It is very nice to see two large netting alliances FS war alliances this set. I think it is not only surprising, but has really made this set different than any I can remember in recent times. Cheers.

NA's attack could more accurately be described as a "love tap" or "a polite smacking on the buttocks with a soggy lettuce leaf"

That lettuce leaf was NOT soggy!!


A little damp, maybe. But not soggy.

LaF came storming over the hill with an army of pink fluffy bunnies packing fully loaded super soakers and bubble guns. Hardly a FS, you can even ask them. they didnt want to do it, they had no choice.

That being said. well done guys. and good luck to NA. I still hold firm that I drop-kicked Blackberry. Thrice.

Just wait for NA's seccond fs!

more like kill or be killed imo

mmm

both alliances were pretty much backed into a corner and were forced to change from netting to fighting, albeit for different reasons.

i expect NA would have rather netted, and I can say for a fact that LaF would have rather netted. If SoL had been willing to sign a pact rather than continuing to ratchet up tensions, LaF would have accepted and netted. NA was apparently told to either hit SoF or they will be farmed/FS'ed... SoF was waiting for them with full preparedness.

This is certainly better than blindsides, but it's certainly not the type of situation I'd like to see from a game-dev side. 1/5th of the server is now fighting wars they didn't want to be in in the first place.

That is the bottom line.

yeah, neither FS were aggressive moves

LaF might of been netting but with NAs new retal policy they were land trading all set and i highly doubt they would of had a good netting finish. they were primarily war govs and as fordy said they had atleast 10 days to prep for war. So i think what you say for laf may be true but NA wasnt going to have any shot at netting and their members knew war was coming

ya, I can't speak to NA's planning, more than assuming they wanted to net, rather than fight a major, fully prepped fighting alliance. If they were planning a war set, then they mustn't have been fully prepping for it :p

ford and others have said on these boards that NA converted 10 days ago to a war footing.

im gonna go FS my refrigerator. *walks away*


;) good stuff guys.

Well

I wanted to hit imag, they smelled funny and were being fluffs about our new policy, but sof was hovering around and was apparently bored, so we sacrifice ourselves for the enjoyment of all!

...

2 wasted rounds in a row, without even any political gains made by fighting? :-/

"Netting Alliances making the big moves"


You mean dying, for nothing? Repeatedly?

U don't know the political gains NA is making. Don't ASSume anything

hehe

I respect NA a lot for the move they made, are CS was completely unplanned, just hit us at a bad time, guess my message to be online aroud 10pm GMT payed off :p

They literally had about 75% on for the cs, 2 hours after our fs.

It was rediculious.

true dat

im actually suprised at how many ppl that got on with that short notice, didnt even post a chat time up just had people gather up while you guys FSed us and then we hit heh

Jerks

give us a fighting chance

Well once the first person got hit we started playing phone tag and in like 5 mins from the first hit most of the vets were online

The first person we hit walled! Still died but walled

rofl. Gotta suck for ur first target to wall

it's always painful to see that. i remember some past FSes when we had that

I don't see NA and SOF being political adversaries in the future. That is a political benefit to both. On the other hand, I don't think LAF has made political gains in the past two resets. If SOL had FSed LAF then LAF would have benefited politically as other alliances recognized the unfairness. By FSing SOL, LAF really just signed into another war reset.

Always the victim. Do you first strike every alliance that doesn't pact you? There were other options available to you if you felt that because you didn't get pacted SOL was going to fight a pointless war against you for little reason. How about align some allies and call in the kitchen sink - would have been quite within your rights. I think you realise now that we were not going to hit you, so you guessed wrong. Let's hope your members hold you accountable.

All this rubbish about pacts is designed to divert attention from the fact you, and the rest of those leading LaF, tried to have a bob each-way. It failed.

ummm there was more than just not pacting... "ratcheting up tensions"
it's in the thing you quoted. did you even read the full quote, or did you just stop after the word pact? I know you like to try to take things out of context, but that's bad even for you.

we've already had this debate, so I won't really have it again other than these 2 thoughts, which define the context of the quote you try to misrepresent (again):

had SoL been willing to move on - which they obviously weren't, based on what they were trying to tell LaF's allies - LaF was willing to as well.

