Pnp When did the elite alliances lose their honor and dignity?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lady Arachne

Guest
It is not often I would ever post such a thread and even within this one I will not post names or alliances. Those in question will know exactly who they are simply by the description of the situation included within the beginning post to this thread.

It has been my privilege to play this game with some truly wonderful people and as well some truly elite alliances. Players with dignity and honor, grace and eloquence, alliances whose members rise and fall, sharing one another's victories as they rise to the top to become the most revered and respected alliance of their world.

But tonight, in the world of Troy, I've come across a situation which brings a blight to the shining badge of the truly elite.

I have seen Grepolis wars begin over territories, arguing members, the need to grow, and often just because alliances are bored and want to have some action. But what I have never before seen is an alliance who declares war over two cities which were nabbed before their players could get to them.

A message was received stating that our members conquered two cities of which this other alliance in question apparently had wanted for their own members. Okay. Happens all the time. No shared claims forum, no official pact (although a NAP was in place)...and usually in that instance, with one city under two revolts, it's usually a matter of whose CS first arrives to the shores of the city to be conquered. Now...in most instances, the losing player is given the option of having their CS return to their home city, or the CS might even turn back on its own. If it doesn't, then yes, most likely it will land and be destroyed by the new conqueror's troops/ships. However, no one can know if the city is under a second revolt until such time as they either 1. conquer the city or 2. see in a shared claims forum that someone else has claimed the city.

Pretty easy to understand yes?

Most players realize that if they are not online to recall their CS when given the option and if their CS lands, then yes, it will most likely be destroyed. They shake it off and then put their sights elsewhere. That is, if said player's alliance does not have a shared claims forum with the other player's alliance.

Instead, in this instance, the message was received demanding that we surrender the conquered cities or else there will be war. Yes, folks...cities that were taken fairly and were up for grabs.

The leader of this "elite" alliance even told the other leader they had 48 hours to make a decision or war would be declared. However, rather than sticking to his word and thus saving the honor of himself and his alliance, he reneged on the 48 hour leeway and ordered his members to go ahead and attack, take the cities they want by force, thereby breaking the NAP that was in place.

And why? Over two cities which were taken fairly and neither city was part of their alliance. I could understand if the cities had previously belonged to them and they wanted their cities back...but to outright demand the surrender of cities just because their colony ships didn't get there fast enough? Ummm...no.

I think the worst part of it all is that I had a lot of respect for the leader of the "elite" alliance. He was one of the few leaders who didn't come to the forums to strut around like a colorful peacock, nor had he ever said a bad thing about another so far as I can remember. For that, his alliance also had my respect, and because of that respect, I will not shame him nor his alliance now by mentioning their names.

However, to begin a war simply because your members want to whine like children for not getting the toys they wanted on the shelf, to issue an ultimatum and then break not only a NAP in place, but to withdraw the agreement of time... That loses you the elite status you claim and knocks you down to where others will see you as unable to keep your word.

I hate to see such a thing happen to an alliance in which I harbored such high respect, but c'est la vie as the saying goes. I guess perhaps there are far less people concerned with honor and dignity than I had at first thought.
 

Lady Arachne

Guest
;) Indeed, it will be. Let the games begin. :)

I just hope everyone remembers this is a game. It's meant to be fun, not stressful. The moment it becomes stressful is the moment you need to take a step back, review your priorities and see if it's worth continuing.
 

Bohemond 1V

Guest
this is sad, and is happening more and more. I would have thought this issue could have been resolved, ie: help them into a new city. If it was a shared claims, then yea, ok, your in the right and Seraphim should have handed them over. However, with no shared claims, this comes across as a poor justification for a war. Why not just say you want war instead of using such a weak excuse?

