drw and -vs- against epic

who will win

  • drw&-vs-

    Votes: 38 64.4%
  • epic

    Votes: 21 35.6%

  • Total voters
    59

DeletedUser123226

Guest
Oh guys... we forgot to say in the declaration.... "Roastonio, aka Zucchinigod sends his regards" my bad.... can you accept the peace offering so I can change the declaration a bit and give myself some credit? Thanks! <3
I don't see the peace offering. I'd love for you to edit your work though.
 

DeletedUser123226

Guest
And EPIC gets first blood off of both -VS- and DRW. TUNE IN NEXT WEEK TO SEE HOW THE STORY CONCLUDES
 

DeletedUser123226

Guest
When you celebrate burning 500k offence to capture a 500 point barb. Cool
VICTORRRYYYYYYY!!!!

Seems better than using 0 offense to capture 0 villages because too busy hugging.
 

samuel4699

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
341
Hello, one of the noob leaders here.

Not sure how many times I need to say we never had an agreement with TP, but we did not (they thought we did... oops). We also didn't plan to hit with YES! - they were already fighting them for a while and we found out when we were going to hit. Wasn't an alliance as I told YES! Apparently we can't attack the same person at the same time without being accused of alliance (this is typical from tw community at this point) - they could even confirm we never marked as alliance and I even have screenshot saying we are "at most" NAP.

Meanwhile I have proof that 3301, DRW, and -VS- are in a triple hug alliance (three of the top 5 tribes). So yea, I'd say it's pretty different.

Regardless, no one is crying. It's a war game. Unlike everyone else, we are ready to fight - even if that means dying to huggers. This is how most games end and are won so it must be expected and it most certainly was.

Good luck to all :)
Okay so let me just get this straight, you do not have an alliance with Yes.

Allow me to list the 2 different options we can go with in this instance since you clearly had some kind of relation with them.

Non-Aggression-Pact - is pretty self explanatory. No aggression towards each other.
Allies/Alliance - "a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations."
epic.PNG epic2.PNG
I think we can count sharing forums and joining a war together as some sort of union or association formed. And the mutual benefit is of course to defeat TP.

But I guess this is not an alliance. :D

Good luck to both sides and make sure to enjoy the war.
 

DeletedUser123226

Guest
Okay so let me just get this straight, you do not have an alliance with Yes.

Allow me to list the 2 different options we can go with in this instance since you clearly had some kind of relation with them.

Non-Aggression-Pact - is pretty self explanatory. No aggression towards each other.
Allies/Alliance - "a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations."
View attachment 2503 View attachment 2504
I think we can count sharing forums and joining a war together as some sort of union or association formed. And the mutual benefit is of course to defeat TP.

But I guess this is not an alliance. :D

Good luck to both sides and make sure to enjoy the war.
There is NAP and Ally option in game. I have them marked as NAP. They ask for ally, I said no cause we don't want long term relationship and we don't want to help them with support, etc.

So every time someone attacks same person, they are ally in game? Even if they have literally a shared report forum because seeing all reports is useful? If that's how you define ally, then yea... by your definition we are allied - so just use that if it makes you happy, I don't care. In game, we aren't allied by TW definition cause we don't have them set, want nothing long term, and won't actually directly help them in any way... we would let them die (Do allies let each other just die without trying to help?). So I'm sorry I used the in-game definition of ally to explain to the forum of the game we are playing that we aren't allies in this game. How stupid of me o_O

Also, it should be noted that literally based on your definition, what we did with them fits the NAP description perfectly. We had no aggression towards each other - so please... continue to pick and choose.

Here is the convo:
https://imgur.com/a/gYD6D0K
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser80720

Guest
Okay so let me just get this straight, you do not have an alliance with Yes.

Allow me to list the 2 different options we can go with in this instance since you clearly had some kind of relation with them.

Non-Aggression-Pact - is pretty self explanatory. No aggression towards each other.
Allies/Alliance - "a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations."
View attachment 2503 View attachment 2504
I think we can count sharing forums and joining a war together as some sort of union or association formed. And the mutual benefit is of course to defeat TP.

But I guess this is not an alliance. :D

Good luck to both sides and make sure to enjoy the war.
you and mafia are both attacking Yes
so i guess we can both agree that you are indeed both allies then correct?
 

DeletedUser123226

Guest
Wow... allying with another tribe to beat a tribe smaller than both of you. That's pretty dirty... I'd never do that. Shame on you guys.
 

samuel4699

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
341
There is NAP and Ally option in game. I have them marked as NAP. They ask for ally, I said no cause we don't want long term relationship and we don't want to help them with support, etc.

So every time someone attacks same person, they are ally in game? Even if they have literally a shared report forum because seeing all reports is useful? If that's how you define ally, then yea... by your definition we are allied - so just use that if it makes you happy, I don't care. In game, we aren't allied by TW definition cause we don't have them set, want nothing long term, and won't actually directly help them in any way... we would let them die (Do allies let each other just die without trying to help?). So I'm sorry I used the in-game definition of ally to explain to the forum of the game we are playing that we aren't allies in this game. How stupid of me o_O

Also, it should be noted that literally based on your definition, what we did with them fits the NAP description perfectly. We had no aggression towards each other - so please... continue to pick and choose.

https://imgur.com/a/gYD6D0K
No if you read my definition it's pretty clear that it's an alliance. Because you've declared together on the same tribe and you're attacking together, maybe not in sync but still together.
And most recently your own very account sniped (supporting) a fake train going at a yes village. I'm gonna leave it as this because you're only denying the obvious.

@sir cornish I don't see any connection I'm afraid.
 

ShaunDK

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
608
You guys have done snipes etc in that shared forum too, so yes you have been supporting :)

And no, we have no shared forum or anything with Mafia. So try again noobs.
 

DeletedUser123226

Guest
You guys have done snipes etc in that shared forum too, so yes you have been supporting :)

And no, we have no shared forum or anything with Mafia. So try again noobs.
Actually... by your own members definition for argument, despite my conversation in game, it would be an alliance:

a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations.

Read that very carefully. It's mutually beneficial for both of you cause it makes them easier to kill. Sooooo. Yup. :) Wow looks like we are seeing the flaw in defining it this way now, huh?

The definition doesn't say "MUST HAVE SHARED FORUM"