HaV!

[DeletedUser]

FAIL i was not a refugee......:lol:

Tribal Wars Stats: World 17: Player
Tribalwars Player Profile: braakkie NL (tribe changes)
Old tribe New tribe Date/Time Points
None }SYL{ 01st August 2008 - 19:24:21 270
}SYL{ None 09th September 2008 - 13:00:02 20,575
None JHF 18th September 2008 - 13:00:01 39,539
JHF AKA 10th October 2008 - 10:00:01 134,118
AKA JHF 24th November 2008 - 10:00:02 378,098
JHF TSR 02nd December 2008 - 10:00:01 428,073
TSR BoK 05th December 2008 - 10:00:01 432,689
BoK League 25th January 2009 - 10:00:02 725,271
League None 12th June 2009 - 19:00:01 995,396
None League 12th June 2009 - 22:00:01 995,398
League BoC 13th June 2009 - 16:00:02 972,423
BoC BoK 23rd June 2009 - 19:00:04 1,256,234
BoK BoS 24th December 2009 - 10:00:01 3,804,063
BoS BoH 17th January 2011 - 10:04:01 12,702,383 BoH TITANS 19th January 2011 - 09:04:00 12,759,545

I'd stick with refugee if I was you. Refugee sounds a lot better than traitor.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you still feel bad would you like one of our recruitment applications? Apparently are main strategy for victory is to recruit losers. Gimme a mail if your interested, I can see you meet the criteria.

You should change your name to TheVulture. In the war against BoH, almost every one of the villages you took was against a player that was already being nobled off by BoH because they were inactive. Your ODD is pretty low considering this world is 3 years old. It isn't very hard taking villages from inactive players and barbs, considering they don't attack back.

If I am such a loser, I challenge you to a 1 on 1. The same rules that I offered MM. I promise to help get your ODD to a respectable level. We have close to the same number of villages, which should make it an even fight. The barbs and inactives will still be there after our fight. Do you accept the challenge?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think TheEvilVulture would have a better ring to it.. other than that I'm generally cool with it.

Not that I need to explain my nobling to a Wisdom player lol but I can assure you that all my targets are active when I start taking villages, I can't be blamed for them lowering their activity level so much that your tribe has to noble them off.. I can't exactly stop nobling them because of this issue. I go for the actives and stay for the tasty feast after they quit or go inactive. I won't make the case that they quit due to attacks as people quit for whatever reason.. but they all had moments of coming back to life after they started getting nobled by their own tribe. So they were all a threat or in the way even after the real owners may have left.. if this is even true.

I'm going to assume you saw no point in addressing all the incorrect arguments I must have made in my repose to your previous post, clearly I was so wrong in that respect that you saw no need to talk about it..

So instead you bring up a direct topic about me, fair enough as I did call you a loser, it was more a generalizing statement than a critical analysis of you as a player, but as my assumption must be right I could always just as easily point to your takings in this war.

Is an enemy.. even if totally inactive from the start, a better target than your own tribe + barbs? If I have the wrong idea about war please enlighten me.

It is not my or [BA] fault if you want to spend your time taking your own tribes villages, or have members that quit whenever for whatever reason be it in game or out.. or that in this war the attackers, such as myself, tend to spend a lot more time attacking than defending.. and more time nobling enemy villages than our own. A lot more time - winning

I'm not suprised about your challenge to MM though, players within tribes that become outnumbered, or inactive, or defeated.. just generally unsuccessful it doesn't matter which..tend to think that a challenge towards the enemies leader will gain them some respect points and boots their egos. If thats what you need to do again because MM clearly turned down your cry for attention be my guest.. What exactly is this challenge you propose? - you see what I did there..? I directly responded to your post, instead of ignoring 90% of it.

If you can post a response to my previous post refuting what I said I will accept your challenge without knowing the rules.. as I doubt you could manage that I think I'm gonna need some bullet point rules from you please dude. Or should we just do ready, set, go?

 

[DeletedUser92671]

Tony braakkie isnt a traitor, BoS/BoH are just terrible tribes,

they cant even win over their own members never mind win their enemies on the battlefield. :icon_rolleyes:

anyone would leave BoH if they had an invite from another tribe, they would just rather be safe from other BoH members than on their own.

