And you are a prick. Just saying  :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: LordBerenger on September 30, 2012, 01:52:24 pm
Thought Falka was a Nord. Or maybe i'm just tired.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 01:57:57 pm
To be honest I had medium to high hopes for the Nords this round.
They not only declared themselfs completely neutral not holding any grudges and stuff. ( Okey the did pull the 'ally whomever we need to crush our enemy' stuff but hey...)
But also they suprisingly started out under new command which might have ment a change aswell.

In the end it turns out its same old story of Nord claiming to be neutral&stuff but working with UIF anyways. Not that I am against you guys working with whoever you want. But if you do it please stop claiming you are neutral because you are obviously not and
it's completely obvious to anyone with two brain cells

Also its completly your choice of breaking any bargains, deals and treaties you ever made but the harder you try to justify it in this thread the more obvious it gets imho.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Olwen on September 30, 2012, 02:04:40 pm
Has someone posted a "mickael jackson eating popcorn pic" already ?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 02:07:31 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Forever scarred in a signature!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 02:09:22 pm
Also its completly your choice of breaking any bargains, deals and treaties you ever made but the harder you try to justify it in this thread the more obvious it gets imho.

What agreed upon deal did we break Mike?
All we have seen so far is a sneaky attempt by the templars and mercs to abuse the NAP we signed with the templars.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Thats still the case btw, no templar took over the fief even over 12 hours after the supposed handover took place. Strange aint it.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: okiN on September 30, 2012, 02:11:00 pm
Also its completly your choice of breaking any bargains, deals and treaties you ever made but the harder you try to justify it in this thread the more obvious it gets imho.

It's all the same to me, the first I heard of this whole business was when I saw the threads yesterday, but you'd have to be an idiot not to see that the ones really breaking the NAP here are the Templars -- as expected of them. You of course have an interest in defending your allies, but I trust nobody else is blind enough to fall for such blatant trickery. :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gnjus on September 30, 2012, 02:19:05 pm
Would I get banned if I were to make an alt called okiN_the_Grey ?

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 02:27:17 pm
Well lets be honest it was a smart move that the mercs and templars pulled. Thing is: they pulled it before you pulled yours and as it stands now you are attacking the crusader alliance. Which basicly breaks the NAP which states you wont attack eachother.
Templars effectivly did NOT attack you but they gained a fief of the Mercs.

And talking about forever scarring  anyone within any signature i wouldent actually go that far since both sides didnt exactly pull classy stuff in here:
(click to show/hide)

€: And even more important can ANYONE please now explain that damn 3. paragraph to me...i read it again and it confuses the hell out of me >.<!
€II:
What agreed upon deal did we break Mike?
Well besides the NAP ( you dont see it the way i see it and I accept that ;) ) the complete SoA Fief deal (again you might not see it this way and thats ok ;) )
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Cicero on September 30, 2012, 02:32:57 pm
Would I get banned if I were to make an alt called okiN_the_Grey ?
you can make an alt Gnjus_the_only_leader_wiped_by_kapikulu
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 02:36:22 pm
€II: Well besides the NAP ( you dont see it the way i see it and I accept that ;) ) the complete SoA Fief deal (again you might not see it this way and thats ok ;) )

Was there a SoA fief deal? That was Mercs with SoA giving out "our territory" to SoA, which is complete ballocks, if you would think.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: okiN on September 30, 2012, 02:40:43 pm
Well lets be honest it was a smart move that the mercs and templars pulled. Thing is: they pulled it before you pulled yours and as it stands now you are attacking the crusader alliance. Which basicly breaks the NAP which states you wont attack eachother.

Let's take a step back to reality.

a) Pulling out of the attack when it was already happening was never going to be an option, regardless of whatever silly faction the fief owner joined.
b) Even Templars must have known this, so the only reason they did it was so they would have some lame excuse to break the NAP.
c) In the end the whole farce has changed nothing, except that Templars have once again shown themselves to be deal breaking liars. If they'd just come out and said openly "We can't stand by while you attack Mercs, so we have no choice but to break the NAP", they would have ended up looking a lot better IMO. Still deal breakers, but not liars.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: BASNAK on September 30, 2012, 02:43:47 pm
Even if I belong to the other carebear alliance. From a neutral view, the Nords are actually right in this matter - Cheap try from Templars & Mercs, but nice try.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: bagge on September 30, 2012, 02:48:35 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Classy
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 02:49:28 pm
Let's take a step back to reality.

a) Pulling out of the attack when it was already happening was never going to be an option, regardless of whatever silly faction the fief owner joined.
b) Even Templars must have known this, so the only reason they did it was so they would have some lame excuse to break the NAP.
c) In the end the whole farce has changed nothing, except that Templars have once again shown themselves to be deal breaking liars. If they'd just come out and said openly "We can't stand by while you attack Mercs, so we have no choice but to break the NAP", they would have ended up looking a lot better IMO. Still deal breakers, but not liars.

a) Afaik the actuall attack was not initiated LONG after that fieftrade happend since your leader WAS in our TS a long time and only after he left ordered the actuall attack. So there is reality :)
b) talking about excuses i could again go down the 'nords neutral this strat' card and mention that mercs have tried their best to get good relations going and stuff but it wouldnt lead to anything since I can accept that you have another point of view here ;)
c) Tbh in the end it is still you guys who pressed the "Attack ismirala Castle - owned by crusader alliance" button that is a fact.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 02:55:21 pm
b) talking about excuses i could again go down the 'nords neutral this strat' card and mention that mercs have tried their best to get good relations going and stuff but it wouldnt lead to anything since I can accept that you have another point of view here ;)[/b]

If you'd know what was discussed at the meetings and found out stuff after, no - poor try in keeping good relations.

c) Tbh in the end it is still you guys who pressed the "Attack ismirala Castle - owned by crusader alliance" button that is a fact.

LOL NO.
It was Mercenaries, he quit faction and joined Crusader Alliance when the attack was already launched. And suddenly visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Please stop trying to bullshit everything now.

EDIT: Where'd my Gnjuspalm go, it was just in.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tomas on September 30, 2012, 02:59:31 pm
Thats still the case btw, no templar took over the fief even over 12 hours after the supposed handover took place. Strange aint it.

I'm pretty sure you can't transfer fiefs under lockdown for a siege.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Cicero on September 30, 2012, 02:59:38 pm
c) Tbh in the end it is still you guys who pressed the "Attack ismirala Castle - owned by crusader alliance" button that is a fact.
See, I think drugs have done some *good* things for us, I really do. And if you don’t believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a Favor: go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes, and all your cd’s and burn em’. 'Cause you know what? The musicians who’ve made all that great music that’s enhanced your lives throughout the years...
Rrrrrrrrrrrrreal ------ high on drugs."
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom, it´s what it is ok?. Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you!"
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 02:59:54 pm
I'm pretty sure you can't transfer fiefs under lockdown for a siege.

Have you tried it yet?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: the real god emperor on September 30, 2012, 03:12:03 pm
So Nords gave Ismirala back to Templars?

(click to show/hide)

j/k, but seriously i didnt get the last part :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tyr_ on September 30, 2012, 03:13:23 pm
Have you tried it yet?

Yes Thovex, we have. Once a fief is under attack you cannot:

Change Owner
Spend production points
Sell trade goods
Change night time
 
Please man, if you have no idea whats going on, stay quiet :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tomas on September 30, 2012, 03:14:54 pm
Have you tried it yet?

I have never needed to, but you can't do much else with a fief so why would you be able to do this?  It is called "lockdown" after all  :wink:

As for Templars breaking the NAP, how on Earth were they supposed to know that the Nords wanted it when the claim for it was only posted after the Castle swap deal had been concluded?  For the record Mercs have owed Templars a Castle for ages now.  It was supposed to be Senuzgda Castle but mercs decided they couldn't give that away so Alpha asked for Ismirala Castle instead (presumably so that he could actually take advantage of the trade rights he had with Nords, rather than it being an empty deal).

Even after the Templars realised Nords wanted the Castle, they tried to come up with a peaceful solution to give Nords what they wanted and keep the NAP in tact, but all offers were rejected or vetoed.

Maybe Mercs pulled a fast one here, but at the end of the day it is the Nords who rejected diplomacy and made the attack, consigning Andswaru to his place in Strat History as "The New Kinngrimm".  Pretty impressive for a guy who only stepped up to power 2 weeks ago  :mrgreen: 
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 03:27:55 pm
I'm pretty sure you can't transfer fiefs under lockdown for a siege.

Im pretty sure Tomas you told me yesterday that there was "fief ownership name change bug that lasts upto several hours" and that the fief owner had already been swapped just the page was failing due this "bug", im calling liar lair pants on fire.
Unless of course Templars lied too you... but who would believe that...

