This is some serious “tell, don’t show” stuff here. I know the story team and various others keep saying “The Alliance is winning” but the facts on the ground suggest otherwise.
1 Like
You can claim Horde bias, winning isn’t the only form of being bias towards one faction.
To talk about faction bias you need to talk about said races inside the faction. The Night Elves are apart of the Alliance and thus needs to be talked about. And how their treatment during the WoT was used just to prop up the Horde looking good. There is no way the Night Elves would lose the way they did in the WoT but they did to fit the Hordes needs.
The facts tells us the Alliance is winning, and winning hard. In 8.1 Nathanos even states that victory is in the Alliance’s grasp. That doesn’t come from one siege you know.
Perhaps look it up before you reply.
1 Like
The fact that the enemy king considers pursuing the war something to costly to do is quite relevant regarding the strength of the one he is fighting. It’s the exact same logic Saurfang is having in that book about why he doesn’t want to engage against the Alliance
And regarding the second quote, and the context it’s issued in, Saurfang would probably argue the same about the Alliance if they decided to fight the Horde. He had just stated that both sides had strong positions all over the globe that would grant instant reprisal come any side try to stir up trouble.
Fail to see how that is relevant. It was already stated that all parts concerned, the sort of full scale head-on war was to costly to pursue. Nobody wants a Pyrrhic victory.
Ok, rephrase the word then for “Raided”. Guess the author wanted to keep the parity of Blizzards reasoning to equate both scenarios.
By definition, the word stalemate regarding faction conflicts (which usually translates into Deadlock) is:
a state of inaction or neutralization resulting from the opposition of equally powerful uncompromising persons or factions
Merriam Webster dictionary.
1 Like
An event that includes, but is not limited to war, games, and war games, in which neither side participating gains a major advantage or victory over the other for some time. In games, stalemates are usually not permanent, as it often forces one side to use up all their resources, finally giving way to a victory for the one that managed slightly more carefully.
h.ttps://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stalemate
Put a . so I could link
I guess it depends on where you got it from. but I still firmly believe that a stalemate isn’t just to do with the balance of power. It is to do with so much more than that.
1 Like
I’d describe a stalemate as having no options or “no moves” in order to progress forward more so than being on equal footing. So you’re right frozen
2 Likes
Unfortunately, it is not. One might think so.
Why isn’t it so?
Becase Metzen stated that the Alliance is the sole remaining super power post siege of Orgrimmar and currently, despite the imbalance and missing navies, the Horde is struggling in their core zones while being unable to launch comparable attacks towards the Alliance core zones.
I mean, it is rather obvious.
But Sylvanas does not speak of Pyrrhic victories. Sylvanas speaks about an “Only chance at victory now”. That doesn’t sound comparable or irrelevant.
2 Likes
Whatever their intent, the fact still is that losing Zandalar’s king and treasuries is not the same as losing a city and three provinces. One is, at best, a slap in the face, the other is a disaster.
There are different scales of power, though. The Taliban fought the US to a stalemate in Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan’s porous borders. Local factors conspired to produce a stalemate, but in global terms these two opposing factions aren’t remotely equal.
That’s what Frozenshadow is getting at, I think.
4 Likes
The Alliance lost the Battle of Dazar’alor? We’ll see if you’ll still think the same thing, once every Horde port is burnt to ashes by the legendary might of the Kul Tiran Fleet, Azeroth’s undisputed master of the seas.
The Zandalari are crushed and their pathetic fleet is annihilated. They are leaderless and scattered and survive only thanks to Jaina Proudmoore’s mercy. The Horde is losing on all fronts. The Alliance will win the war in a matter of weeks. It is over.
4 Likes
For the daughter of the see!
2 Likes
Still waiting for her “beware of me” moment. I need it.
1 Like
I saw it in the Horde scenario where you save Talanji.
Well, we don’t know that. I mean I happen to agree, she will likely survive, but not as Warchief (In my opinion)
How does it not? They were vastly outnumbered, and it was a Blitzkrieg attack, most of their forces are elsewhere, I mean that is a recipe for success, such things have worked even when the attacking force is -smaller- than the defending force on the defenders own turf in our real world, we can’t say things ‘don’t make sense’ if they are things that have actually happened in reality.
Well I don’t know, hence me asking what the purpose of this thread is, to talk about bias, or to whinge about the Kaldorei?
Well, We are -told- this by Nathanos, we are -Shown- this by the destruction of the Golden Fleet, death of Rastakhan, destruction of the reason the Horde went to Zandalar, and the Night Elves rallying and fighting back, I mean we see all this…
What Bias is there? The Horde is losing, the writing for them is appalling, one of their racial leaders has effectively defected to the Alliance, and the rest are just ciphers for Sylvanas’ crazy train, their entire motivation for this expansion has just been destroyed by the Alliance…
Was it? I don’t remember the Horde looking good. The fact that a united Horde army took that long to steamroller through to one objective against a portion of -one- races armed forces? If you think that was some Horde Fistpump moment, then, well, I don’t know anyone who actually thinks that.
Yes there is! A Vastly outnumbering force attacked by surprise with a defined route of march, with the intention of not necessarily holding territory, but getting to a specific location as fast as possible, they were stymied and delayed at almost every juncture.
You’re not doing it right Arctur, you’re supposed to be complaining that the Horde is favoured in this, not that it is losing…
1 Like
Isn’t is convenient that Azshara and her minions will finally declare war on everyone right after the Alliance just won a crushing victory against the Horde? How convenient for Sylvanas that the Alliance will be distracted by this powerful new threat. She really is one lucky banshee.
I swear, if Azshara farts and the Kul Tiran Fleet is obliterated… Could Blizzard get even more unoriginal?
4 Likes
Sigh.
When I mentioned Darkshore I i was referring to 8.1, not WoT. Even then I found the hordes victory in WoT to be too easy and not 100% believable. I find the possibility of the horde (mainly forsaken andgoblins) winning in Darkshore in 8.1 completely unrealistic. Bias aside. Sorry.
As I said I’d be fine with losing all that land if it made sense.
And let’s be real, Alliance won’t be winning for much longer lmao it’s just how it’s going to work.
I have never claimed She would still be warchief, just that she did survive.
Edit - it’s a faction imbalance thread and as I’ve said the WOT is a good example of that. Hence our discussion on t
1 Like
You are using a source from ‘Urban definitions’ and linking a description of a text regarding board games. Something that has nothing to do with a war.
What I linked was the actual dictionary definition of what stalemate means regarding conventional, real life, warfare between factions, nations, or people.
It literally redirects to IRL examples such as the trench wars in WWI.
To quote a wise man, if you are down to linking dictionary definitions in an argument, you are desperate. And Ashenbraid explained it perfectly.
3 Likes
Tbh, if I’m not mistaken the word stalemate literally comes from chess and as I said it means “having no other options to progress forward” or in the context of chess (no moves) not knowing what to do that would be beneficial. Not necessarily being on equal footing.
Please
They asked about what ‘Stalemate’ meant. That’s literally asking for the dictionary definition.
You didn’t know what it meant without consulting a dictionary? Yikes.
3 Likes
Is it? I mean, you are waving a quote saying “Stalemate” or something similar around, and when people explain why it is not a stalemate, why stalemate does not imply equality and other factors, you just go back and keep waving the dictionary.
3 Likes