 

[DeletedUser]

…I'm not suprised about your challenge to MM though, players within tribes that become outnumbered, or inactive, or defeated.. just generally unsuccessful it doesn't matter which..tend to think that a challenge towards the enemies leader will gain them some respect points and boots their egos. If thats what you need to do again because MM clearly turned down your cry for attention be my guest.. What exactly is this challenge you propose? - you see what I did there..? I directly responded to your post, instead of ignoring 90% of it.

If you can post a response to my previous post refuting what I said I will accept your challenge without knowing the rules.. as I doubt you could manage that I think I'm gonna need some bullet point rules from you please dude. Or should we just do ready, set, go?

I did not challenge MM for any ego boost. He challenged HoV to fight back, and I responded by challenging him to a 1 on 1. It is easy to challenge a foe that is 1/3rd your size. I have sat accounts that were anywhere from 3-8,000,000 points where we took several villages off of an enemy player with almost twice as many points, only to then have 5 or 6 other enemy players join in. I have also taken enemy villages that had support coming in from over 50 different villages. At this point, skill is no longer a major factor. With the numbers so lopsided, there is only so much that can be done to fight back. That is one of the main reasons I challenged MM and you. With close to the same number of villages, skill comes in to play. It also gives me a fair chance at success.

I didn't respond to your earlier points, because we will never agree. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. MM posted the stats for all the WA tribes, so I responded by showing the numbers of refugees taken in by all of the WA tribes. BA took in over 3,000 villages worth of refugees, while taking less than 4,000 villages from HaV. While BA personally took in less refugee villages than they took from HaV, others, like TAO, took in more than twice as many refugee villages than they conquered from HaV. It is hard to minimize the impact that taking in refugees has, when your top player, or players were refugees.

Here are the rules I proposed to MM for a 1 on 1:

“1-Absolutely no help from anyone. I am sure you could get your allies to agree not to attack me during our fight, and I would do the same. If a player inadvertently attacks one of us, both players can agree to a fair resolution, i.e. the attacked village can't be nobled, and/or the person who benefited from the attack has to give up a village worth of defense for every nuke that lands from an outside player.
2-No support from anyone. If it is discovered that either of us has even a single spear of outside help, that person loses. (And faces that shame on these message boards).
3-No nobling of any village but barbs or each other. If either of us nobles a village other than a barb or each other, that village can't be used to launch attacks. Barbs give us a chance to move closer to launch attacks without an unfair advantage. Each of us has plenty of barbs in our backyards for the other to take.
4-No account sitting. There is really no way to enforce this, if we agreed to it, it would have to be on the honor system.

I am also open to fair suggestions.

We can set a start date 1 month from now. This will allow each of us a chance to recover from any outside attacks, and allow us to reorganize our villages. During this time, neither of us can noble in any K that we do not currently have a village in.”


Those are the rules I proposed. Most of my villages are in K67 & K77. You have a good number of K76 villages, so at least it won’t be a 3 week march for our attacks to land. The month grace period would give you plenty of time to send support from your back villages to your ones closer to the front. Will you accept these terms?

 

[DeletedUser]

Just for fun: shall we consider the whole EturgK, MOJO, 100I, and DOM players refugees? I mean, they have been

• Forced or offered to join in on East's side at one point or another which they accepted (same like the "WA refugees") even though they had a choice (I don't speak about Wisdom's "join or die" choice, but the fact they weren't originally listed as hostiles on WA side).
• Originally weren't part of Wisdom/BoH but they all merged into them later on.

While they weren't originally WA players either, it completely fits to the "boosting numbers to get the upper hand" strategy you're whining about and which has been Wisdom's (and the whole Eastern Alliance's) publicly stated strategy for the first 6 months while you, by the way, had the upper hand in terms of numbers, scores and lands. I'll continue repeating this simple fact so long you'll finally understand and acknowledge it. BooooH wasn't playing against the odds all the time, shame on you, and not your enemies that the tides changed so easily.

Really, just for the sake of a quick test, try to blame the opponent on any world (or in any team-game) you're getting dominated on after starting a war from a winning situation, and check if they can stay away from openly laughing into your face.