Btw i offered a deal too that was rejected.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gnjus on September 30, 2012, 03:28:43 pm
you can make an alt Gnjus_the_only_leader_wiped_by_kapikulu

Indeed I could but I wouldn't wanna make any figments of your glorious imagination true, plus - it's too long for a name anyways. You can do better then that, Turk. :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 03:29:46 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

You do read your own posts do you?
Faction: CRUSADER ALLIANCE
Thats all i said and your own screeny proves it...so please:
Please stop trying to bullshit everything now.

I stated several times that i accept your point of view in this so i would highly appreciate it if you could stop being butthurt about me having my own point of view. Furthermore if you dont bring anything to this discussion but "LOL", big  font size and semi insults please just dont try to participate.
Thanks a lot Thovex!

Cicero: Whatever your post is supposed to mean I cant seem to make any sence out of it. I think you just went to quoting nonerelated stuff again? I guess same for you: if you dont want to participate in a discussion with more than some stupid stuff than you dont have to :)!

consigning Andswaru to his place in Strat History as "The New Kinngrimm".  Pretty impressive for a guy who only stepped up to power 2 weeks ago  :mrgreen:

As I said: already offered him a spot in the Fallen Brigade since he has the right spirit for it. But he didnt answer to that yet :/ (Offer still stands!)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tomas on September 30, 2012, 03:32:31 pm
Im pretty sure Tomas you told me yesterday that there was "fief ownership name change bug that lasts upto several hours" and that the fief owner had already been swapped just the page was failing due this "bug", im calling liar lair pants on fire.
Unless of course Templars lied too you... but who would believe that...

Actually, it was Rogue who said that and he was referring to the colour change on the map.  He was attempting to point out that the fief had been switched even before the Mercs/Templars had posted their deal
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 03:42:11 pm
Tomas it was you, but before we start back and fowarding lets just agree to disagree on that point.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: bagge on September 30, 2012, 03:43:11 pm
Andswaru to his place in Strat History as "The New Kinngrimm".  Pretty impressive for a guy who only stepped up to power 2 weeks ago  :mrgreen:

Stop the bullshit Tomas and gtfo. Go back to your precious loluation and give Wiltzu a hug instead
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Jacko on September 30, 2012, 03:50:12 pm
My epeen is under attack, quick to the accusation catapult!

This is the silliest reason yet to go to war in strat, but whatever. I for one welcome the opportunity for some good battles!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tomas on September 30, 2012, 03:50:55 pm
Tomas it was you, but before we start back and fowarding lets just agree to disagree on that point.

Lol - whether it was me or rogue is irrelevant but why would either of us lie about this?  What would it achieve?  Surely it is is much more likely that you simply misunderstood something that we may or may not have explained badly.

EDIT: In fact I can alter just 2 bits in your quote to make it factually correct, which supports the "misunderstanding" theory imo rather than the "I am an outright liar attempting to deceive all who cross my path in every way conceivable" theory :D

"fief ownership name colour change bug that lasts takes upto several hours"
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Blueberry Muffin on September 30, 2012, 04:22:51 pm
Quote
Andswaru: just saw the nighttime.
Andswaru: If you dont change it, or give us the castle, were gonna declare for the UIF.
Andswaru: You got 1 hour.

Quote
Andswaru: just saw the nighttime.
Andswaru: If you dont change it, or give us the castle, were gonna declare for the UIF.
Andswaru: You got 1 hour.

Quote
Andswaru: just saw the nighttime.
Andswaru: If you dont change it, or give us the castle, were gonna declare for the UIF.
Andswaru: You got 1 hour.
Quote

Andswaru: just saw the nighttime.
Andswaru: If you dont change it, or give us the castle, were gonna declare for the UIF.
Andswaru: You got 1 hour.


To quote cooties, 'classy that'.


Tyr and I have tried our very best on friendly relations with you, because we like many of your members, even if okin and a few others are somewhat unsavoury. This is where we are at now, please dont start shitting around about who has the moral highground, because you dont really have it.

Anyways, lets have some battles.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: DaveUKR on September 30, 2012, 04:23:03 pm
Secondly if Dave is your Diplomat then may the lord have mercy on you. The man is a liability of the highest level, he came on TS and made an ass out of himself by repeatedly talking over others and claiming to know all the facts when all the previous dealings Nords had had were with Tyr or Muffin. That was the reason why he was kicked. He then spent over an hour in our IRC channel asking questions which we answered reasonably and honestly (due to the fact he cant talk over others in IRC so we could actually communicate with him successfully).

That once again proves who you are.
First, I came to your TS with the full knowledge of what was going on, I knew each of your conversations with our leaders, I probably knew even something more.
Second, you were trying to avoid conversation with anybody of Mercs, ignoring Tyr and sitting in hidden room in TS. If not Bagge, who grabbed me into the channel, I would wait way more in your TS.
Third, you kept mumbling that you don't get my point and asked to explain what I want over and over, making fool of yourself and saying like "man, I don't get what you're talking about, explain your point". I told you exactly what Nocti wrote in his previous post.
(click to show/hide)
Fourth, you kept giving me bullshit in TS. Don't you remember? "We're not UIF and we're even fighting against UIF! We fought against Druzhina a couple of times, there were 15 Nords in the last battle against Druzhina. Even Vovka came to our TS being mad." which was actually a battle against clan called Vendetta, made of Ukrainians and Russians mostly (Vargrs = former Greys), where only 7 Nords were accepted and ended with mediocre score.
Fifth, just copy the logs of IRC where I was asking questions for 1 hour. You have enough of members who can have those logs. After something like 15-20min of discussions I went AFK and then left the IRC server. Because besides "honest" replies I also got a lot of stupid trolling of your members.


Sixth, and the most important:
You already had your plans and ready army when you were talking to me. Also Cooties acted like: everything is fine, don't worry, I'll talk to my members tomorrow and I'll inform you if enemy (UIF) army comes for you through our territories.

So to sum up, all your honest truth was just a part of truth. When we asked direct questions you said "I don't know, I don't decide, I'll ask members", you didn't lied us about what you will do, but you lied that you didn't know what you're going to do. And you could always say something like "we're not going to attack you" actually meaning that you're not going to attack us at this current second but a second later you will be going to do that. That's just a sophisticated lie. If you're so honest and smart you could at least bring a better reason to break all relations than "we had no progress in relations with you" and make a thread that you're attacking Ismirala territory not when you army is standing at the walls of the castle.

I'm out of this thread. I don't want to argue with you, Andswaru, because you'll bring me down to your level and beat me there with your experience, still saying that you don't get my point and need explanation. Have a good day, sir!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Cepeshi on September 30, 2012, 04:31:55 pm
BATTLES, i like! STRAT IS ALIVE  :twisted:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Harafat on September 30, 2012, 04:33:05 pm
Allow me to kill this thread as a neutral observer, not as memebr of the coalition.

If Templars and Mercs made this deal to protect the fief from an incoming Nord invasion, thus using the Templar-Nord-NAP, then that's a very sly move but unfortunately a legit one. Granted, borderline legit, but still legit.
Secondly, untill actual hard proof of this intention is given, you can only be guessing about their intent. In a RL court this argument would be wiped off the table instantly.

What the Nords SHOULD have done when they saw the swap, was contact the Templars, cancel the NAP, and attack when the cooldown was over. Now you just acted on gut and emotions, where diplomacy is a thing not to be take lightly imo, so its better to take 3 breaths and then act. So basicly you broke the NAP.

Neither side is right in this whole debate, nobody can claim moral highground here, both sides made dick-moves. The fact is however, Templars-Mercs made a legit move, Nords didnt.

The situation is what it is, can we deal with it now instead of whining about it?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 04:33:52 pm

To quote cooties, 'classy that'.


Tyr and I have tried our very best on friendly relations with you, because we like many of your members, even if okin and a few others are somewhat unsavoury. This is where we are at now, please dont start shitting around about who has the moral highground, because you dont really have it.

Anyways, lets have some battles.

Well at 3am  I need Russians and Poles, and to secure the roster at that "time" that you chose to fight a big battle, I need to make the alliance happen. Im preety sure thats a logical consequece, instead of a limited war of local gains, we are now forced to declare for the UIF to secure our roster. No problem for us, or for the UIF, a bigger problem for the other side i guess.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tyr_ on September 30, 2012, 04:40:24 pm
Well at 3am  I need Russians and Poles, and to secure the roster at that "time" that you chose to fight a big battle, I need to make the alliance happen. Im preety sure thats a logical consequece, instead of a limited war of local gains, we are now forced to declare for the UIF to secure our roster. No problem for us, or for the UIF, a bigger problem for the other side i guess.

Andswaru, theres one simple reason for this battle time: Its bad for us, but even worse for the rest of UIF since most of them are from eastern europe. If you wouldve been on you own there would be no problem with another battle time. But since we knew youre with UIF again it was obvious for us that we need to set a nighttime which is bad for them, although most of our members do not like this battle time either.

