Regarding Jerks v Crazies

[Korp]

It also seems logical that players who have played this game for 10 - 15 years (12 years for me) would be just as knowledgeable on what is commonly accepted. Then again, maybe you're right. Maybe your definitions and your perceptions are the only right ones. Palem/Bishop, let's work on updating the rules based on what top monarchs and "well established" players in top kingdoms think so that they can be right. Random scrubs' opinions (the vast majority of the server) shouldn't matter.

But who are you? On one hand we have a Zauper, long time established player in the top, lead several top kds, been deep in the meta. Then we have you? Who are you? But you treat your opinions as the universal truth then you claim they are "commonly accepted" like thats an argument to begin with. Why is your choice the commonly accepted and not anyone elses?

[Sarge]

I don't see what the ED connection has to do with anything. CR/Expendables has an awesome network and they're doing well this age after AWAR. Very well played thus far. Whether it was an arrangement between friends or bad blood doesn't matter. Either they did it proper by getting payback or they did it smart with good diplo/good relationships, regardless they did it.

[StratOcastle]

+1 Zauper

That's is how hostile rules works.

Too bad not all kd's honor that agreement.

Plus one Zauper for confirming my t/m spread for TVK.

As for the hostile agreement, I'm not privy to the existence of such a thing. At what point in the charts are kingdoms expected to abide the hostile agreement? - It's not for my advantage. Many kingdoms I've occupied have been double hostiled. No biggie, just an observance.

PS: and merchants boast dragonomics so they are warriented.

[Sarge]

But who are you? On one hand we have a Zauper, long time established player in the top, lead several top kds, been deep in the meta. Then we have you? Who are you? But you treat your opinions as the universal truth then you claim they are "commonly accepted" like thats an argument to begin with. Why is your choice the commonly accepted and not anyone elses?

I'm not going to pull a Chuck and start bragging about my accomplishments. That's petty and childish. Some people know who I am and have seen me around in some way, shape or form for years now. I put out the most commonly accepted definitions, and pointed out the one I side with. I never said that everyone must agree with it, but nice try at turning the argument against me. Don't be a nib Korp. Now a few questions:

Is it okay to throw 8 hits at a kingdom that hit you twice just to push the meter to Hostile then toss a couple more in for good measure just to dodge another kingdom that's got their sights set on you?

Is it okay to tag a "notice" with a kingdom nearly half your net worth to dodge a war with a kingdom that will probably win in a war against yours?

Is it okay to farm out to another kingdom just because you don't like the fact that you're being waved after refusing to accept a deal?

If all of that is okay by you, then fine. Maybe we should do a poll to see what the server actually thinks if you're that adamant that you know what's best and that your opinions are the only ones that matter.

[Zauper]

Firstly. I believe all the hits were anon, so you couldn't have known who exactly have hit just by looking at the sn. There were 10hits done on mythos, go figure which provinces actually had troops out. These were mainly the small provinces.

Secondly, as I said, if a leader of a kingdom told me he's going to farm out to expendibles because he doesn't get an almost free eoacf and he knows he's trying to hide behind a 'hostile' to find the right time to do it. I'm not going to be dumb to wait. And yes we broke almost their entire top half troops home. The key issue of the whole situation isn't this waving into whatveer 'hostile'

About 50% used ano, 50% did not. 3-4 of the non-ano hitters were ~1-1.2m nw (out of roughly 10 provs that were ~1m+). Based on gains and nw of the targets being hit, likely ~2 of the ano were also ~1-1.2M nw.

Look: The crux of your argument, here, is not 'they were not hostile', it was 'it was okay for us to double them'. That's a fine argument / distinction to make, and as strato says, doubles happen all the time. Just be honest about it - it was a double. You think it was justified? Okay, that's fine, reasonable people can disagree about that.

Portofelia:
Details are kinda irrelevant; we did ED a favor that cost us land, they agreed to give us a wave in exchange. When they had looked for drops previously we did a significant (50%+) of those as razes in order to prevent it from being a chart shape.

(and the nr 1 detail you don't seem to know is that I never ran ED)

[MyNameIsMatija]

Zauper you effectively helping each other chart shape then?

the plot thickens

[Zauper]

Zauper you effectively helping each other chart shape then?

the plot thickens

Presumably, us hitting confessions (who were in range of many of our big hitters and put several plunders into us) down ~3 ticks before their CF with ED expired would have been chart shaping.

[Sarge]

Look: The crux of your argument, here, is not 'they were not hostile', it was 'it was okay for us to double them'. That's a fine argument / distinction to make, and as strato says, doubles happen all the time. Just be honest about it - it was a double. You think it was justified? Okay, that's fine, reasonable people can disagree about that.