Also, just to make it sure you won't be able to ignore a pretty simple, but very important reason of your current whining:

How could that happen that [BA] never had a single player joining to a hostile (or actually, any) tribe?

Clearly, I have seen players flying here and there in this past more than 3 years, some changing sides and tribes like I'm changing my newborn son's diaper, and could even name members in BoH who're currently there because they've been recently turned down by WA tribes... so would you, with your more experience and skills in this game than the most of us have, care to explain us how it could happen?

The barbs and inactives will still be there after our fight. Do you accept the challenge?

Not sure how mixing BoH's strategy to the statement would help your case. However, let me show a pretty simple counter-statement, I think it speaks for itself:

Opponents defeated (Tribes)
As attacker
1 Fekete Sereg 6.088,41 Mio.
[...]
3 Wisdom 2.868,11 Mio.
6 Brotherhood of Steel 2.265,12 Mio.
8 Brotherhood of Honor 1.360,66 Mio.

I added Wisdom as your primary ODA gatherer for the past years bar the BoH period (and like it's been told they've been the best tribe for years), and BoH for the period after Wisdom (because as it's been said they are the best tribe today). I also added BoS (since they also called themselves the best tribe), since they are also here for years and been widely recognized as a killing machine of the eastern half of the world. All together, they have 6.493 Mio ODA.

Now check [BA]'s... alone, it's easy, you can easily spot it at the #1 spot (for years). Considering the illustrious list of our opponents (DoP, STORM, CHE!!, EMP, MOJO, Brotherhood, Wisdom, BoH, etc), we've either found the barbs and inactives stacking themselves and fighting back much better than the living targets of all these competitors, or you might have accidentally flipped the facts when speaking about vultures or aren't aware of the meaning of 'vulture' at all.

 

[DeletedUser]

Also, just for the record (sorry, Eviljo):

In order that [BA] would ever accept any offer, we should trust the other party (sounds reasonable, right?). Now do the maths with pacts BoH leaders and members have ever kept up to date, and the numbers of agreements they didn't.

(I know, the "brand" has been changed a couple times in the meantime, and I'm sure it's not the last name either, but it's the same rotten tomato inside the box...)

Like I told a couple pages ago, trust doesn't come free and against common sense. We aren't here because we're fools, nor we are a charity service for losers.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'll agree that Wisdom/HaV/BoH.. whatever you are called now are supremely boned when it comes to numbers, a fact I brought up in a post not that long ago where I moaned about the number difference, what ya gonna do though lol. Unfortunately for the core and eastern tribes of this world [BA] stuck with our allies, and Wisdom chose to take a different approach, so the closer we have come to the end game times the more people we have on our side..

so you have [BA] to blame for being honest and decent to allies in the short and long term, and I'm note sure who you would blame in Wisdom so I will just put it all on Inty if you want, either way somebody made a mistake and you have ended up on the unlucky outnumbered side of the world.

As for the whole refugee thing you bring up again as I said I believe we have been quite picky when it comes to how many we take in compared with how many we beat and ask to join.. too many to remember. As for Tao taking in more what do you expect, they were a smaller tribe surrounded by [BA] players and needed a way to gain ground just as quickly.. an effective and well known method of doing so is recruiting the enemy. If they have done it more than us so what, you can't compare their strategy to ours simply because we our long term allies, they make their own choices.. I am sure now that Tao have a respectable border with your tribe their policy of recruiting the enemy will be abolished and they can increase the ratio so it pleases you nicely.

My honest assesment of why you are more than a little pissed at the refugees flocking to the West is that plenty/most of them came from your ex ally/meat shield MOJO.. who took the brunt of our collective assault for some time, according to their members with little to no support from Wisdom. Surely you can understand why those who asked to join the west did so? and why the western tribes felt okay with taking some of them in.? To progress to fighting our main enemy perhaps. If you can understand what I have said try to think what Wisdom would have done in similar circumstances, I would hardly see it being that different if you had defeated MOJO to get to us.

As for your 1 v 1 offer I am shocked at how fair you make it sound..I was sure it was going to be a lot more silly and less fun that you stated. I thought I would just flat out refuse it.. but I think I will have to respectfully decline instead As fun as you did make it sound I still don't really want to have to wait the long journey times for many of my nukes while you get to launch from a more comfortable distance. If what you have been moaning about with MM has been what is fair, surely you can see the contradiction here.