Edit: Cooties, i give you one reason why we traded it to the templars although we need to secure our border with the castle: We trust them, i rather see them holding our border than you, and your actions proved me right that you neither are neutral nor can be considered trustworthy. And yes, it was you who told me that you have no further interest in this castle, therefore we never considered it to be your claim so ive seen no need to inform you about any deals we make with other factions
Also about the "not fighting in block". I brought a very reasonable deal to you which would make both, Nordmen and Mercenaries independet, but you refused it.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 04:44:16 pm
we are now forced to declare for the UIF to secure our roster. No problem for us, or for the UIF, a bigger problem for the other side i guess.

Now?
Its not as if you wouldnt have merced for DRZ, Grey Order and Occitan all this time in strategus?
Oh wait: YOU DID. In all more or less big battles so far.
But its just NOW you declare for UIF...I see what you did there ;)

And even last night at 3am (german time) on the occitan battle 4 nords showed up on their roster.
So that time cant be THAT inconvenient for you.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 04:46:59 pm
Allow me to kill this thread as a neutral observer, not as memebr of the coalition.

If Templars and Mercs made this deal to protect the fief from an incoming Nord invasion, thus using the Templar-Nord-NAP, then that's a very sly move but unfortunately a legit one. Granted, borderline legit, but still legit.
Secondly, untill actual hard proof of this intention is given, you can only be guessing about their intent. In a RL court this argument would be wiped off the table instantly.

What the Nords SHOULD have done when they saw the swap, was contact the Templars, cancel the NAP, and attack when the cooldown was over. Now you just acted on gut and emotions, where diplomacy is a thing not to be take lightly imo, so its better to take 3 breaths and then act. So basicly you broke the NAP.

Neither side is right in this whole debate, nobody can claim moral highground here, both sides made dick-moves. The fact is however, Templars-Mercs made a legit move, Nords didnt.

The situation is what it is, can we deal with it now instead of whining about it?

Honestly I can't read any of this bullshit "As neutral observer" - Said by a HRE member.

Now?
Its not as if you wouldnt have merced for DRZ, Grey Order and Occitan all this time in strategus?
Oh wait: YOU DID. In all more or less big battles so far.
But its just NOW you declare for UIF...I see what you did there ;)

And even last night at 3am (german time) on the occitan battle 4 nords showed up on their roster.
So that time cant be THAT inconvenient for you.

We have 80 fucking members, 4 nords out of 80 that can play at these times?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 04:49:29 pm
Thovex please read the post i directed to you (above) again ;) Thanks a lot!
here it is again to make it more easy for you:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Harafat on September 30, 2012, 04:50:18 pm
Honestly I can't read any of this bullshit "As neutral observer" - Said by a HRE member.

Ah yes, Nords, can you plz gag this guy? My vessel filled to the brim with respect for the Nords keeps getting emptier every time this troll gets his say. And he gets about 50% of all your says. Shouldn't let a 16 year old with hormones bouncing in all directions be the spokesperson for your clan.

And read it, it is neutral.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on September 30, 2012, 04:52:25 pm
we are now forced to declare for the UIF to secure our roster. No problem for us, or for the UIF, a bigger problem for the other side i guess.

You weren't forced for anything, most of the people as I remember we were very friendly to you, too friendly even. Well if you decide to deny everything you said, then build an army, march against people who had no hostile intentions against you, even offered you more solutions after everything, but insulting them, doing nothing to prevent war....you weren't forced for anything.
Its a choice.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Braeden on September 30, 2012, 04:52:35 pm
This just in, Nords declare for UIF! (http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20121003T193241&p0=3015&msg=Nord+Attack+on+UIF)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 04:55:24 pm
Ah yes, Nords, can you plz gag this guy? My vessel filled to the brim with respect for the Nords keeps getting emptier every time this troll gets his say. And he gets about 50% of all your says. Shouldn't let a 16 year old with hormones bouncing in all directions be the spokesperson for your clan.

And read it, it is neutral.

Haha, I'm talking as a neutral for myself, not as a clan, so please fuck off.

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 04:58:33 pm
Haha, I'm talking as a neutral for myself, not as a clan, so please fuck off.
so as a neutral person you choose to insult ppl and totaly go off topic just to insult some more? nice move

Braeden: You made my day with that one :)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 04:58:46 pm
so as a neutral person you choose to insult ppl and totaly go off topic just to insult some more? nice move :)

Yes. Now keep derailing.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Pejlaen on September 30, 2012, 04:59:00 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Classy

Andswaru: Comes to Merc ts - "We're breaking all connections with Mercs" - leaves Merc ts.
1 minute later - Cooties appears with a shiny army at Ismirala castle doorstep.

That's also classy.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Knitler on September 30, 2012, 04:59:54 pm
Haha, I'm talking as a neutral for myself, not as a clan, so please fuck off.

This just in, Nords declare for UIF! (http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20121003T193241&p0=3015&msg=Nord+Attack+on+UIF)

I like (http://www.google.at/imgres?um=1&hl=de&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&biw=1920&bih=977&tbm=isch&tbnid=YmooNvwxxx1wcM:&imgrefurl=http://clean.alltheragefaces.com/face/me-gusta-ich-mag&docid=awH2OhI0vXUzeM&imgurl=http://clean.alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/large/me-gusta-ich-mag-l.png&w=1500&h=1173&ei=J19oUJavF8bysgau-oGwBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1166&vpy=183&dur=361&hovh=198&hovw=254&tx=145&ty=93&sig=114056270368065144484&page=1&tbnh=122&tbnw=156&start=0&ndsp=55&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:157)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Nessaj on September 30, 2012, 05:04:28 pm
Wall of text to the rescue!

Lol - whether it was me or rogue is irrelevant but why would either of us lie about this?  What would it achieve?  Surely it is is much more likely that you simply misunderstood something that we may or may not have explained badly.

Now that everyone hopefully had a good nights sleep (yes I went to sleep again after 10AM battle :P) let's discuss with some saner heads.

I'm quite sure there have been misunderstandings regarding this whole ordeal. Perhaps the night time wasn't a ploy and if so then I am personally sorry for making that assumption with my posts (nothing worse than wrong assumptions  :().
There is however no way to check the night time of someone who is INSIDE a fief, so postulating that we should have checked it first before attacking is quite silly.

We never wanted total war (or bloc war), and we never wanted to be pushed into one side or another, but to stay in the middle as much as possible (as we did in the last Strategus until we got wiped), deal whatever is best for our faction with minor consideration for the two major blocs, which so far have made us butt heads with both who've been umad about our defending/helping or trading with various minor neutral factions. We've been threatened with war from both sides.

Quote
[29-09-2012 17:31:03] hey
[29-09-2012 17:31:08] gimme the nord marker thingy
[29-09-2012 17:31:11] the logo
[29-09-2012 17:31:12] with transparent
[29-09-2012 17:34:31] *** Opkald til Thovex besvares ikke. *** ((translated: Call to Thovex was not responded))
[29-09-2012 17:41:34] WAKIIIIIIIIIIE
[29-09-2012 17:41:37] stop eating

Regarding Ismirala, I was going to post this thread almost an hour (40 minutes or so) before Nocti -- it took 3 hours for the army to travel the distance from Tehlrog to Ismirala with Quick March.
We have felt since the beginning that Ismirala needed to be ours, in order to secure our Eastern Border, because that is where 90% of the S&D terrorism we've experienced come through from, people use the forests as to avoid detection. This attack is more about defence than initiating any sort of war, we simply want the castle, nothing more have been arranged for, and we do not wish to expand our Kingdom further than what have been already been posted.

Andswaru made clear from the get-go that we wanted Ismirala -- though I believe I personally told someone on TS that we didn't "care" in the beginning, not sure if that was carried further by the person but no matter what it was a mistake on my part due to our lack of an organized command structure in the beginning (which we're still trying to build).
That Merc's trade the fief 10 minutes before our Army arrives, if it's a coincidence or planned, I don't know, but as far as I understood Merc's likewise made it clear in the beginning that they needed Ismirala for protection (we did also loosely talk about a deal in regards to free passage past the lands surrounding it), so that they suddenly trade it with Templars, why? Why not deal it with us then who've made clear several times we needed it. What do Templars need a castle for so far away from their lands? :(

I do not see an issue with the attack being carried out. It would originally have been at 19:00 (7PM) but we waited an hour where Andswaru discussed it diplomatically with everyone, which ran into the sand, hence the attack was carried out. It was offered to us to cancel the attack and try 1 hour later (would put it at ~21:00 / 8PM) but we both weren't sure whether it was to too late to cancel, and what would happen if we did, 1 hour immunity on the castle, would we lose gear/troops and what not - it was deemed too big a risk with the uncertainty of losing everything. We were also told that the only way we could gain the castle would be through an Alliance with Anti UIF.

