It is currently Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:21 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:53 pm 
Major
Major
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:41 am
Posts: 3025
Location: Look outside of the window, look to the tree... See the figure? That's not me.
Gender: male
L33t wrote:
Alexanderkitty wrote:

Lol. I would suggest you refrain from hiding your own alliances failure by trying to shake up other alliances.


Blue and Gold work and plan closely together - That SiCK decided not to send a single unit to battle is not our fault. Once we duked out that SiCK was not going to defend, we asked Gold if we could move out which they agreed on.

Eco is the only one who killed units IIRC. Furthermore, nice talk about boosters. We have 2 boosters, obviously you have none. I mean, it's not like CMS and Youssif had a higher power rating then actually possible that early... Right? :|


Both, Gold and Blue have attempted to deal with SiCK peacefully. Gold had its NAP agreement broken and Blue had heavy attacks during discussions (which is generally considered rude and immoral). You have nailed your own coffin shut buddy.

Don't try to hide that by trying to cause a scene. :P

I never said we didn't have boosters, just stating that if you guys didn't have gold and red to contain us, you wouldn't be as far as you would be. We decided not defend ourselves because it wasn't worth it at this point of the era. It's not even tick 500 lol. It's our last round and we expect to play the entire thing.
On the NAPs, we never broke anything with Gold, our leaders decided on a certain axis, and we stuck by it. Gold was the one that constantly tried to expand on our side of the treaty line.


Correct, and if you didnt have LoDB warring us early on, neither would you. So I do not see your point here.

IIRC you had a No-Entrance zone with Gold which you kept gates in despite the NAP stating you should raze it and continued attacking outposts after the NAP. Though I will need Staffy to refresh my memory on that.


Wasn't worth it? You had 3 alliances and the ultimate position for expansion. :/

_________________
Best Regards,

Alexander V


Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:34 pm 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 271
Location: CaLi
Gender: male
Alexanderkitty wrote:
L33t wrote:
Alexanderkitty wrote:

Lol. I would suggest you refrain from hiding your own alliances failure by trying to shake up other alliances.


Blue and Gold work and plan closely together - That SiCK decided not to send a single unit to battle is not our fault. Once we duked out that SiCK was not going to defend, we asked Gold if we could move out which they agreed on.

Eco is the only one who killed units IIRC. Furthermore, nice talk about boosters. We have 2 boosters, obviously you have none. I mean, it's not like CMS and Youssif had a higher power rating then actually possible that early... Right? :|


Both, Gold and Blue have attempted to deal with SiCK peacefully. Gold had its NAP agreement broken and Blue had heavy attacks during discussions (which is generally considered rude and immoral). You have nailed your own coffin shut buddy.

Don't try to hide that by trying to cause a scene. :P

I never said we didn't have boosters, just stating that if you guys didn't have gold and red to contain us, you wouldn't be as far as you would be. We decided not defend ourselves because it wasn't worth it at this point of the era. It's not even tick 500 lol. It's our last round and we expect to play the entire thing.
On the NAPs, we never broke anything with Gold, our leaders decided on a certain axis, and we stuck by it. Gold was the one that constantly tried to expand on our side of the treaty line.


Correct, and if you didnt have LoDB warring us early on, neither would you. So I do not see your point here.

IIRC you had a No-Entrance zone with Gold which you kept gates in despite the NAP stating you should raze it and continued attacking outposts after the NAP. Though I will need Staffy to refresh my memory on that.


Wasn't worth it? You had 3 alliances and the ultimate position for expansion. :/

More like we had 3 alliances against us :|
The No-Entrance zone was never a done deal, we only had a certain NAP line that neither of us could cross. Gold leader probably kept the zone in his head and only kept it to himself, because as far as the conversation had gone, it wasn't in play. But w/e, instead of declaring war again Gold decided to just sneak attack us, which was a fairly good move considering that they knew when most of us slept :/ Which is why im saying Gold did most of the dirty work. We fought them the most, moving of armies and coordination was against them. Blue didn't get involved until Gold had sent 100+ squads to our hive.

_________________
Wins:
NWL, G1 e1
SoTF, E2 e7

SiCk!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:56 pm 
Major
Major
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:41 am
Posts: 3025
Location: Look outside of the window, look to the tree... See the figure? That's not me.
Gender: male
L33t wrote:
Alexanderkitty wrote:
L33t wrote:
I never said we didn't have boosters, just stating that if you guys didn't have gold and red to contain us, you wouldn't be as far as you would be. We decided not defend ourselves because it wasn't worth it at this point of the era. It's not even tick 500 lol. It's our last round and we expect to play the entire thing.
On the NAPs, we never broke anything with Gold, our leaders decided on a certain axis, and we stuck by it. Gold was the one that constantly tried to expand on our side of the treaty line.


Correct, and if you didnt have LoDB warring us early on, neither would you. So I do not see your point here.

IIRC you had a No-Entrance zone with Gold which you kept gates in despite the NAP stating you should raze it and continued attacking outposts after the NAP. Though I will need Staffy to refresh my memory on that.


Wasn't worth it? You had 3 alliances and the ultimate position for expansion. :/

More like we had 3 alliances against us :|
The No-Entrance zone was never a done deal, we only had a certain NAP line that neither of us could cross. Gold leader probably kept the zone in his head and only kept it to himself, because as far as the conversation had gone, it wasn't in play. But w/e, instead of declaring war again Gold decided to just sneak attack us, which was a fairly good move considering that they knew when most of us slept :/ Which is why im saying Gold did most of the dirty work. We fought them the most, moving of armies and coordination was against them. Blue didn't get involved until Gold had sent 100+ squads to our hive.