That is also if I assumed you would follow the rules and not be as dishonest as MM is suggesting.. which was probably my only other concern as well. How would we know? I would also have to spend a month recalling all my support, sending all support back.. then waiting to send newly returned support to my front line, you can see how bothersome this would be.. all in an effort to attempt to defeat a member of a tribe my tribe is already defeating.

I have an idea.. just popped into my head. The rules are not as straightforward and fair as you have listed but you might enjoy the game. How about we play Tribal Wars, Yeah?

I also like how MM also called you a loser..lol being called a loser by two separate losers, in a tribe full of refugees/losers.. this isn't a good day for you.

 

[netjakdim]

If I may be so bold why don't we allow Tony to do in game as he is on the forums and stand up for his tribe and allies.
It may sound stupid but since he is convinced that only inactives are being attacked and nobled we should plan an op
on an active player and as he appears to be the only active player on the forums it stands to reason that he would be
the choice target for the OP. I know personally I have about 600 nukes in the account I am on and would be more
than happy to contribute them to a village that is perhaps "ACTIVE". They may not be timed very well but I can gaurantee
they would be sent.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I may be so bold why don't we allow Tony to do in game as he is on the forums and stand up for his tribe and allies.
It may sound stupid but since he is convinced that only inactives are being attacked and nobled we should plan an op
on an active player and as he appears to be the only active player on the forums it stands to reason that he would be
the choice target for the OP. I know personally I have about 600 nukes in the account I am on and would be more
than happy to contribute them to a village that is perhaps "ACTIVE". They may not be timed very well but I can gaurantee
they would be sent.

I am surprised this wasn't suggested back in January when I first challenged MM to a 1 on 1.

That is also if I assumed you would follow the rules and not be as dishonest as MM is suggesting.. which was probably my only other concern as well. How would we know?

You can think I suck at TW, that I am a loser, or that I am a joke on the forums. That is fine. I don’t think it is fair to question my honesty. I have never cheated at TW, and I always respected any NAP that I had with an enemy player. Whenever I had any dealings with an enemy player, I have always been honest, even about when I am usually online. I have also always been loyal to whatever tribe I was in, and never left a tribe until it was either disbanded, or the leader of the tribe left/quit. I would never have proposed, or agreed to rules I didn’t intend to honor. It really is lame to paint every player in a tribe as dishonest because their leader, or a few other players were dishonest. I would have trusted you to honor the rules. In my dealings, most of the people who are honest trust other people, and most people who are dishonest instinctively don’t trust other people. You are free to believe what you want.

 

[DeletedUser]

It really is lame to paint every player in a tribe as dishonest because their leader, or a few other players were dishonest. I would have trusted you to honor the rules. In my dealings, most of the people who are honest trust other people, and most people who are dishonest instinctively don’t trust other people. You are free to believe what you want.

I guess you completely ignored half of the message. It is nearly not enough if you are trustable, if your tribe is definitely not. It's like Eviljo can't promise you that I won't attack you. In your case, I'm sure that BoH could promise - after all, they have some great successes about making promises - they just wouldn't keep their words. That's their unique power!

In regards of your comment about who trust who, you're also free to believe what you want, however, in my world, most people who are facing with a known and notoriously dishonest party don't put much trust into them. Might be painful for you, but sadly, it's pretty logical (you know, trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, and shame on me").

I also loved how did you ignore my points about your illogical statements. So typically BoH!


Netjakdim,

The reasons I was specifically trying to ignore Tony in tribal ops that

• he was running like a headless chicken and spammed the hell out of half the allied forces whenever he got a random nuke from anyone after his "brave" PnP offer about the 1v1 duel
• he was kept posing like a martyr on their forums and in IGMs ("the more nukes they'll send at me, the less they will have against you, my brothers! I'm a damn hero! I draw their attention!"). I found this behaviour a bit too disgusting to further fuel his martyrdom complex. He can just take their own medicine and die from boredom.
• we were hoping that if we keep him ignored, he might actually do something valuable for his tribe and fire them up against our coward masses so they could finally earn some respect he is so much itching for. Sadly, he either failed, or he is just all-talk and doesn't care with BoH at all, just wanted to present his one-man show...