Also Dave, stop try and make it sound like we don't actually talk to our members and vote on issues, we do, you all tried to make the same argument in the last Strategus where I personally went out to prove that it was a complete fabricated lie on your end, by posting the ACTUAL VOTING POLLS from our forum. You want the discussions too? How about our private documents as well? Seriously, stop that crap...

This isn't about more than the battle for the Ismirala area, no matter how much everyone else want to make it out to be (and there's plenty of people playing who want to make it sound like they're saints trying to save Strategus for all of mankind).

Whether people disagree on carrying out the attack on Ismirala or not, a 10 minute window isn't much time to decide upon, and if an alliance is the only answer to gaining the castle diplomatically, then we don't see an issue with it being carried out, someone wrote that we should have cancelled the NAP and waited 7 days, yeah, we could have, but honestly that wasn't something we thought about when it was all playing out.

Now let's all try to diminish the hate and bickering. The care level in regards to losing or winning in Strategus is definitely too high. Obviously tensions fly when there's bullshit moves (such as morning or night attacks, or blatant lying via voice chats) - and yes, attacking the Ismirala (when Mercs had it) was not a grand move of good will - obviously - but a move made based on this being a war game...
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gurnisson on September 30, 2012, 05:09:28 pm
Its not as if you wouldnt have merced for DRZ, Grey Order and Occitan all this time in strategus?
Oh wait: YOU DID. In all more or less big battles so far.

^
Talk about stuff you have any knowledge of, please? We've been mercing for whatever we wanted, against UIF factions and for them like a neutral faction does. I guess you only remember the battles you want to, right? :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 05:12:02 pm
I guess you only remember the battles you want to, right? :wink:
Mostly the ones i took part in ;)

I like cootie's post but have to say that it still doesnt explain this damn 3.paragraph to me  :(!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 05:15:49 pm
^
Talk about stuff you have any knowledge of, please? We've been mercing for whatever we wanted, against UIF factions and for them like a neutral faction does. I guess you only remember the battles you want to, right? :wink:

This to the merc quote, the only guys my guys had to fight for and not against were Templars, there was NO other Order out to them.
Okay i once made them fight for Autobus, but the bus is kickass and it was against Kapikuli i think.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Bjord on September 30, 2012, 05:16:57 pm
Personally, with a neutral perspective, I think Nordmen could have handled all of this better. Poor diplomacy.

Just look at the way Andswaru declared Mercs as enemies pretty much. Joins TS wit that rude attitude and leaves before anyone can say anything. At least he could have asked to speak with Muffin or Tyr.

I know this is a "war game" but come on, behave like people.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 05:21:14 pm
I'll have one question then I'm outta here:

What is it with the new fashion of "Neutral Perspective" when you are in one of the 2 conflicting "Sides"?
You're always biased even if you say you're in a "Neutral Perspective"... how does this even work?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 05:25:09 pm
Just look at the way Andswaru declared Mercs as enemies pretty much. Joins TS wit that rude attitude and leaves before anyone can say anything. At least he could have asked to speak with Muffin or Tyr.

I joined the Merc TS? Wow, ive gotta stop drinking so much tea dont remember that.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Nessaj on September 30, 2012, 05:26:45 pm
I like cootie's post but have to say that it still doesnt explain this damn 3.paragraph to me  :(!

The third paragraph in the declaration?

Try CTRL + F5, I redid some of it. The third paragraph did sound way off.
Most of the text is though just C/P from historical speeches regarding Annexation. Nothing to "understand" really :wink:


Also Thovex shaddup and go play with some Lego!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gnjus on September 30, 2012, 05:29:27 pm
I think Nordmen could have handled all of this better. Poor diplomacy.

Probably due to their best diplomat okiN resigning from his post.


oh wait.....
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on September 30, 2012, 05:29:43 pm
Talk about stuff you have any knowledge of, please? We've been mercing for whatever we wanted, against UIF factions and for them like a neutral faction does. I guess you only remember the battles you want to, right? :wink:

Well... I haven't watched much of Strat 3 diplomacy and I'm not much involved into diplomacy in Strat 4 either, but EVEN I saw that on almost every battle DRZ, T, STR, V, Grey, Nord are on the same team. Call be dumb, call me an idiot, call me whatever but I'm not blind.

Edit: Missed they Grey, blame me! BTW: I know that on the Wolper battles you fought on our side, I call that an exception because of history ;)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Braeden on September 30, 2012, 05:32:14 pm
I have been selling neutral perspectives to people who wish to use them.
Just another one of the services offered by the Medici, sworn enemies of the Legione Italica and all who befriend it.  May their heads find no rest, their bread be baked in blood, their sisters insist on just endless shopping for products of little interest, their salaries increase by an amount not substantial enough to deal with the rise of inflation and their paper delivery not occur on time.  When they order food from restaurants, let it be slightly overcooked!  Let their birthday gifts be generic versions of the things they wanted!  May their teeth be off-white!  May all their bathrooms have only air driers, and the older kind that is really underpowered and doesn't get the job done, not the new ones that actually work.  May they forever be denied the taste of Chicago Pizza and Guarana Antarctica and that good cake frosting! Err umm yes totally neutral.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on September 30, 2012, 05:35:14 pm
I have been selling neutral perspectives to people who wish to use them.
Just another one of the services offered by the Medici, sworn enemies of the Legione Italica and all who befriend it.  May their heads find no rest, their bread be baked in blood, their sisters insist on just endless shopping for products of little interest, their salaries increase by an amount not substantial enough to deal with the rise of inflation and their paper delivery not occur on time.  When they order food from restaurants, let it be slightly overcooked!  Let their birthday gifts be generic versions of the things they wanted!  May their teeth be off-white!  May all their bathrooms have only air driers, and the older kind that is really underpowered and doesn't get the job done, not the new ones that actually work.  May they forever be denied the taste of Chicago Pizza and Guarana Antarctica and that good cake frosting! Err umm yes totally neutral.

One really has to read between the lines for this  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on September 30, 2012, 05:35:30 pm
Try CTRL + F5, I redid some of it. The third paragraph did sound way off.
Most of the text is though just C/P from historical speeches regarding Annexation. Nothing to "understand" really :wink:

Also Thovex shaddup and go play with some Lego!

Thank you a lot! Got me confused since yesterday!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Bjord on September 30, 2012, 05:37:37 pm
I'll have one question then I'm outta here:

What is it with the new fashion of "Neutral Perspective" when you are in one of the 2 conflicting "Sides"?
You're always biased even if you say you're in a "Neutral Perspective"... how does this even work?

Maybe you don't have the maturity to assess a situation objectively, but most people do. To me, this is still just a game and to be honest, I welcome the war because that equals more battles. However, I resent your attitude Thovex, and I resent okiN's and Andswaru's. I resent the reasons that caused this war, it's bitter and way too personal. Cooties is at least trying to keep it civil. You guys are simply pouring oil on the fire with rude replies and nonchalant attitude.

It's not my place anymore, but I think Nordmen should be wary of Thovex' manners, so far I just see him insulting people, tellin them to fuck off etc. Not very "classy", to put it like bagge. You've been in Nordmen for 2 months or so and yet you seem to have the biggest mouth out of all their 80-or-so members.

I like most of you guys so for me, we're all good and such. But as a person, I cannot respect the Nordmen's diplomacy that pretty much lead to this development. Breaking NAP's etc, I think most are very disappointed with your conduct.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 05:39:27 pm
The third paragraph in the declaration?

Try CTRL + F5, I redid some of it. The third paragraph did sound way off.
Most of the text is though just C/P from historical speeches regarding Annexation. Nothing to "understand" really :wink:


Also Thovex shaddup and go play with some Lego!

Lego cRPG it is.

It's not my place anymore, but I think Nordmen should be wary of Thovex' manners, so far I just see him insulting people, tellin them to fuck off etc. Not very "classy", to put it like bagge. You've been in Nordmen for 2 months or so and yet you seem to have the biggest mouth out of all their 80-or-so members.


It's fine, I'll manage to keep calm because there is obviously something wrong with some people here so I'll just go play cRPG and finish the "wars" there.
Also, you are in Mercs since a month and have always had the biggest mouth. :wink:

But toodles! Let's fight in Strat battles instead.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Bjord on September 30, 2012, 05:52:49 pm
It's fine, I'll manage to keep calm because there is obviously something wrong with some people here so I'll just go play cRPG and finish the "wars" there.

Knowing when to admit your faults is one aspect of maturity. Passive aggressiveness, blaming everyone but yourself and similar, is not. in fact, it's the exact opposite. I don't have a problem with you, but the Nordmen will have a problem with you when you keep making them look bad, just saying.

