Year 23

[Glaumring the Fox]

So basically you should have let Barca burn like months ago?

[Kwanstein]

Dwilight politics really have an "anything goes" vibe to them.

[sharkattack]

I agree.

[Gustav Kuriga]

As Glaumring said, Gustav has many faces. He tries not to let anyone know how he truly feels regarding something if he can help it.

[Bael]

Yeah, unfortunately characters in Barca seem to be very conservative, for the most part. Which often ends up making for a sucky ally. To quote someone: Barca is very "quiet".

[Glaumring the Fox]

I got in !@#$ for shifting gears on issues before, its the same when you have so many faces its like a chameleon. It comes down to fear, fear of consequence a lesson I learned. The end result of a man is sometimes taking unpopular opinions and riding them straight down to hell no matter the consequence, its not about whether you die, but how you choose to die. This is what seperates a free man from a spineless snake that will do anything to survive. In the end you may outlive all your foes but you will go to your grave a pauper of the soul. What we have in Dwilight are politicians... What we lack are statesmen and nobles.

[Indirik]

... we succeeded where Astrum and Kabrinskia failed ...

You keep asserting that both sides in that war "failed". The thing is, none of the realms involved in that war *wanted* to destroy anyone. All they wanted was a small border war. No one failed in that. Everyone got exactly what they wanted.

The only realm that wanted to kill another realm was Asylon. And you failed to do it. The only realm that "failed" in that war was Asylon. I'm sorry that's so hard for you to understand, but that's the way it works.

This need to kill realms is really a nasty aspect of how things in the game have been going, in general. It's a vicious spiral where the prospect of being destroyed in any war causes people to bring in lots of allies, which leads to one-sided, realm destroying wars. Which causes people to line up more allies. Begin vicious spiral...

We need more limited wars, fought for small reasons, that end when the small objectives are achieved. We need fewer massive, realm killing wars.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Moderator edit: cheating accusations removed. If you have proof, report it. If not, stow it.

[Glaumring the Fox]

You keep asserting that both sides in that war "failed". The thing is, none of the realms involved in that war *wanted* to destroy anyone. All they wanted was a small border war. No one failed in that. Everyone got exactly what they wanted.

The only realm that wanted to kill another realm was Asylon. And you failed to do it. The only realm that "failed" in that war was Asylon. I'm sorry that's so hard for you to understand, but that's the way it works.

This need to kill realms is really a nasty aspect of how things in the game have been going, in general. It's a vicious spiral where the prospect of being destroyed in any war causes people to bring in lots of allies, which leads to one-sided, realm destroying wars. Which causes people to line up more allies. Begin vicious spiral...

We need more limited wars, fought for small reasons, that end when the small objectives are achieved. We need fewer massive, realm killing wars.

Says the man with more allies and dead realms under his belt than any other...  Asylon was fighting for its survival against your hegemony. If you want to change Dwilight look at your own massive realm and federations and alliances.

[Indirik]

Asylon was fighting for its survival against your hegemony.

No, actually, you weren't. No one ever had any intentions of destroying Asylon.

[Vellos]

No, actually, you weren't. No one ever had any intentions of destroying Asylon.

And if there had ever been any attempt to destroy Asylon, Terran's army would have been there in a hurry. No way we were going to let Kabrinskia surround us.

[Vellos]

The end result of a man is sometimes taking unpopular opinions and riding them straight down to hell no matter the consequence, its not about whether you die, but how you choose to die.

lol.

You just described Hireshmont, not Glaumring. Glaumring is a crass, backstabbing opportunist, not an idealist of any kind. At least he doesn't look like one from the outside.

[Glaumring the Fox]

No, actually, you weren't. No one ever had any intentions of destroying Asylon.

Oh I see, you didnt want to destroy us just whittle away slowly at our kingdom keeping it in a submissive state...

[Glaumring the Fox]

And if there had ever been any attempt to destroy Asylon, Terran's army would have been there in a hurry. No way we were going to let Kabrinskia surround us.

Yeah, thanks for trying so hard!

[Glaumring the Fox]

lol.

You just described Hireshmont, not Glaumring. Glaumring is a crass, backstabbing opportunist, not an idealist of any kind. At least he doesn't look like one from the outside.

Hireshmont isnt as bad as Chenier, you are just a victim of Cheniers influence.


I dont know how standing up for my kingdom against SA hegemony , and being left out of the moot so we had to fend for ourselves equals crass opportunistic... I call it surviving against the odds , building a strong kingdom in a desert , surrounded by schemeing kingdoms that only want our lands.