 

[DeletedUser]

The reasons I was specifically trying to ignore Tony in tribal ops that

• he was running like a headless chicken and spammed the hell out of half the allied forces whenever he got a random nuke from anyone after his "brave" PnP offer about the 1v1 duel
• he was kept posing like a martyr on their forums and in IGMs ("the more nukes they'll send at me, the less they will have against you, my brothers! I'm a damn hero! I draw their attention!"). I found this behaviour a bit too disgusting to further fuel his martyrdom complex. He can just take their own medicine and die from boredom.
• we were hoping that if we keep him ignored, he might actually do something valuable for his tribe and fire them up against our coward masses so they could finally earn some respect he is so much itching for. Sadly, he either failed, or he is just all-talk and doesn't care with BoH at all, just wanted to present his one-man show...

We both know you are lying about that. I asked for support for 1 village in K85 because I have 1 village in K85. That is hardly spamming. Seeing how BoH have no allies, I can't see how I was spamming half my allied forces. Produce at least 2 mails I sent asking for support, or a webshot of our forums where I begged for support, and I will quit.

 

[DeletedUser]

We both know you are lying about that. I asked for support for 1 village in K85 because I have 1 village in K85. That is hardly spamming. Seeing how BoH have no allies, I can't see how I was spamming half my allied forces. Produce at least 2 mails I sent asking for support, or a webshot of our forums where I begged for support, and I will quit.

Before I forget: I loved how did you ignore my points about your illogical statements, ie here. So typically BoH!

I was itching to offer that I'll only post anything in regards of your request if you'd happen to address the concerns we posted about your latest nonsenses regarding [BA], WA, refugees/vultures and BoH's situation, but I'm after all more gentle than that.

So, your hassle has been pointless, I was referring to allied forces. I admit it's ambiguous but if you happen to check back, I was always using this short name to the western alliance, so it meant that you were spamming OUR random members and allies about the few attacks you were receiving, trying to convince them that it is my personal vendetta for your quality posts and duel request here, as if you'd worth it at all. Does this pathetic action sounds more familiar?

I cannot help but should also quietly point to the fact how did you ignore 2/3 of the reasons... on the same way you typically ignore truth. At least I don't have to post screenshots or cite from your forums about those now.

 

[DeletedUser]

Before I forget: I loved how did you ignore my points about your illogical statements, ie here. So typically BoH!

I was itching to offer that I'll only post anything in regards of your request if you'd happen to address the concerns we posted about your latest nonsenses regarding [BA], WA, refugees/vultures and BoH's situation, but I'm after all more gentle than that.

So, your hassle has been pointless, I was referring to allied forces. I admit it's ambiguous but if you happen to check back, I was always using this short name to the western alliance, so it meant that you were spamming OUR random members and allies about the few attacks you were receiving, trying to convince them that it is my personal vendetta for your quality posts and duel request here, as if you'd worth it at all. Does this pathetic action sounds more familiar?

I cannot help but should also quietly point to the fact how did you ignore 2/3 of the reasons... on the same way you typically ignore truth. At least I don't have to post screenshots or cite from your forums about those now.

I didn't answer all your points because I didn't think it worth my time. Trying to compare MOJO's truce with Wisdom to refugees makes no sense. If two tribes are at war, there are times when it makes sense to temporarily join together to defeat an even greater threat. I think both sides knew that if we were victorious against the west, we'd eventually get back to our war. I don't see how that is the same as mass recruiting refugees.

I exchanged emails with 2 or 3 members of an enemy tribe, and you consider that spamming? Some even initiated the conversations. The conversations were calm, and I thought friendly. Most people on this world are decent folk, and I even had a few offers to join some of my foes on another world. Once again, I challenge you to show that I spammed half of your allied forces when I had a few random nukes. If you can produce a mail from just 5 different of your allies where I talked about any incomings, I will quit.

As this is only a game, it is a little silly to think that I would be so panicked as to run around like a chicken without a head. As I predicted in January, my ODD in now higher than yours. If I only had a few random nukes coming in, they must have been huge nukes.