Also, bringing up completely irrelevant stuff as arguments is neither a display of maturity.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Torben on September 30, 2012, 06:03:40 pm
dont know jack about whats goin on,  but that this post:

(click to show/hide)

has been ignored quite nicely shows how all of this is just another clusterfuck on a childsbirthday.  dont see a real effort in doing diplomicy from most people in this thread. 

edit: obviously emotional unstable peps didnt get that this: "The situation is what it is, can we deal with it now instead of whining about it?" is the great thing about the post,  which was ignored and I tried to highlight.  nm though,  as everything turned out well for now.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Casimir on September 30, 2012, 06:13:37 pm
To all those saying we were looking for an excuse to break are NAP, simply ask Adrswaru how many offers were made to him.  From the last minute talks that were held with him it seemed he was less than willing to negotiate with us and was intent on attacking the castle no matter what happened, this is understandable i suppose as once you have committed your army it would be embarrassing to withdraw.


I can say for myself and alpha we were simply trying to insure we didn't get screwed by both parties. Ofc. this is strateugs so we did.


We were originally meant to transfer Jelbegi to the Nords in exchange to an NAP.  This was dome in a fairly casual way, with very few proper terms written out, which is what has caused this rapid break down in relations. 

The second issue here was in fact to do with Members of the Deserters (not the Templars or the Mercs) damaging the s&d in Nord fiefs.  It seem that some people had believed that Deserters were under the control of the mercs, which apparently they are not.  Andswaru felt that the action of the Deserters was a fair reason to reclaim Jelbegi castle in order to secure the Nord borders.

At the same time as these events were transpiring, a  fief exchange from the mercs for Senuzgda Castle was changed. Templars were not set to gain control of Ismirala.  As this was seen as a private dealing between ourselves and nords i did not see that it needed to be published.  it was not until yesterday when the announcement of annexation was made that i learned the full extent of the problems.

During the talks several deals were offered to Andwarsu, all of which he felt were inappropriate, either inadvertently dragging him into an alliance with factions he did not want or denying his members access to larger battles.

At no point have we attempted to incite or insult the Nordmen, their leadership or members.  We were civil with them and sought to solve this problem diplomatically.  During the discussion threats were levied by Andswaru that if the NAP were to be broken that the Nords would 'declare themselves to the UIF', whether this was made as a quip, or as a genuine threat i cannot say but i am sure it is a warning of things to come.

I grow tired of strategus, the diplomacy and the misrepresentation of my clan by others who were not present at teh talks yet feel they have a right to comment on how events unfolded.

tl:dr We got played by nords at the diplomacy game.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Jarlek on September 30, 2012, 06:23:10 pm
(click to show/hide)
I like turtle soup.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Cepeshi on September 30, 2012, 06:25:05 pm
Yeah, blame us now  :rolleyes: :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Casimir on September 30, 2012, 06:28:16 pm
Yeah, blame us now  :rolleyes: :mrgreen:

you ruined everything!!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on September 30, 2012, 06:34:52 pm
(click to show/hide)

For the greater part an accurate assement, and i hearby salute Casimir for been honest and heartfelt. Sadly Casimir when one half of two alliances threaten to delcare war upon Nords for taking a claim the choices left to us are limited. Respect to Casimir.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on September 30, 2012, 06:37:48 pm
Knowing when to admit your faults is one aspect of maturity. Passive aggressiveness, blaming everyone but yourself and similar, is not. in fact, it's the exact opposite. I don't have a problem with you, but the Nordmen will have a problem with you when you keep making them look bad, just saying.

Also, bringing up completely irrelevant stuff as arguments is neither a display of maturity.

Yes, which is why I said I'll stop discussing because everyone else is always right and the opposite side is always wrong.

I could go after all these discussions till it stops itself but you'd just keep on going, so xoxo.  :)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Torben on September 30, 2012, 06:41:23 pm
nm  im out
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Casimir on September 30, 2012, 06:43:05 pm
I think my offer to hold Ismirala as an independant lord is the best solution.  As everyone loves me.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Cicero on September 30, 2012, 06:43:57 pm
Mercs started again lol

One question mercs ;

Nords attacked crusader alliance as your speech and other stuff why the fuck you are whinning for ?

I mean there is a problem here

1) If nords attacked mercs ; nap is not gonna work
2)If nords attacked crusaders ; mercs gtfo

Which one ?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Lizard_man on September 30, 2012, 06:50:29 pm
Either way it's got fuck all to do with you. So, "gtfo" :|
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Harpag on September 30, 2012, 07:07:08 pm
I have some experience in dealing with these factions, so I allow myself to sophisticated diplomatic advice  :wink:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Bjord on September 30, 2012, 07:20:07 pm
:)

Awesome start for Strat 4 EU! See you all in the battlefield.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on September 30, 2012, 07:42:01 pm
I have some experience in dealing with these factions, so I allow myself to sophisticated diplomatic advice  :wink:
(click to show/hide)

You mean :

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: the real god emperor on September 30, 2012, 07:48:46 pm


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Plavor on September 30, 2012, 08:30:48 pm
After reading all the posts, my opinion is :

Please stop this drama! Templars and Mercs had made a deal and Nords made a reaction.
Both sides still disagree on the reasons, but at the moment, all of you are trying to blame one side.

Seriously, you are even arguing with stuff that doesn't belong to this "deal" for example that nords have UIF support and aren't as neutral as they tried to.

IMO, you ( all factions ) should clearly state what they want and what not if they made any deals.
In addition, the only factions that should actually discuss this are Mercs,Nords and Templars but I haven't read a single answer of the Templars yet.

Nobody is "neutral" as you state to be.  If you have ever played cRPG and/or read stuff in the forum,. you would create an opinion about certain clans, happenings and so on, so basically
only people who haven't made any experiences about cRPG madeness are truely neutral



Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Plavor on September 30, 2012, 08:31:48 pm
After reading all the posts, my opinion is :

Please stop this drama! Templars and Mercs had made a deal and Nords made a reaction.
Both sides still disagree on the reasons, but at the moment, all of you are trying to blame one side.

Seriously, you are even arguing with stuff that doesn't belong to this "deal" for example that nords have UIF support and aren't as neutral as they tried to.

IMO, you ( all factions ) should clearly state what you want and what not if you make any deals in the future.
In addition, the only factions that should actually discuss this are Mercs,Nords and Templars.

Nobody is as "neutral" as you state to be.  If you have ever played cRPG and/or read stuff in the forum, you would create an opinion about certain clans, happenings and so on, which may influence your point of view.
So basically only people who haven't made any experiences about cRPG madeness are truely neutral.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Casimir on September 30, 2012, 08:36:40 pm
I haven't read a single answer of the Templars yet.

My 'answer'

(click to show/hide)

And discussion about UIF is relevant to this topic as it was part of the negotiations.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Plavor on September 30, 2012, 08:38:08 pm
Sry Casimir, I changed my post because I forgot that you are a templar :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: the real god emperor on September 30, 2012, 08:38:15 pm
Real Madrid - Atletico Madrid? Im on the side of Madrid.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Bjord on September 30, 2012, 08:47:02 pm
My 'answer'

(click to show/hide)

And discussion about UIF is relevant to this topic as it was part of the negotiations.

He also missed the part where there was a violation of agreement, i.e hostile activity during the cool down period after the NAP was cancelled.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Jarlek on September 30, 2012, 09:02:05 pm
I think my offer to hold Ismirala as an independant lord is the best solution.  As everyone loves me.
Actually a good idea. Let's get a randomer to hold it. Someone not in favour of Nordmen nor Merc/Templar/Fallen/HRE/
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Miwiw on September 30, 2012, 09:11:50 pm
War is war - dont argue about it!

(or battle is battle, whatever...)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on September 30, 2012, 09:34:41 pm
Actually a good idea. Let's get a randomer to hold it. Someone not in favour of Nordmen nor Merc/Templar/Fallen/HRE/
How about King Werfried? He has declared war on you and everyone else so he's perfectly neutral.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on September 30, 2012, 09:38:07 pm
NO MORE GOATS!!!!!!  :evil:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Jarlek on September 30, 2012, 09:44:38 pm
How about King Werfried? He has declared war on you and everyone else so he's perfectly neutral.
Nah, I was thinking of myself, since I'm completely neutral. It's true if I write it in a post. Just ask Harafat!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on September 30, 2012, 09:48:00 pm
Also, I was thinking of someone completely neutral. To everyone. Ever. I don't think Antarians is in strat this round so maybe Randomdude? Someone like that.
Why are you claiming king Werfried isn't neutral? We'll be at war with everyone eventually due to our claim being the entire EU strat map and we have me as a diplomat so we aren't exactly making any allies.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Oberyn on October 01, 2012, 12:19:00 am
Andswaru pretending Nords weren't going to kowtow and suck UIF dick anyways, so precious. Hey, why don't you threaten that your entire clan will post an endless stream of funny gifs in your clan thread unless your demands are met? 
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 01, 2012, 02:53:35 am
Let us see what happens at ismirala castle.