LaF approached SoL multiple times about ratcheting things down and the impression we were left with each time was that LaF was not only a possible target again, but a probable one. it's not just about the pact, it's the actions of SoL both in-game and in the political arena which led LaF to make the decision to switch from full on netting to last minute war prep.

go back to spin class and ride another 3 miles.... then hop on the tea cups, do a little spinning there... then maybe hop in the washing machine and put it on the spin cycle. Because your spinning is certainly not working here :p

Ahh yes, unnamed "sources", unquoted "statements", "impressions", "probable". You've really convinced me. Is that the bullfluff you feed your members?

It's the easy option. I'm not surprised.

"switch from full on netting to last minute war prep"

There you go again, making excuses. You're bad at this. Leave the posting to someone else.

I'm not trying to convince you... you've proved time and time again to not be worth trying to have any kind of debate with. you burned that bridge long ago.

but just because SoL pulls the wool over their members eyes, use trolling as a 'legitimate' political tactic and always take the low road doesn't mean that other alliances do. you have no clue about LaF, because our members were completely in the know about what was happening every step of the way. Especially vets.

Remember, you've never been in LaF, but I was a leader in SoL.... I know how you guys operate. I left because I was disgusted by it.

you lack the credibility to be able to question my statements, to be perfectly honest :p

You really don't know how we operate. You are so paranoid you probably wake up in the middle of the night thinking Makinso or Praetor are about to jump in your window.

Trolling? Legitimate political tactic? Low road? If you think my posting is sactioned by the leaders, you're dumber than first thought. I just like to call out idiots like you.

actually, I was baiting you out there... :p

and you fell into it.

you're calling me an idiot for doing the same thing you do on a daily basis -- presenting your own distortions as facts while rejecting that there can be any other reasons for something besides what you 'believe'.

"calling out idiots like you" is just code for "LOOK AT ME I CAN FLAME STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET, MOM"

also, your attitude needs a swift adjustment, dagga.... you've been pretty good lately, but you're starting to waffle again :p

I JUST BAITED YOU OUT!

AND YOU FELL INTO IT!

DOUBLE REVERSE BAITED!

Stop editing your posts, sad little man, and start acting like a legitimate representative for the game instead of a one-eyed troll who couldn't lie straight in bed.

pang "
had SoL been willing to move on - which they obviously weren't, based on what they were trying to tell LaF's allies "

who said what... you know i like you and laf but without some details this honestly sounds like an excuse pulled out just because you can't really confirm or deny without specifics.

sol claims this is all false
so lets look at pro's and con's of you giving names and what they said


pro's
we find out wether your making it up
we find out if 3rd parties managed to push you into a fight
we find out if "friends" used laf and sol for their own benefit
we find out wether or not sol is lying
and we find out if you can really trust these ppl that came to "warn" you


con's
none..cause either your lying or the ppl that spoke to you are lying and if you pang are telling the truth...wouldn't you like that to be clear to everybody?

might even give you and sol a common enemy to turn your remaining countries against.

heh gotta try to change the subject now, eh? :p

maybe try acting like a civil human being for once before you start criticizing others.

this isn't grade 6 :p

Well summed up.

I'm not buying this bullfluff about secret memo's, so either come up with some evidence, or stop putting it on every SoL/LaF thread.

LaF members have fought well this war, but have been very poorly represented.

I think LaF is the only clan onthe server that didn't know SoL was guanna hit NA


Sof hits like a girl!

Don't complain about trolls on a forum when you're happy to feed them.

I would be interested. Call his bluff baby!

I was out of the loop on everything,

but, I had SOL's hit down to NA or LAF.

And, I do agree with the above post, LAF would have been better off bringing in allies from the beginning, or making SOL hit them and have kithen sink ready.