You didn't try to defend against just Gold either. Eco and Blue expected that Gold would be fighting for the island and we would be flanking and cutting the escape.

We never imagined you'd just downright let us in your hive...

I didn't saw any coordination whatsoever on your end, all I saw was your subs messaging me within an hour if I could spare them/let them join me.


Perhaps in the future play without subs or keep them closer ;)

_________________
Best Regards,

Alexander V


Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:55 pm 
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:02 am
Posts: 536
Gender: male
NAP was. Middle island a neutral Zone and radar's only which you broke by attacking our ops when placed. also no gates razed and then CMS tweaking agreement to basically put us into a corner with no gain from any NAP with you, after 3 days of watching our ops attacked by you we had enough and fixed the problem very quick.

_________________
(ROTF)
(DETH)
(MES)
(AUA)
(TLA)
(NO)
(REN)
(CoV)

PROUD DETH/TLA MEMBER


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:46 am 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 271
Location: CaLi
Gender: male
Alexanderkitty wrote:
You didn't try to defend against just Gold either. Eco and Blue expected that Gold would be fighting for the island and we would be flanking and cutting the escape.

We never imagined you'd just downright let us in your hive...

I didn't saw any coordination whatsoever on your end, all I saw was your subs messaging me within an hour if I could spare them/let them join me.


Perhaps in the future play without subs or keep them closer ;)

As i said before, Gold had managed to take out middle island in a matter of hours, when we were all asleep. By the time we had waken up, Gold was 3-5 ticks from our hive as well as ECO AND Blue at our sides, we had no choice but to surrender to live and fight another day.
I didn't want a sub in the first place :/ but since a bunch of top alliances are using "brother alliances" (subs), we figured that we would need one.
I knew Kerss would do this though, never was faithful.
Langy wrote:
NAP was. Middle island a neutral Zone and radar's only which you broke by attacking our ops when placed. also no gates razed and then CMS tweaking agreement to basically put us into a corner with no gain from any NAP with you, after 3 days of watching our ops attacked by you we had enough and fixed the problem very quick.

You sure that neutral zone was even agreed upon? Even if it were, we had full control of the island during NAP talk. And more like 3 days of planning to attack us. We attacked 2 of your ops....1 a gate(which violated your neutral zone) and 1 a radar, far beyond the NAP line. Plus one of the Gold members went crazy and started to attack multiple SiCk ops, more than we ever attacked yours.



If you guys wanted to have continued the war, you should have announced it and we could have had our war. Would have made the round more fun, right?

_________________
Wins:
NWL, G1 e1
SoTF, E2 e7

SiCk!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:02 am 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 287
L33t wrote:
I knew Kerss would do this though, never was faithful.


Do you Really know what happened ? :roll:

Ryan wouldn't do that thing if people from your alliance treat us good lol

_________________
Image
ARM-DETH-AL-WWs-SoTF-LIS
IGN:Chloie, Bonus, McDobol, Sonic, BumbleV, Ino of Inquisition
Highest power: 314
Highest Crystals: 93
Highest Rank: 1


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:12 am 
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:02 am
Posts: 536
Gender: male
Quote:
You sure that neutral zone was even agreed upon? Even if it were, we had full control of the island during NAP talk. And more like 3 days of planning to attack us. We attacked 2 of your ops....1 a gate(which violated your neutral zone) and 1 a radar, far beyond the NAP line. Plus one of the Gold members went crazy and started to attack multiple SiCk ops, more than we ever attacked yours.



If you guys wanted to have continued the war, you should have announced it and we could have had our war. Would have made the round more fun, right?



Just ask CMS to show you copy of Skype chat i have some if he doesn't show you :)

Also we told CMS NAP deal was off. he must not communicate things with his members. The final nail in the coffin was him Messaging Alexander with apparent info that Gold was going to betray Blue and asking sicK to join them lol. we don't put up with silly little boy games like that.

_________________
(ROTF)
(DETH)
(MES)
(AUA)
(TLA)
(NO)
(REN)
(CoV)

PROUD DETH/TLA MEMBER


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:58 am 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 271
Location: CaLi
Gender: male
I guess there are some things i didn't know, Langy.
gino948 wrote:
L33t wrote:
I knew Kerss would do this though, never was faithful.


Do you Really know what happened ? :roll:

Ryan wouldn't do that thing if people from your alliance treat us good lol

Enlighten me Gino :P
I was jp about Kerss though, i love that kid

_________________
Wins:
NWL, G1 e1
SoTF, E2 e7

SiCk!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:37 am 
Specialist
Specialist
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:06 pm
Posts: 39
L33t wrote:

I didn't want a sub in the first place :/ but since a bunch of top alliances are using "brother alliances" (subs), we figured that we would need one.


If your implying Gold/Red are Blue subs or we're subs of Gold/Red or whatever then your mistaken.
There's a huge difference between the 2...

_________________
~Dan's Un-Official B*tch~



*Yao ming*


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: F2 era SiCK, Poke alliances, and LODB n such
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:00 pm 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 271
Location: CaLi
Gender: male
ThyLastPenguin wrote:
L33t wrote:

I didn't want a sub in the first place :/ but since a bunch of top alliances are using "brother alliances" (subs), we figured that we would need one.


If your implying Gold/Red are Blue subs or we're subs of Gold/Red or whatever then your mistaken.
There's a huge difference between the 2...


Tell me this huge difference then?

_________________
Wins:
NWL, G1 e1
SoTF, E2 e7

SiCk!


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
WarLingo Android Mobile Game

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Copyright Tacticsoft Ltd. 2008   
Updated By phpBBservice.nl