Have fun all!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: karasu on October 01, 2012, 03:11:33 am
   I like how most of the comments here are from people which have nothing to do with the Thread Subject, and whom moral values have been completely messed up from the start.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Harafat on October 01, 2012, 03:19:26 am
Nah, I was thinking of myself, since I'm completely neutral. It's true if I write it in a post. Just ask Harafat!

(click to show/hide)

How could i be mad at a loveable toon like yourself? You have humor, style, and you are good looking! My marriage request must have been blocked by evil republican chadz!

I stick to my point, my post IS neutral, nowhere do i take sides in it. i tried to make the best resumé given information provided by both sides and forums. But ye, gief randomdude!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on October 01, 2012, 03:26:35 am
How could i be mad at a loveable toon like yourself? You have humor, style, and you are good looking! My marriage request must have been blocked by evil republican chadz!

I stick to my point, my post IS neutral, nowhere do i take sides in it. i tried to make the best resumé given information provided by both sides and forums. But ye, gief randomdude! And have some selfrespect, gag thovex!

ZzZzZz... You want me to stop, I'll stop if you get off my back now, 3rd post with the same stuff...
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Harafat on October 01, 2012, 03:29:58 am
ZzZzZz... You want me to stop, I'll stop if you get off my back now, 3rd post with the same stuff...


ok, but do stop. Even modified my post to show good intentions
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on October 01, 2012, 03:31:43 am


ok, but do stop.

Lego cRPG it is.

It's fine, I'll manage to keep calm because there is obviously something wrong with some people here so I'll just go play cRPG and finish the "wars" there.
Also, you are in Mercs since a month and have always had the biggest mouth. :wink:

But toodles! Let's fight in Strat battles instead.

Yes, which is why I said I'll stop discussing because everyone else is always right and the opposite side is always wrong.

I could go after all these discussions till it stops itself but you'd just keep on going, so xoxo.  :)

ZzZzZz... You want me to stop, I'll stop if you get off my back now, 3rd post with the same stuff...

Was 2 pages ago...
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: bagge on October 01, 2012, 04:03:50 am
Funny how people take this so personal and cry about our actions, their actions bla bla bla. Strategus is supposed to be fun, not a forever grind fest. At least we will have some battles now, which is the main part of Strategus

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 01, 2012, 04:06:17 am
Yes bagge. Was an awesome fun battle.

We will enjoy victory for a bit, gg.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Cepeshi on October 01, 2012, 04:09:39 am
awesome fight everyone involved, lots of fun and exp, both sides somewhat satisfied i hope :) thanks for such epic siege


also bagge, i think i ate two or three arrows of yours  8-)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Jarlek on October 01, 2012, 04:17:02 am
I just wish you guys would stop hiding so much behind the battlements and shields, so I could shoot more of you :(

At least your archers liked to poke your heads out :D
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gurnisson on October 01, 2012, 04:18:18 am
Good battle, was fun :)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Torben on October 01, 2012, 04:24:26 am
Good battle, was fun :)

yes!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Segd on October 01, 2012, 04:24:35 am
God bless Crusader Alliance because they always have some nice crossbows.
I HATE Nords & Occitans for their ugly equipment choice  :cry:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Torben on October 01, 2012, 04:30:20 am
God bless Crusader Alliance because they always have some nice crossbows.
I HATE Nords & Occitans for their ugly equipment choice  :cry:

(click to show/hide)

^^

i feel ya,  wrong equipment fucks up the enjoyment completely
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Keshian on October 01, 2012, 04:33:58 am
I was impressed by how well defenders did with such limited gear.  Being naked an entire siege in a winter castle started making me feel cold.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on October 01, 2012, 04:34:48 am
I was impressed by how well defenders did with such limited gear.  Being naked an entire siege in a winter castle started making me feel cold.

Your hard nipples gave us courage
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: BASNAK on October 01, 2012, 06:12:16 am
Could anyone post the result :)?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gingerpussy on October 01, 2012, 06:42:42 am
i just woke up, seems Mercs and friends didnt do to bad at all.

Good one guys. I on the other hand salute the chance of killing nords. Nords i resent them for teaming up with Drz.

In real life RUs only get dried fish from us Nords, hell yeah i am a RL Nord. Not a wannabe like u guys :D


All hail TOR MED HAMMERN !!!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: BASNAK on October 01, 2012, 07:04:14 am
This is how I imagine mercs to be like right now:

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on October 01, 2012, 07:20:24 am
Winning one battle is not winning the war. If I know a little about Nords, they gonna come back until they succeed. Before that battle at 3AM we had a friendly clan battle at 8PM.  No I don't want a dumbass flame war this time.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on October 01, 2012, 08:18:05 am
Winning one battle is not winning the war. If I know a little about Nords, they gonna come back until they succeed.

Your right Nocti we'll be back, promised my guys epic XP this round, no more boring sitting in 4 villages counting our gold, but some action and xp. If we could even arrange a battle at a socialable hour next time I'll be even happier. Happy people involved had fun at least. Thanks for everyone who turned up for the Nords, and for everyone who turned up to defend and made the battle possible.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Torben on October 01, 2012, 08:20:53 am
(click to show/hide)

this is a nice turn of events,  two guys knowing that this is a game,  its all about fun for them and the community and that achieving that can be done in a civil manner.  I am glad to see this,  an achievement for the hole community!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gnjus on October 01, 2012, 08:48:57 am
I like how most of the comments here are from people which have nothing to do with the Thread Subject, and whom moral values have been completely messed up from the start.  :rolleyes:

Can someone give this man his long-desired admin/moderator powers so he can finally start revising & fixing our moral values ? Please.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Vibe on October 01, 2012, 09:13:32 am
From a real neutral view:

you are all cocksuckers and I will wait till you wage your wars and then loot your shit when you are weak or just run away

Sincerely,

Vibe the independent
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on October 01, 2012, 01:09:23 pm
Vibe the independent

Damn... had I known this before I would have attacked you and looted your precious crates!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Vibe on October 01, 2012, 01:44:29 pm
Damn... had I known this before I would have attacked you and looted your precious crates!

2bad
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: bagge on October 01, 2012, 06:08:18 pm
Yes bagge. Was an awesome fun battle.

We will enjoy victory for a bit, gg.

Yeah you deserve it, well fought. :wink:

awesome fight everyone involved, lots of fun and exp, both sides somewhat satisfied i hope :) thanks for such epic siege


also bagge, i think i ate two or three arrows of yours  8-)

Hehe, yeah I remember one headshot when you were destroying a ladder x)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: bagge on October 01, 2012, 06:44:47 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Alright, that's how Mercs want to play? Prepare to get wiped :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Torben on October 01, 2012, 06:46:12 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login



haha
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Blueberry Muffin on October 01, 2012, 07:13:41 pm
hahahahahahah Dude you are missing the bad sexer and the big booty tag.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: bagge on October 01, 2012, 07:56:29 pm
 :D
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Bjord on October 01, 2012, 08:04:51 pm
Let's get real gritty, boys! Dirty play is the only way to play Strategus anyway. :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Plavor on October 02, 2012, 02:48:41 pm
I like dirty :D
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Crob28 on October 02, 2012, 08:09:17 pm

Edit: The SoA actually begged us not to attack them and let them pass peacefully through or lands, in exchange for the fiefs,

The way you've said this aside... 2 fiefs in exchange for safe passage, and now you attack our caravans, thought you guys were better than this
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on October 02, 2012, 08:16:39 pm
The way you've said this aside... 2 fiefs in exchange for safe passage, and now you attack our caravans, thought you guys were better than this

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Crob28 on October 02, 2012, 08:19:15 pm
And? Those conflicts were not started by us, and 3 players in one fight does not equal the handover of two fiefs, that we did in the spirit of goodwill and cooperation. 

Furthermore, micah's caravan is only in nord lands because he was moving to fulfill a trade proposed by your leaders.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on October 02, 2012, 08:28:34 pm
And? Those conflicts were not started by us, and 3 players in one fight does not equal the handover of two fiefs, that we did in the spirit of goodwill and cooperation. 

Furthermore, micah's caravan is only in nord lands because he was moving to fulfill a trade proposed by your leaders.

Okay, don't know then so I guess you'll have to wait till Andswaru or anyone else replies.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on October 02, 2012, 10:39:58 pm
(click to show/hide)

If you take this as a sign that SoA is an enemy alliance, I take this http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=430 as an confirmation of Nords alliance with DRZ, Grey, Union and Vendetta. Trollolol.

Ah wait a sec... http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battleroster&id=429 that one is better  :mrgreen:

Noo... this one... http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battleroster&id=359

Damn... can't find any to stop this  8-)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on October 02, 2012, 10:44:17 pm
It is, and you guys being in our roster is a sign that you are submitting under Mork the Goat god after all dodnet, enjoy being goatcumcised.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on October 02, 2012, 10:45:59 pm
It is, and you guys being in our roster is a sign that you are submitting under Mork the Goat god after all dodnet, enjoy being goatcumcised.

