i think the reason you guys didn't attack the relic had more to do with your war with UE, you didn't want to be fighting F69 at the same time. Had you not been at war with UE it may have been a different story....but thats just what i think


lol i think you will find mythbusters proved that you can indeed polish a turd

Just going to point out here. mL was marked Red 3 ticks before we launched on the relic. We chose our targets as in the ops of mL around Africa and the relic. Yes mL was marked friendly before this simply because a war was not in our best interests. When this changes and we have no diplomatic ties to keep us out of war, we go to war. Simple as that.

-Gaurav



tldr: mL was marked Red when the attack on the relic/ops in Africa occurred.

You guys make me laugh!

So now you say that being marked friendly is enough to secure your position in the game. That is plainly ludicrous !

At the start of this round you all cried NAP! and ALLIANCE!

You came to us asking for our friendship and where it was in our interests we obviously agreed to NAP's. Indeed F69 were criticised at the time because we did not want to be pinned down by NAP's.

You came asking for the NAP ! - When it lapsed over 1000 ticks ago you should have asked for a new one - it's that simple !

Other alliances remembered to renew their NAP's with us - why couldn't mL?

Stop trying to make this personal, attacking my members. One of you even invented a conversation. Please keep your comments to facts - not fiction !

Plain and Simple

You had no NAP - you were attacked - err.... thats Battledawn !

Thanks
Mo.

1 last point

On the colour issue.

Yes - treatywise mL should have been marked yellow as we had no treaty with them. BUT, as standard F69 doctrine dictates that you can attack anything coloured yellow or red then I chose to keep mL blue. I did this as I had no wish to pre-empt the war that the whole of E1 knew was coming.
It was inevitable that F69 and mL would fight - the only reason that you are sore is because it was at a time of our chosing and not yours !

You make it sound like we begged to be allies. One of my members initially had made contact with you and negotiated the deal. I was initially told you were a trustworthy and veteran group of people and that you were to be trusted. I obviously quickly agreed to the deal so we could worry about greater worries in North America.

It is widely known that this is my first round, so I don't have the pleasure (if that's what you want to call it) of having any previous experience with most of your members, so I trusted my veteran/HoF members in trusting you. You guys all obviously broke both my trust and theirs. Spin it how you want, you can never make this right and it will continue to taint your future ventures.

I'm not really going to get into some pissing match here because you obviously think that you can do no wrong. No reason for me to sit here and beat a dead horse. You did what you did and you took advantage of the only situation you would ever have to do damage on mL. Congratulations, a fair fight was never in your cards.

Anything to win, that's how I will remember you and your members.

Mo, Shiz, and myself have already made ourselves painfully clear. MoA chooses to delude himself into thinking that there was an agreement to not attack each other when there was not one.

Clearly there is a deep seeded hatred that I'm not seeing here, calling one a backstabber is a lie, not an opinion... you've yet to answer any of my points, you simply copy and paste the same drivel over and over again.

If you say you read my post, the fact that you ignored it speaks louder than your whining ever could. I'm not sure what the bias is, but clearly there is one... get over it, quit slandering, get a puppy, I don't care... but I'm done here until you man up and answer my points, I've been kind enough to answer yours.

Im sorry but this talk abot F69 HAD mL MARKED BLUE means nothing.

When im leader, i mark alliances blue if i dont want them to attack them at that point, it doesnt mean we have any relations, it simply means i find it in my alliances best interest to not start a war with that alliance, so to avoid any mishaps with an alliance that our relations are NEUTRAL, i mark them as allied to make sure my members dont attack them. Once i feel its in my alliances best interest to attack them, i remove them from blue, and mark them accordingly. This has nothing to do with what my actual relations are with other alliances, it just shows what i dont want my alliance to attack at the moment. This is what Mo has done

Plain and simple, mL has a leader who is new to the game, he should have inquired about relations with F69 but he didnt, id say its a mistake that can easily be made considering its his first round, im sure he will learn from it, and wont do it again

first of all, it sound like one of F69 players had said that Ml were marked blue, that don't mean allied, a kinda dirty trick, but not lying at all, and don't question Lirik, not him marking them red and giving the signal to attack, i just hate when players get a bad reputation for following leaders orders, specially a great one as Lirik!

Simmen, we told them they were marked blue but their leader knew (As Mo and I BOTH told him) that we might attack them. There was no surprise, we informed him of that... so this feigned surprise from MoA is moot.

It was hardly put that way. I was told it wasn't in your best interest right now.

And then the next day, it was.

I made it quite clear to you that there was NO official peace agreement in place, and said that we had no obligation to attack/not attack you. If you chose not to listen that's on you.