Nope, the crux is whether or not they were truly hostile. Just because the meter says relations are Hostile doesn't mean they were in a true hostile. You're defeating your own arguments and refusing to address the important points:

1. Did Jerks really wave? Seriously, can you call 10 hits over several hours a wave?
2. Assuming Jerks knew we were coming, would it not be reasonable that we would wave them regardless of their poor attempt to dodge us?
3. If Jerks weren't being attacked by anyone else and had the vast majority of their troops home (you said that when the bulk of troops are home is the end of hostile), were they truly in hostile?

You are hostile until the bulk of your armies return home. That is how it has always worked. Sorry, you're wrong. You aren't going to change my mind on this. I actioned Absalom for it in the past when they disagreed. The only time any of my alliances ever had to action someone. You wave, you give the button, you're hostile until troops return.

[MyNameIsMatija]

Presumably, us hitting confessions (who were in range of many of our big hitters and put several plunders into us) down ~3 ticks before their CF with ED expired would have been chart shaping.

Yes it would in a sense. You are now removing EDs threats as they see fit? Why not hit ED down when FS EoWCF expired?

[Zauper]

Yes it would in a sense. You are now removing EDs threats as they see fit? Why not hit ED down when FS EoWCF expired?

We didn't remove their threats? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

We have, however, razed them previously when they didn't owe us to avoid chart shaping.

[Zauper]

Nope, the crux is whether or not they were truly hostile. Just because the meter says relations are Hostile doesn't mean they were in a true hostile. You're defeating your own arguments and refusing to address the important points:

1. Did Jerks really wave? Seriously, can you call 10 hits over several hours a wave?
2. Assuming Jerks knew we were coming, would it not be reasonable that we would wave them regardless of their poor attempt to dodge us?
3. If Jerks weren't being attacked by anyone else and had the vast majority of their troops home (you said that when the bulk of troops are home is the end of hostile), were they truly in hostile?

Your reading comprehension is poor.

The phrased i used was return home. They hit with 10 armies? None of those were home yet. So the bulk of them hadn't returned home (as none of them had). Even in your attempt to re-define what I said, it falls flat -- they have 19 attackers. 19 attackers, 10 out = majority out, not in.

As for your specific questions --

1 - Trying to define it as not being a wave is silly. They were hostile. I didn't even call it a wave, I called it a hostile. Beyond that, yes, waves can take many forms, and some of them are 11 hits over a few hours.
2 - No, it would not be reasonable. As I had mentioned previously, to the extent that they knew you were coming, they knew you were coming, potentially, at some point in the nebulous future. They have no reason to sit around with their thumb up their ass and wait for you to wave them. It's not like they were in your war range and you had served them notice -- in fact, neither of those things were true. The responsibility rests on you to ensure that your hostile is fair, not on them to ensure that they're available when you decide to wave them. You'll note that this is different from cases where notice is served to someone in range -- but even in those circumstances, it is generally accepted that you don't get to wave into their conflict just because you gave them notice. The conflict is to be respected.
3 - Like I mentioned above; nice try to wordsmith, but it falls short. The kingdom they were hitting was in war range and given the button. It is a reasonable and accepted tactic to give the button over several hours rather than doing it in one tick, and it is both reasonable and accepted to do less than a full wave of all hitters to give the button.

[MyNameIsMatija]

We didn't remove their threats.

We have, however, razed them during prior land-drops.

You said you hit down their threat, what is that? Should FS tell their friends to hit down anyone larger than them that might be looking to hostile them like ED did? Pretty outrageous that people are fine with this. Was ED being double hostiled by Confession or something? Because that's the only excuse I can think of for your actions.

[Zauper]

You said you hit down their threat, what is that? Should FS tell their friends to hit down anyone larger than them that might be looking to hostile them like ED did? Pretty outrageous that people are fine with this. Was ED being double hostiled by Confession or something? Because that's the only excuse I can think of for your actions.

Again, I think you may have misread. We did not hit confessions. Please re-read what I posted, and what you quoted, and tell me if you still think that we hit Confessions for ED.

I can't find the phrase 'we hit down their threat' anywhere.

e: But isn't that exactly what you had pyro do to ED earlier this age? Funny you would accuse others of it, especially when it's not true.

e2: maybe it's that you've not a native english speaker, and so don't understand the meaning of the word would? It's a past conditional -- essentially saying that if this past thing had occurred (us hitting down confessions in what you're referrencing), that is chart shaping. But because it is conditional, it's also saying that it did not occur -- essentially, what is the consequence of an imagined situation.

[Anri]

Blame it on Simians since we disbanded, its all that simple. It was done in the past so why not now?
Should not matter if we are dead or alive. Blame it on Simians. Its easy for all this way!

[MyNameIsMatija]

Presumably, us hitting confessions (who were in range of many of our big hitters and put several plunders into us) down ~3 ticks before their CF with ED expired would have been chart shaping.

...