DeletedUser
Guest
LOL! indeed. I am confused why it would be a surprise that Apoc would be NAP with MM. Despite a myth propagated by your "side", Apoc had plenty of wars on at the time and would have preferred to maintain the NAP until such time as those wars were resolved. I know that basic level of expediency was missing from the east's diplomatic game plan but, like BA, we were never keen on fighting on more than one front at a time despite the fact that we always were. In fact Apoc would have much prefered an alliance with MM. One more step to turning the world blue.
So, you are saying you resisted a merge because you couldn't countenance stopping Ops on Apoc. Take a look at TWstats. If there were ops on Apoc they are confined to a couple of pages of conquers. Hardly a reason to not merge.
As for Apoc's relationship with BA, I think I can say without contradiction (even from Zurtle - not that I'd know now he is being ignored), it has been far stronger than any of the the eastern tribes alliances could hope to be (and that includes the MIM intra-family alliance). No amount of stirring from you will alter that, not least because we share the same goals and, now, those goals are close to fruition.
That really is semantics. Peter has already commented on the FUSE -> GoC -> MM transition of players and why BA regarded the associated recruitment is a thinly disguised recruitment of refugee players. Whether MM recruited (merged whatever) FUSE players/GoC players or whatever tribe they were in at the time is irrelevant. They were the same players that BA was fighting. That's the point. Get it?
nice twist of words Andrew... We weren't surprised Apoc and MM had a NAP... we knew they did... what we were surprised at is how Apoc was willing to throw BA under the bus... sorry if I wasn't clear...