You also misunderstand my motivation. The last thing I want to be is a martyr.

If we are all going to be guilty by association, then you will also not be trustworthy. I was attacking a player in the WA who said if I stopped attacking him, he would quit taking barbs near me. He lied. I also had a private NAP with a WA player who attacked me and then tried to blame it on his sitter. Another player sent myself and everyone in my tribe a mail in which he blatantly states that he is trying to find out who is active and who isn't. To be on a side that has a very clear advantage, and to still resort to such tactics is contemptable. If we are all to be judged by the actions of any member of our tribe or our allies, than you are at least as untrustworthy as I am. Other than the accusations against Inty, I don't know anyone else in my tribe who is dishonest.

 

[DeletedUser]

You really like giving player challenges, and asking them to produce information for you, or comparing ODD. But you seem incapable of responding directly to most of what people post in response.

If you would bother to address more than 10% of mine and MM you would automatically gain more respect than we have for you.

I didn't answer all your points because I didn't think it worth my time - I guess its a waste of my time to write much of a reply then

 

[DeletedUser]

You really like giving player challenges, and asking them to produce information for you, or comparing ODD. But you seem incapable of responding directly to most of what people post in response.

If you would bother to address more than 10% of mine and MM you would automatically gain more respect than we have for you.

I didn't answer all your points because I didn't think it worth my time - I guess its a waste of my time to write much of a reply then

I had been called a loser and untrustworthy by MM and yourself. After being insulted by you and MM, responding to you wasn't worth my time. It also didn't help that your post didn't lend itself to a response. If you had made one or two points that could be debated, I would have responded to them. You say I barely addressed 10% of your points. I didn't think you made 10 points. Most of what you wrote was opinion, and justifying the course of action that BA and the other western tribes took. What is the point of trying to respond to every reason you list for why BA is great, and why BoH sucks? Why respond to why BA took in this refugee, or that refugee? I didn't think they needed responses. I can understand that it made sense to take in some of the refugees that were taken in, but I disagree with taking in the some of the top players and most active players from an enemy, and then complaining that the smaller players that are left aren't up to some level of challenge that you and MM set.

I also know that I myself don't like reading a long post, and then having to read someone else's response to every single point in the post. It is boring and most people see the length of the post, and don't bother reading it.

If you list 1 or 2 points that you want me to address, list them and I will try to respond in a way that satisfies your request. If each point is that I am a loser and BoH is a bunch of turtles who don't know how to attack, I probably won't respond, or probably won't respond in a way you will be happy with.


Since you are not happy with the fact that it is 3/4 of the world against BoH, why not declare on your next target now? It will be easy to pick off the next tribe that you war after BoH are finished, so why not do it now when it will be a little more of a challenge? I know that the members of BoH will be able to put up a lot better fight when our enemies have to split their resources against another tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not that bothered id you ignore parts of my posts, but when the parts are direct responses to your arguments against my tribe I expect some kind of acknowledgement of the response, be it opinion or not, considering your post was also your opinion.

I don't take to trusting a random member of an enemy tribe.. or random of any tribe other than my own to be honest. Nothing personal.

I'm in complete agreement with you about how outnumbered you are, and how it would be a much greater challenge to fight another tribe as well.. but you only have your leaders or ex leaders to blame for having no friends left. I'm up for fighting another tribe and even said respect would be due to a tribe that betrayed an ally now, simply for having the guts to be called a traitor at this stage in the game.. but the allies are too firmly committed to this war and their alliances to just do so to please me, or you.

And thats the main part about it, why would we declare on a tribe now when it would greatly help your chances? Curing the boredom is all it would do, its not a strategy worth considering other than that.

You could always keep telling our allies that it is only a matter of time before we declare on them and see if they bite, but I doubt you will have much luck in convincing anyone that it is really going to happen. Even if you were right about us doing so after this war is over, many players see this as the end game war and simply couldn't care less.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not that bothered id you ignore parts of my posts, but when the parts are direct responses to your arguments against my tribe I expect some kind of acknowledgement of the response, be it opinion or not, considering your post was also your opinion.

