Author Topic: The Marrocidenian war  (Read 547410 times)

Lanyon

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #810: November 27, 2012, 02:51:26 AM »
We were dancing gangnam style, which totally threw them off their game and made them run elsewhere.
I knew there was something off about you D'Harans.

DamnTaffer

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #811: November 27, 2012, 02:51:57 PM »
We were dancing gangnam style, which totally threw them off their game and made them run elsewhere.

Oh.. The D'harans suffer from brain damage? I guess we don't need to conquer them then...

Tandaros

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #812: November 27, 2012, 07:12:57 PM »
Armor of Gangnam Style
+2000 defence

Tandaros

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #813: November 27, 2012, 07:25:09 PM »
Hey, I found this pic of Aurvandil's infantry - it seems morale is sagging.


Lanyon

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #814: November 28, 2012, 12:57:42 AM »
you haven't been around our infantry much then. They're riding high from winning all of the skirmishes lately.

NoblesseChevaleresque

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #815: November 28, 2012, 11:20:29 PM »
We would have sacked Paisly, but to be fair that would have validated the defence Terran and D'Hara raised, and if you're happy to bottle yourself up in Paisly whilst we hem you in through a force defending the Motte and Bailey of Paisland, go for it. If Aurvandil's armies had been in better shape we would have sacked Chateau Saffalore (Chesney was a bit too well defended I think to warrant the attack) and actually done some damage to Terran, as ultimately D'Hara is the weaker link of the two and the easiest to strike, so one we can do at our leisure, whilst we actually need to weaken Terran to reach a strategic goal in the war.

Of course our armies were much too limp this campaign to do much of anything, but it has at least wasted the time of our opponents and frustrated their defences, a minor victory.

gsklee

  • Peasant
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #816: December 11, 2012, 08:54:02 AM »
Not sure. Darfix or Gias Kay Lee (that's right—Darfix and GiasK, like the cities) developed the map. It's an awesome coincidence if not intentional.

FYI - it's an awesome coincidence.

Nosferatus

  • Testers
  • Mighty Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 1093
  • Too weird to live, too rare to die
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #817: December 11, 2012, 09:31:01 AM »
FYI - it's an awesome coincidence.
hahaha, yeah....
Formerly playing the Nosferatus and Bhrantan Family.
Currently playing the Polytus Family in: Gotland, Madina, Astrum, Outer Tilog

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #818: December 11, 2012, 11:47:43 PM »
We would have sacked Paisly, but to be fair that would have validated the defence Terran and D'Hara raised, and if you're happy to bottle yourself up in Paisly whilst we hem you in through a force defending the Motte and Bailey of Paisland, go for it. If Aurvandil's armies had been in better shape we would have sacked Chateau Saffalore (Chesney was a bit too well defended I think to warrant the attack) and actually done some damage to Terran, as ultimately D'Hara is the weaker link of the two and the easiest to strike, so one we can do at our leisure, whilst we actually need to weaken Terran to reach a strategic goal in the war.

Of course our armies were much too limp this campaign to do much of anything, but it has at least wasted the time of our opponents and frustrated their defences, a minor victory.

Sure, absolutely. You totally weren't afraid of the defense, you just didn't want to "validate it". Of course.

Just as we just saw laughing at your invasion force. We just didn't move out because we didn't care to "validate it" either.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

NoblesseChevaleresque

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #819: December 12, 2012, 12:13:15 AM »
Sure, absolutely. You totally weren't afraid of the defense, you just didn't want to "validate it". Of course.

Just as we just saw laughing at your invasion force. We just didn't move out because we didn't care to "validate it" either.

The difference is Chénier, I was being serious without need of idle boast and self complimenting auto fellatio as opposed to your passive aggressive sarcasm.