A lot of leaders these days seem to think that, especially elite ones, they can bully and abuse their way through a world. In many ways, this is acceptable when you deal with those really small, annoying alliances that refuse to take no for an answer in their pact requests ;) But when dealing with a top alliance in a world, courtesy gets you a long way. As a leader of an alliance, on Chi, Naxos and Beta, I led my alliances with a mixture of respect, honour and dignity towards other alliances, and this gained me a lot more in the long run and got me cities that I wished without firing a shot. Diplomacy is not about arrogance, idiocy and disrespect for other alliances but having respect, some humility and being able to suck up insults and stuff that is thrown at you. Not everyone can, or should be a diplomat, I only know a handful of people I would trust with my alliance diplomacy, and that list is on one hand.

anyway, regardless of the sadness of these situations, good luck to both alliances in this war, and may the best, militarily speaking, alliance win :)
 

Deus Pravus

Guest
The villages in question were those of an EG player. That is what caused the reaction and as far as I can see has yet to be mentioned in this thread.
 

Bohemond 1V

Guest
was the player in the alliance at the time of conquest?

If you had thrown said player out of the alliance, then they are fair game.

NAPs are, in other words, 'not killing you yet' treaties :) As soon as you feel ready you break them ;)

EDIT: Grepostats indicates these cities did not belong to your alliance, they belonged to others or were ghosts, sorry mate, appears your wrong. If they ghosted, then it is first come first served. If they were taken from you, or the player flipped, then, too bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Archijs1992

Guest
This is how Grepolis is supposed to be folks! drama, fights, unexpected behavior from friends/enemies...
You never can rely on NaPs at all, nap is like saying "we wont attack you know because we have other plans first", obviously their plan changed and they needed smallest reason to start war and they found it :)
p.s. Super early wars is always fun, enjoy it!
p.p.s. Starting wars against equal alliance in so early stage of game can significantly slow down growth, so maybe it means they don't consider you good enough? proof them otherwise!
 

scavenger2020

Phrourach
What a beautifully worded statement from our very own lady Arachne.

Now you can go to any world and ask any player and if you ask them if a former player from an alliance decides he was bored of the game and broadcasted it to everybody then either quits or gets kicked out of that alliance and the cities go ghost then those cities are first come first served no matter if you have the best pact in the world and the alliances are up each others rears then it is still fare game.

major overeaction but it shappened so lets enjoy the fun lol
 

Graeme0161

Guest
Could I ask a question about the original post

Did the 2nd colony return or was it sunk?

If it was sunk, then I totally agree with the threat of war, as the player that took the city 1st, must have ploughed a lot of support in there to defeat his colony on purpose,
if he was not on line the only troops that would have been there would have been attack, would it not?
I would have presumed the 2nd colony had a lot of attack troops and ships with it?? so not easily defeated

If the player who took the city was on line, why did he not just dodge, therefore no loss of troops, ships, city or resources and NAP kept :)

If the colony returned then I agree with the original post and it would seem to me the alliance that had the 2nd colony wanted a reason for war :)

Nicely worded original post though, I really wish I had them linguistic skills
 
Last edited by a moderator:

scavenger2020

Phrourach
Greame it was so quick it was just a snatch and grab on all the cities so nobody had time to prepare the ghost for that.

it was just they are cities going ghost that are not part of any alliance we have cs lets get them before anybody else does.
 

Graeme0161

Guest
I understand that, but my question is still valid, unless I misinterpreted the original post and a 2nd colony was never sent,

Was a 2nd colony sent?
if so did the 2nd colony return home?

if the 2nd colony returned then I agree with the original post (looking for an excuse for war)

if it did not return I would believe the 1st city taker, played out of hand considering, The NAP and deliberately killed off the colony for BPs (good reason for war)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sablestag

Phrourach
Hmm seems to me you missed a couple key points, but some kind of war was bound to break out anyways, most people don't enjoy alliances smiling to their face and sneaking around their backs.
 

-Goku-

Guest
Your making me seem like a bad guy :(

There was some things that were done without my consent, and some details you left out about the cites. So please lets not jump to conclusions about my alliance and myself without knowing all the complete details. I would very much appreciate it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.