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG...  where was that thread with committing ritual Sepuku?  :shock:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Bjord on October 02, 2012, 10:50:47 pm
Okay, don't know then so I guess you'll have to wait till Andswaru or anyone else replies.

If you don't know, why are you the one whose voice is heard the most from Nordmen?
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on October 02, 2012, 11:00:45 pm
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG...  where was that thread with committing ritual Sepuku?  :shock:
In exchange for mercing for us in our next three battles we'll agree to end our alliance with you.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Vibe on October 02, 2012, 11:04:37 pm
I wish people would stop thinking that mercing against a faction means a declaration of war. Would make it MUCH easier for smaller factions to get mercs.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on October 02, 2012, 11:11:01 pm
I wish people would stop thinking that mercing against a faction means a declaration of war. Would make it MUCH easier for smaller factions to get mercs.
This x1000, mercs should have the option of going anonymous btw.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on October 02, 2012, 11:18:41 pm
I wish people would stop thinking that mercing against a faction means a declaration of war. Would make it MUCH easier for smaller factions to get mercs.

+1
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Crob28 on October 02, 2012, 11:44:31 pm
If you don't know, why are you the one whose voice is heard the most from Nordmen?

Likely because the leader has no reply, he's ducked out of the topic a few times now, maybe trying to imagine up justification for his actions
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on October 03, 2012, 01:13:24 am
I wish people would stop thinking that mercing against a faction means a declaration of war. Would make it MUCH easier for smaller factions to get mercs.

Sure, as far as I know in the... the tiny button with hiring-notes mentioned something about hostility when applied against.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Torben on October 03, 2012, 01:31:58 am
Sure, as far as I know in the... the tiny button with hiring-notes mentioned something about hostility when applied against.

people tend to take this faction,   enemy/friend thinking way to serious.  only because sb plays against you doesnt make him an enemy.  dont get why people cant be good sports and get along.

then again its a game,  so i guess it turns us all into children.

 
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on October 03, 2012, 01:34:53 am
people tend to take this faction,   enemy/friend thinking way to serious.  only because sb plays against you doesnt make him an enemy.  dont get why people cant be good sports and get along.

then again its a game,  so i guess it turns us all into children.

Or in general Strategus heh.  :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Nessaj on October 03, 2012, 01:45:02 am
SoA playing for Templars/Mercs against Nords is OK.

Nords for Bandits playing against SoA is WRONG.

Got it!

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 We had announced on the 'Battle Info'-page that anyone playing for the defenders in the attack would be considered hostile.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Casimir on October 03, 2012, 02:03:06 am
Diplomacy and intrigue are key parts of any grand strategy war game.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on October 03, 2012, 02:14:38 am
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 We had announced on the 'Battle Info'-page that anyone playing for the defenders in the attack would be considered hostile.

Tbh I have seen this a few times and it always made me smile especially considering this:

This to the merc quote, the only guys my guys had to fight for and not against were Templars, there was NO other Order out to them.

You tell your guys it doesnt matter who they sign up for (they DID always end up on UIF side ;) ) and I got told that it wouldnt be any hostile action but only fighting in battles for fun.

Yet on the other hand if OTHER people try to do the same it is a hostile action and a casus belli for the Nords !?
Wont want to call anyone hypocritical but it does make me smile.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Crob28 on October 03, 2012, 02:18:26 am
God this game sure can cause some rage lol. In fact I am somewhat surprised by how seriously I let myself take things over the last few days.  In all reasonableness, there are 2 sides (at least) to every story and every side can bring up what it believes to be honest justification for things that the other side will just flat out never agree with.

So with that in mind I'm gonna chill the hell out, and to every side in this I wish good luck and good gaming  :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gurnisson on October 03, 2012, 03:01:01 am
(they DID always end up on UIF side ;) )

Here it goes again. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about yet again. I've played for crusader alliance, have played against UIF in other battles, and I know other nords have done the same. I beg you again, stop trying to make truth of what you make yourself believe. :wink:


Anyway, SoA were brought up on our teamspeak after the battle. It was me, Cooties, Hans and Jarlek iirc. There was some temperature because of the battle going quite badly with our construction material and sites being used for useless things without going through or commander. Anyway, Cooties decided that SoA in our territory should be attacked on site, even though we mentioned the fact that they were promised to move through our land peacefully. That's what you get from a bad siege, a mad dictator wielding his whip mercilessly. :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Crob28 on October 03, 2012, 03:13:19 am
That's what you get from a bad siege, a mad dictator wielding his whip mercilessly. :P

+1 for lol worthiness :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gingerpussy on October 03, 2012, 08:39:37 am
That's what you get from a bad siege, a mad dictator wielding his whip mercilessly. :P

haha :D

I didnt join the Battle sadly cuz it was a bit late.

Fun reading this shit tho.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on October 03, 2012, 02:39:53 pm
Here it goes again. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about yet again. I've played for crusader alliance, have played against UIF in other battles, and I know other nords have done the same. I beg you again, stop trying to make truth of what you make yourself believe. :wink:
As i said in some post some pages before I speak only about my own participated battles and I just checked again:
Since the begining of strategus I have fought in 30++ battles and in not a single one a Nord was on my side. On the other side i made a quick headcount and had 25+ Nords against me in all those battles (counted several times for several battles of course not 25 single nord players).
And since I never fought on "UIF side" I can say: in battles i participated Nord players always participated on "UIF side". Thats all I say.

That's what you get from a bad siege, a mad dictator wielding his whip mercilessly. :P
:lol:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on October 03, 2012, 06:49:53 pm
Ok so the second attack has arrived, jolly good. Hmm so Grey Order is giving you supplies to chase us, nice.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Falka on October 03, 2012, 07:19:55 pm
:rolleyes:

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Kalp on October 03, 2012, 07:34:42 pm
Ok so the second attack has arrived, jolly good. Hmm so Grey Order is giving you supplies to chase us, nice.
Sure, whatever you want baby.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on October 03, 2012, 08:51:30 pm
Sure, whatever you want baby.

I don't mind it at all.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Kalp on October 03, 2012, 09:46:49 pm
That supplies are not from us. At this moment Nords are to big faction to need them. Another failed conspiracy theory. I wish you good battle.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: DaveUKR on October 03, 2012, 10:29:07 pm
That supplies are not from us. At this moment Nords are to big faction to need them. Another failed conspiracy theory. I wish you good battle.

So Erasmas the Grey is not in Grey Order anymore?  :lol:

This thread is hilarious, I really love how people fall to lying in the game  8-)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Lt_Anders on October 03, 2012, 10:40:21 pm
Nords: Members 58.
Free troops: 5800 Unchangeable.
Time strat has been in session: Sept 14-present. 19 days +/- 12 hours.
Number of strat ticks during time:456(or if you want a low estimate -12 from 456)
Max army size assume everyone full recruitment: 26448

Most likely Army size: 1/3-1/2 of Max or 8816-13224.
Troops Commited Thus far:
1000(-100 free)
577(-100)
800(-100)
In Fiefs:
372
Total Used: 2077+372(fiefs)

Thus: Nords can easily amass the army needed for such  a size. Number of ticks remains same for all sides, thus everyone has had equal chance of making armies of that large of a size.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Keshian on October 03, 2012, 10:48:12 pm
Anders hes talking about distance to reinforce not number of troops.  What he is saying is that the only nearby army that was close enough to reinforce for another attack this quickly was Erasmus of the Grey Order.  I have no idea if true, but would not be surprised.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Lt_Anders on October 03, 2012, 11:01:50 pm
Anders hes talking about distance to reinforce not number of troops.  What he is saying is that the only nearby army that was close enough to reinforce for another attack this quickly was Erasmus of the Grey Order.  I have no idea if true, but would not be surprised.

Ah in that case, I see. But doesn't change the math of possible troop numbers.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: DaveUKR on October 04, 2012, 06:28:17 am
Ah in that case, I see. But doesn't change the math of possible troop numbers.

They didn't have any other army to stop Kittiya there besides unarmed ~270. So they asked Grey Order to help and they did a very long run to help (Kittiya got attacked right above Haen, look on the map where it is).

And your math is inaccurate.

1) Not all of them started in the first day, I'd say it's more like 50-60% did that.
2) Most of them didn't start recruiting from the first day
3) Some of them don't recruit even now

So their maximum army was not more than 1/4 of what you said.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on October 04, 2012, 06:28:56 am
But were gonna rename the next battle to the massacre of Ismirala garrison thou.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: DaveUKR on October 04, 2012, 06:34:20 am
But were gonna rename the next battle to the massacre of Ismirala garrison thou.