We knew it would annoy you more to just ignore your defence of Paisly entirely, as you seemed so set in the belief Aurvandil valued Paisly enough to warrant an attack regardless of the situation. We had you bottled in Paisly, which allowed us to raid Terran whilst you were too impotent to do anything about it, even as a combined army, we even forced Terran to return home by sea rather than land. It was a perfect strategic position for us, why bother attacking a low priority target like Paisly? Instead of securing Paisland and raiding Terran, to the shame of the allied forces in Paisly? Besides which, an attack on Paisly would have worked well for Aurvandil, as I recall you barely had any infantry on the walls, so once the Chevaliers reached the walls it would be an easy fight.

Quite simply we saw the effort you were putting into the defence of Paisly and considered it a great jest to circumvent it and render it quite irrelevant by not validating it with an assault. You don't value the stratagem behind it, you trapped yourself in Paisly whilst we held Paisland stopping you from leaving, then looted Terran at our leisure and left when we felt like it, leaving your combined army redundant for the entire campaign. Which, to us was both strategically sound (We trapped you in your own region and made you irrelevant for an entire campaign) and amusing (Thwarting your efforts and mocking them by trapping you in your own defence) and to an extent, it was done to antagonise D'Hara over their attack on the Provincia, it was almost a declaration of "We aren't even mad that you destroyed it, we'll recreate it when it pleases us not when you think we should" and as an extension, Aurvandil doesn't like to be predictable, and it would have been predictable to lay a siege any observer could have foretold weeks in advance.

You should remember, Mendicant likes to amuse himself with jests particularly in war, and Aurvandil likes to be unexpected and do something to the ire of their opponents, and of course, we feel perfectly secure in our current position to do this kind of thing, after everything we feel that we can drag this war out as long as we like though the longevity of this war thus far has been due to the impotence of our armies to bring a swift conclusion and Mendicant's diplomacy to secure peace. That said, another thing is, Aurvandil doesn't know why it fights, we fight because we can't get peace, but we don't particularly fight for any objective, but because we have to otherwise our enemies will take liberty of absence in battle, so our quite bipolar military policy in the war reflects that. We are an army that fights because we don't know how to get peace, which is no way to fight.

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #820: December 12, 2012, 12:32:31 AM »
The difference is Chénier, I was being serious without need of idle boast and self complimenting auto fellatio as opposed to your passive aggressive sarcasm.

We knew it would annoy you more to just ignore your defence of Paisly entirely, as you seemed so set in the belief Aurvandil valued Paisly enough to warrant an attack regardless of the situation. We had you bottled in Paisly, which allowed us to raid Terran whilst you were too impotent to do anything about it, even as a combined army, we even forced Terran to return home by sea rather than land. It was a perfect strategic position for us, why bother attacking a low priority target like Paisly? Instead of securing Paisland and raiding Terran, to the shame of the allied forces in Paisly? Besides which, an attack on Paisly would have worked well for Aurvandil, as I recall you barely had any infantry on the walls, so once the Chevaliers reached the walls it would be an easy fight.

Quite simply we saw the effort you were putting into the defence of Paisly and considered it a great jest to circumvent it and render it quite irrelevant by not validating it with an assault. You don't value the stratagem behind it, you trapped yourself in Paisly whilst we held Paisland stopping you from leaving, then looted Terran at our leisure and left when we felt like it, leaving your combined army redundant for the entire campaign. Which, to us was both strategically sound (We trapped you in your own region and made you irrelevant for an entire campaign) and amusing (Thwarting your efforts and mocking them by trapping you in your own defence) and to an extent, it was done to antagonise D'Hara over their attack on the Provincia, it was almost a declaration of "We aren't even mad that you destroyed it, we'll recreate it when it pleases us not when you think we should" and as an extension, Aurvandil doesn't like to be predictable, and it would have been predictable to lay a siege any observer could have foretold weeks in advance.

You should remember, Mendicant likes to amuse himself with jests particularly in war, and Aurvandil likes to be unexpected and do something to the ire of their opponents, and of course, we feel perfectly secure in our current position to do this kind of thing, after everything we feel that we can drag this war out as long as we like though the longevity of this war thus far has been due to the impotence of our armies to bring a swift conclusion and Mendicant's diplomacy to secure peace. That said, another thing is, Aurvandil doesn't know why it fights, we fight because we can't get peace, but we don't particularly fight for any objective, but because we have to otherwise our enemies will take liberty of absence in battle, so our quite bipolar military policy in the war reflects that. We are an army that fights because we don't know how to get peace, which is no way to fight.

