Saving Ikalak was a waste of effort

[Indirik]

To be fair, being outnumbered by Taselak almost 2 to 1, Ikalak's only chance to win is absorbing what's left of the Sandies.

That's a not a chance to win. That's not even delaying the inevitable. That's living in denial. Snapping up a couple rurals while Taselak snags a city, a rich townsland, and more rurals on top of that, is pointless. You cannot turtle on this island. Ikalak has pissed off Sandalak enough that most of Sandalak will probably join Taselak.

Ikalak's only chance to win was to join with Sandalak and attack Taselak. Then it would be 2:1 against Taselak, allowing Ikalak to take some northern territories. Just like Ikalak took some southern territories when it joined in a 2:1 against Sandalak. Just like Sandalak couldn't hold off both Taselak and Ikkalak, Taselak couldn't have held off both Ikalak and Sandalak. That's the nature of a three-way war like this.

A few see-saws back and forth, snagging a region here and there, and Ikalak could have easily come back in strength. But it's too late now. Taselak has gained too much strength, and Sandalak is hurting.

[Zakilevo]

I think it has reached a point where Taselak can overwhelm both realms. Their regions are probably full of RCs. You can't leave your enemy with Toren Stronghold in this game. Taselak held on to Toren Stronghold for 2 months now.

It was fun though fighting two realms at once. I hope the next version will be more difficult to win though.

[Constantine]

I'll agree that it would be better if Ikalak made a decision earlier. Can't blame leaders for not being active enough though, that's breaking the rules. So let's chill and see what happens next, for Ikalak finally stirs.

[Zakilevo]

I'll agree that it would be better if Ikalak made a decision earlier. Can't blame leaders for not being active enough though, that's breaking the rules. So let's chill and see what happens next, for Ikalak finally stirs.

Unless Ikalak can field 20k CS with at least 5k CS cavalry, nothing will happen 

[Indirik]

Can't blame leaders for not being active enough though, that's breaking the rules.

Sure you can. You can IC blame them for their inaction. For their indecisiveness. Or for whatever other faults you want to lay at their feet, real or imagined.

What you can't do is blame their players for not logging in often enough, or at any specific times.

The IRs are NOT a blanket shield against being held accountable for your actions or inaction. Characters in game can always be held accountable for the performance of their job.

[Constantine]

Sure you can. You can IC blame them for their inaction. For their indecisiveness. Or for whatever other faults you want to lay at their feet, real or imagined.

What you can't do is blame their players for not logging in often enough, or at any specific times.

The IRs are NOT a blanket shield against being held accountable for your actions or inaction. Characters in game can always be held accountable for the performance of their job.

I think that's not entirely correct.
Earlier in the game we had a very inactive general who logged in like twice a week. When a runner-up leader pointed his inaction out he got a 3 day ban.
What gives?

[Ravier Nebehn]

I just hope next time there's no "informal" alliance between two of the realms on the WI. I enjoyed playing Aero and I suspect I will do something else with him other than play in Ikalak or Taselak. I did say he was a Zealot at the start and I have played him as such, even torturing infidels. You can blame Taselak's General for being a insulting twit for that one. Aero didn't start the pain until Sennianus starting being an ass.

And assuming he heals up quickly, he's got more to do yet.

[Indirik]

I don't know that particular circumstance so I can't really comment on it. But I can say this:

Things you shouldn't say:
"Kepler doesn't give orders every turn."
"Kepler doesn't issue orders early enough in the turn."
"Kepler is inactive, and never here when we need him."

Things that you can say:
"Kepler is a crappy general."
"Kepler is too slow to react to the enemy's changing tactics."
"Kepler is so erratic at giving orders and updates that the enemy is running circles around us."
"Kepler's army has a horrible movement rate, and never brings enough strength to battles."


You need to critique the character's IC performance, not the players OOC activity. If you find that your critiques routinely use the words "activity" or "inactivity" or any such form of those words, then chances are that you're critiquing the player, not the character.

[Constantine]

To be fair, I can't see a difference. You're just using codewords like "slow to react", "erratic at giving order" but everyone knows player's inactivity is implied.
The player in question said something perfectly IC, namely that a general should update orders and communicate with marshals on a daily basis. So you never know what will trigger a bad reaction here. Or for me at least it's a bit complicated to grasp.

[Anaris]

To be fair, I can't see a difference. You're just using codewords like "slow to react", "erratic at giving order" but everyone knows player's inactivity is implied.

That's not "codewords," that's the difference between what our characters can understand and what we, the players, can.

The player in question said something perfectly IC, namely that a general should update orders and communicate with marshals on a daily basis. So you never know what will trigger a bad reaction here. Or for me at least it's a bit complicated to grasp.

But that is a restriction that is not permitted. That requires a certain, specified level of activity of a player, which is clearly and strictly against the Inalienable Rights.

[vonGenf]

The player in question said something perfectly IC, namely that a general should update orders and communicate with marshals on a daily basis. So you never know what will trigger a bad reaction here. Or for me at least it's a bit complicated to grasp.

It's the "daily" part that's the issue. You shouldn't complain about the rhythm of the orders - that's activity based. You can, however, complain about their quality.

Earlier in the thread, someone said that nobles in Ikalak were literally ordered not to move. That has nothing to do with inactivity. It's not like the General was not logged in - he was logged in and he ordered people not to move. You can complain about that order without any activity issue creeping up.

[Stabbity]

This has devolved into semantics. The IRs do not act as a shield for inactive people holding government positions. You can't be banned for inactivity, but at the same time it is perfectly understandable in character to say "This waste of space General only issues orders twice a week, lets get a new general." That is not violating anyone's rights, and basically what was said based on my interpretation of this forum post. End of discussion.

[De-Legro]

This has devolved into semantics. The IRs do not act as a shield for inactive people holding government positions. You can't be banned for inactivity, but at the same time it is perfectly understandable in character to say "This waste of space General only issues orders twice a week, lets get a new general." That is not violating anyone's rights, and basically what was said based on my interpretation of this forum post. End of discussion.

This, a General needs to perform. Expecting orders every day is foolish, expecting that the General has some plan, delegates if he is not terribly active etc is not. Just as we throw out Rulers for making rubbish diplomatic decisions, throw out Generals who do not perform and do not ensure the realm has some sort of cohesive command structure.

Indeed. If we're beaten, I'm not joining Ikalak. I have no specific hatred for Taselak and no desire to see them lose. Once I lose, I'll leave the war islands and wait for the reset.

Same it has been a good fight, and I like to think we have performed well given the situation. In general I don't have plans to switch realms on the WI's once they start, but in this case why would we anyway. Taselak doesn't need us and why would any would want to assist Ikalak in prolonging things at this stage.

[Chamberlain]

Death or glory... most likely death

[De-Legro]

Death or glory... most likely death

That is foolish, it is not a either or situation. To fight is glory, sometimes that glory results in death.