What will you do with all that equipment? You don't even have enough men for that.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Keshian on October 04, 2012, 06:38:19 am
With only 50 defenders you will run out of time for the battle while still trying to get the wall down with the catapult.  The abttle time should be relatively short, way too short to win a siege with the fewer mercenaries allowed in a fight with only 50 defenders (25ish??)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Kalp on October 04, 2012, 11:56:50 am
So Erasmas the Grey is not in Grey Order anymore?  :lol:
Interesting conclusion... how do you figure that ?

Trade is trade. For agricultural tools we got furs and salted fish. I heard that winter is coming...
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Bjord on October 04, 2012, 12:01:33 pm
For agricultural tools we got furs and salted fish.

Greys use scimitars to cut barley? :lol:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Kalp on October 04, 2012, 12:50:08 pm
Yes Bjord, we have a lot of weeds to remove from the chaff.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on October 04, 2012, 04:04:12 pm
With only 50 defenders you will run out of time for the battle while still trying to get the wall down with the catapult.  The abttle time should be relatively short, way too short to win a siege with the fewer mercenaries allowed in a fight with only 50 defenders (25ish??)

Luckily i brought 700 ladders then eh  :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Blueberry Muffin on October 04, 2012, 05:01:40 pm
Luckily i brought 700 ladders then eh  :wink:

Ah good, we could use some more firewood, its just noone wanted to go out in the snow to get it.  :wink:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on October 04, 2012, 05:28:20 pm
Muffin 1:0 Andswaru  :cry:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Blueberry Muffin on October 04, 2012, 05:36:25 pm
 8-)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Blueberry Muffin on October 04, 2012, 09:50:07 pm
I would like to lodge a formal complaint. Kittya purchased a very large quantity of your trained donkeys from haen, but they are misbehaving and slowing her progress rather than speeding it up as anticpated.  They should be carrying our goods, but instead we have to carry them along with us. I expect a full refund ofcourse with some compensation.  :)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on October 04, 2012, 10:19:53 pm
There donkeys, and your not taking them too the seaside what do expect :p
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gingerpussy on October 04, 2012, 10:25:30 pm
There donkeys, and your not taking them too the seaside what do expect :p
Hehe nope we sold them to Nord_Pygar in Hrus Castle  :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on October 04, 2012, 10:30:12 pm
Pygar loves donkeys. :D
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 04, 2012, 10:32:26 pm
So far i must admit i love this annexation.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Miwiw on October 04, 2012, 10:35:27 pm
Everything goes by plan. ehehhe  :P
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Nessaj on October 04, 2012, 10:46:35 pm
So far i must admit i love this annexation.

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 04, 2012, 11:36:41 pm



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_uWS6K-VF8&feature=player_detailpage#t=88s
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Andswaru on October 05, 2012, 11:58:31 am
:o another open field battle, this is really turning a war of heros.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 05, 2012, 12:04:58 pm
Its great, more diversity then the usual castle-camping.

We shall cross blades in the open field, the way real men do!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Knitler on October 05, 2012, 02:20:01 pm
Gimme some awlpikes or bamboo spears >-D but military forks are good as well.

(click to show/hide)

delicious!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gurnisson on October 05, 2012, 02:34:14 pm
Only scrubs use awlpikes. Real men use the pike
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on October 05, 2012, 02:37:19 pm
Only scrubs use awlpikes. Real men use the pike

Pike is for peasant scum. REAL men use Light Lance. So you can look your enemy into the eye before you poke it out  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Casimir on October 05, 2012, 03:54:25 pm
Real men kill their opponents with kicks only.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 05, 2012, 04:00:10 pm
Real men kill their opponents with kicks only.

Pfff, melee is for pussy's. The only honorable way to kill a men is by using the ultimate ranged wep. Yes sir, a catapult that shoots a catapult that hurls a stone in your face.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on October 05, 2012, 04:22:11 pm
Pfff, melee is for pussy's. The only honorable way to kill a men is by using the ultimate ranged wep. Yes sir, a catapult that shoots a catapult that hurls a stone in your face.

(click to show/hide)

Damn... you win this!  :|
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tuetensuppe on October 05, 2012, 04:57:32 pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_uWS6K-VF8&feature=player_detailpage#t=88s

Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Blueberry Muffin on October 06, 2012, 01:07:43 am
We bumped and punched one guy to death and stole his weapon.
Mercenaries
0 survivors
416 killed
commanded by
Merc_BlueberryMuffin

Kingdom of the Nord
454 survivors
301 of 755 killed
commanded by
Nord_Andswaru_the_Fearless

LOLOLOL NEKKID ARMY IS BEST ARMY

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on October 06, 2012, 01:09:15 am
(click to show/hide)

Fun battle guys :)!

@2:

 Knitlery_HRE   22   12
Naked but toping the scoreboard highest score on server  :lol:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Thovex on October 06, 2012, 01:09:34 am
dat horses
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 06, 2012, 01:19:56 am
Maybe we should consider dumping all the equipment we have on our army's and just... do this

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: bagge on October 06, 2012, 01:28:56 am
Well, I spent most of the time on the ground, but the best part was when 12 of the BashiBazouks GTX 8-)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on October 06, 2012, 08:39:58 am
best part was when....

I have to prioritise my drinking behavior, seems like I'm missing a lot....

What will happen if mercs actually manage to get a real army :D?!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Gingerpussy on October 06, 2012, 09:44:55 am
Well, I spent most of the time on the ground, but the best part was when 12 of the BashiBazouks GTX 8-)
Epic hehe

Good fight Mercs and friends :)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 06, 2012, 12:02:55 pm
This annexation thread is becoming one of the best merc loving topics on the forum...
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Knitler on October 06, 2012, 01:57:21 pm
that battle was nice, Mercs! I want more of them, hopefully with some nice bajonetts! if both sides are naked that would be great fun, Mount & Musket raising out of ashes!

(click to show/hide)

Fun battle guys :)!

@2:

 Knitlery_HRE   22   12
Naked but toping the scoreboard highest score on server  :lol:

Shsh mike, dont make them jealous. actually i was toping about 3/4 of the game but then pygar decided to kill some poor naked guys :-(

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Cicero on October 06, 2012, 03:44:22 pm
Well, I spent most of the time on the ground, but the best part was when 12 of the BashiBazouks GTX 8-)
We didnt GTX because of battle bagge =)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on October 06, 2012, 03:56:41 pm
Well, I spent most of the time on the ground, but the best part was when 12 of the BashiBazouks GTX 8-)
Very reliable allies you got yourself there :D

On the other its only smart to run from merc's angry naked rouncy riders.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Jarlek on October 06, 2012, 04:12:36 pm
Very reliable allies you got yourself there :D

On the other its only smart to run from merc's angry naked rouncy riders.
Champion Destriers.

Appearently nicknamed Rounceys by Fallens.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on October 06, 2012, 04:21:35 pm
well there were destriers aswell...AND rounceys and more
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: DaveUKR on October 06, 2012, 04:25:08 pm
Champion Destriers.

Appearently nicknamed Rounceys by Fallens.

(click to show/hide)

Destriers were 1/4 of all horses. 2/3 were rounceys, there rest were sumpter horses.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tyr_ on October 06, 2012, 04:26:18 pm
Just wait until we got our herd of lame plated chargers ready!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Noctivagant on October 06, 2012, 09:27:34 pm
Destriers were 1/4 of all horses. 2/3 were rounceys, there rest were sumpter horses.

and...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: dodnet on October 06, 2012, 09:32:35 pm
Just wait until we got our herd of lame plated chargers ready!

Only lame, not half-dead? I'm disappointed!
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 06, 2012, 09:40:47 pm
Champion Destriers.

Appearently nicknamed Rounceys by Fallens.



In the end the result is the same, we had 4  -2 light lances, 3 arbalest and a bunch of pony's, and we killed 300 well equipped nords with it :) (yes it took 400 tickets, still i like the result :)

We didnt GTX because of battle bagge =)

Ofc you didn't. You just happened to storm out of ts when you were being humiliated by naked ppl that were poking you with your own sticks  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Tears of Destiny on October 06, 2012, 10:36:15 pm
Pray tell, how many did the mighty Cicero slay, and how many times was he slain as well? He is, after all, the self-proclaimed best warrior of all of Calradia.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Haboe on October 06, 2012, 10:45:49 pm
He did rather good 7-3.
I guess we didnt get to take his stick to poke him with it, likely had trouble of taking it from him
(click to show/hide)
.
Title: Re: The Annexation of Ismirala
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on October 06, 2012, 10:51:35 pm
Pray tell, how many did the mighty Cicero slay, and how many times was he slain as well? He is, after all, the self-proclaimed best warrior of all of Calradia.

Here I tell:
he known as mighty Cicero has killed 7 naked men
but was killed 3 times aswell.

The naked Knitler on the other hand
Killed 20 and did very grand
by only dieing 12 times
I am telling you this! And it rhymes!!!

(click to show/hide)