I don't take to trusting a random member of an enemy tribe.. or random of any tribe other than my own to be honest. Nothing personal.

I'm in complete agreement with you about how outnumbered you are, and how it would be a much greater challenge to fight another tribe as well.. but you only have your leaders or ex leaders to blame for having no friends left. I'm up for fighting another tribe and even said respect would be due to a tribe that betrayed an ally now, simply for having the guts to be called a traitor at this stage in the game.. but the allies are too firmly committed to this war and their alliances to just do so to please me, or you.

And thats the main part about it, why would we declare on a tribe now when it would greatly help your chances? Curing the boredom is all it would do, its not a strategy worth considering other than that.

You could always keep telling our allies that it is only a matter of time before we declare on them and see if they bite, but I doubt you will have much luck in convincing anyone that it is really going to happen. Even if you were right about us doing so after this war is over, many players see this as the end game war and simply couldn't care less.

I don't know that I agree that if one of your allies decides that it is in their best interest to go to war with BA sooner rather than later, that it makes them a traitor. If they joined BoH, or if they attacked you without warning, I could see you feeling that way. If they gave MM a 30 day notice that they no longer felt that an alliance with BA was in their best interest, and either kept warring BoH, or got a temporary NAP with BoH, I don't see them as being a traitor. As has been said many times, the game is tribal wars. The goal should be to be the last tribe standing.

I don't dispute that Inty made some bad diplomatic choices, I know I definitely would have acted differently. As I have said, I had no idea what went on behind the scenes. The only things I think I know is that an important member of SA is married to an important member of BA, so I don't see a rift between those tribes. I also believe that the alliance with TAO will also withstand the endgame. As far as I know, all the other tribes in the alliance are allied with BA because of being at war with either Wisdom/BoH, MOJO, or BoS. Once the common foe is eliminated, or weakened to the point that it isn't much of a threat, that common interest isn't as strong. Unless assurances were made that the tribes in the WA would never declare on the other after the EA was destroyed, deciding that the alliance is no longer in their best interest and ending it, doesn't make a tribe a traitor.

 

[DeletedUser]

For those who doesn't bother to read a long post about how to build towers from shiny crap, here is the essence of his previous message:

Whatever tribe is leaving BoH/HaV/Wisdom/Eastern Losers, that's treachery, whatever tribe is leaving another WA partner, that's Tribal Wars.


--

As for SA, you couldn't be worse.
As for the endgame, you couldn't be worse.


Still owe us two answers...

1. In regards of your endless whining about players 'betraying' your side, how could that happen that [BA] never had a single player joining to a hostile (or actually, any) tribe? Clearly, hostile propaganda always pictured [BA] as to be the worse side in any war, with less skills and a terrible leadership...
2. In regards of your whining about [BA] not fighting hard enough, how could that happen that [BA] gathered about the same amount of ODA than the three biggest, best ranked, hostile tribes together, while all three were reported to be the best killing machine of this world?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think I can answer the first one for him MM. Wisdom/HaV/BoH may have had applications from traitors/refugees/whatever you call them from [BA] but could not understand the reasons why such an application would be made and were forced to mistrust the applicant enough to warrant complete refusal.

I mean lets be honest, only a spy would bother trying.. or somebody bored enough with winning for so long that they wanted to finish on the loosing side, or fancied a pointlessly futile challenge.

Can I apply to join BoH, seriously? I'll leave straight away, or you can kick me.. its just so you can win an argument with MM. It is the only chance you will get, you should take it.

As for his argument about traitors in the west I think you need to look real hard at what betrayal is, and how most people in the game would define it. The long term alliances of the west are still intact, if one tribe decided to opt out now, even if a warning was given in advance.. and then join forces with or NAP BoH.. it would universally be seen by most people as a betrayal. The only chance it would not be is if there were circumstances which allowed a feud to fester and build into outright opposition.. if this was not the case and it was just a sudden choice or whim, then that action is one of betrayal.

Not that it wouldn't be interesting to see happen, and not that I am judging the actions of traitors (this is a game after all) I'm just laying out what I believe most people on both sides of the world would universally consider a traitor to be. If you still believe I am wrong please correct me, and if you think I am spot on just ignore my points completely.. not that you would do that though.