Raid Terran? You were too weak to strike any of their cities, and were eventually forced to retreat without any significant damage. Secure Paisland? You've already lost it. Antagonize D'Hara? We've killed the squatters and retaken our city, eliminated your flag from our old lands.

But you can chant it off as an amazing victorious campaign if you wish.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Phellan

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #821: December 12, 2012, 01:57:46 AM »
But you can chant it off as an amazing victorious campaign if you wish.

You should be well aware by now that Aurvandil does nothing but make grandiose and erroneous claims about pretty much. . .everything.  It's part of their charm.  Like talking with a habitual liar - the amusement comes from seeing how great the lie they weave becomes.

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #822: December 12, 2012, 02:59:25 AM »
The difference is Chénier, I was being serious without need of idle boast and self complimenting auto fellatio as opposed to your passive aggressive sarcasm.

We knew it would annoy you more to just ignore your defence of Paisly entirely, as you seemed so set in the belief Aurvandil valued Paisly enough to warrant an attack regardless of the situation. We had you bottled in Paisly, which allowed us to raid Terran whilst you were too impotent to do anything about it, even as a combined army, we even forced Terran to return home by sea rather than land. It was a perfect strategic position for us, why bother attacking a low priority target like Paisly? Instead of securing Paisland and raiding Terran, to the shame of the allied forces in Paisly? Besides which, an attack on Paisly would have worked well for Aurvandil, as I recall you barely had any infantry on the walls, so once the Chevaliers reached the walls it would be an easy fight.

Quite simply we saw the effort you were putting into the defence of Paisly and considered it a great jest to circumvent it and render it quite irrelevant by not validating it with an assault. You don't value the stratagem behind it, you trapped yourself in Paisly whilst we held Paisland stopping you from leaving, then looted Terran at our leisure and left when we felt like it, leaving your combined army redundant for the entire campaign. Which, to us was both strategically sound (We trapped you in your own region and made you irrelevant for an entire campaign) and amusing (Thwarting your efforts and mocking them by trapping you in your own defence) and to an extent, it was done to antagonise D'Hara over their attack on the Provincia, it was almost a declaration of "We aren't even mad that you destroyed it, we'll recreate it when it pleases us not when you think we should" and as an extension, Aurvandil doesn't like to be predictable, and it would have been predictable to lay a siege any observer could have foretold weeks in advance.

You should remember, Mendicant likes to amuse himself with jests particularly in war, and Aurvandil likes to be unexpected and do something to the ire of their opponents, and of course, we feel perfectly secure in our current position to do this kind of thing, after everything we feel that we can drag this war out as long as we like though the longevity of this war thus far has been due to the impotence of our armies to bring a swift conclusion and Mendicant's diplomacy to secure peace. That said, another thing is, Aurvandil doesn't know why it fights, we fight because we can't get peace, but we don't particularly fight for any objective, but because we have to otherwise our enemies will take liberty of absence in battle, so our quite bipolar military policy in the war reflects that. We are an army that fights because we don't know how to get peace, which is no way to fight.

You could get peace by stepping down, renouncing your whole culture, converting to an extant religion, executing your current council, and swearing to become a republic.

Cheers!
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #823: December 12, 2012, 04:03:57 AM »
You could get peace by stepping down, renouncing your whole culture, converting to an extant religion, executing your current council, and swearing to become a republic.

Cheers!

You forgot ceding stolen lands back to Barca, plus an extra as compensation, and a quarterly tribute.

All of that together would start appearing as reasonable.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Phellan

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
    • View Profile
Re: The Marrocidenian war
« Reply #824: December 12, 2012, 04:08:00 AM »
You forgot ceding stolen lands back to Barca

I'm pretty sure you guys claimed that would NEVER happen, despite Madina's ample warnings.