Even Dagga conceded that woulda be legit.
which, is good to know for all alliances in future resets.
SOL pushes you into a war, its legit to call in xkitchensinkx

kk the convo does exist pang showed me the logs. thank you sir all i wanted to know

yup. it's a convo that isn't mine to share publicly, but I got the OK to get an impartial third party to verify it.

just as a rule of thumb -- I don't make stuff up and present it as facts. :p

as for thomas' post -> please play poker with me in the future. i'd love to take your money :p

hmmm seems like backdoor fluff to me Pang...

I still dont buy it. anybody can buy out a "neutral" post with some FA exchanges....

and who is neutral enough?
is someone who leads an alliance that is DP'ed to both LaF and SoL not neutral enough? because that's who I got to do it.... I asked Servant to as well, but he had to go because his wife was calling him :p

I'm honestly not making this up, you SoL'ers are just looking more stupid for trying to fight me on this.

holy crap you guys are maroons.

SoF top 10 finishes can be directly related to how many NA members m0m0 kills for them to get there.

No one addressed my post and now I feel like a sad panda. While NA benefited politically from hitting SOF, LAF would have been better off allowing SOL to FS them again this reset and calling in allies.

Talking along these two lines, one for NA and one for LAF, of political benefit or detriment would be much more interesting than the above crap. Would you tell AT the names of your political friends? NO. It is quite retarded to posture that Pang would reveal that. No alliance leader in their right mind would alienate their contacts, friend or foe. If Pang did get misinformation, or another LAF contact received disinformation, that is for them to interpret. Converting my conversation about political moves of netting alliances that have taken the FS on warring alliances into this dribble makes for a boring read.

I hate to interrupt the love fest by going back in time . . . but - it is a war game Pang. Unless we start pre-arrainging all wars, 1/5th of the server has ALWAYS been fighting wars they did not want to be in in the first place. Thats kinda the nature of war - somebody is usually Germany and somebody has to be France, no matter who actually swings first.

Here's my account of what went down with NA

early in the set, sof came to us and talk started on a possible friendly, one with just SoF and NA, and one with NA and Collab vs Imag and SoF.

We at NA alreadt had a thread on our senate board debating wether to hit imag over their clear denial of our new retal policy and many sets of land trading.

We didn't really think that collab wanted to be in a large war, as they were worried fluffless that sof was hitting them. I knew this not to be true, and informed them of this at a later time.

The talk of the friendly with SoF died down, and the vote was leaning towards hitting imag, for a short easy war.

Talks with SoF eventually started back up and it became apparent that if we hit imag, sof would prolly hot us, hurting us badly, probably too badly before we could call in allies.

So talk shifted back to hitting sof. It then was made apparent that if NA didn't hit anyone within 1 week, sof would probably start farming us and forcing us into hitting them. A vote was put up as to the FS time, and unfortunately it was night time est.

Granted, NA isn't a veteran war alliance, and our preperation was pretty halfass and we could have done much better.

But we feel that our strategicmoves, and decisions, win or the more probably lose, we have upped NA's status on the server and have made stronger ties through the actions of providing certain clans with a war, certian with peace, and certian with further policing opportunities.

Call it a sacrificial set if you will. Sometimes a set of death can help provide many more netting sets to come



There you go, that's NA's set from our point of view

Aponic, I agree with you to a certain extent but. Which of these 15-25 member alliances would LaF be benefiting themselves politically with by taking another FS from SOL? How many of these alliances do you think are willing to involve themselves in this new grudge match?

If LaF would have taken FS from SOL how many members will they lose because they aren't able to properly defend themselves? If this was Earth of 5-6 years ago the actions you propose would hold a lot more merit, unfortunately there are only so many alliances and people left playing this game. This is nothing new but if people aren't happy with their current alliance situation they are likely to leave for another alliance that can offer them what they want or leave the game entirely. Membership turnover rates in the current state of the game can hurt a lot more than it used to, politics inside each individual alliance are beggining to matter a lot more than outside it. How many members would you expect to come back next reset in SoF had you not warred?