Marboro Sets Sights

[DeletedUser24109]

well how can you moan, IF PIE were supporting your enemy, you was doing the same thing.....
Come on Gunbound, you need some sense...
another one added to the operation against me :icon_twisted:

 

[DeletedUser24109]

Allies>>>>>>>>Neutral (i think)
damn that really beats yours

 

[DeletedUser7126]

Uh oh....trouble in the tribe already!!!!!

Listen, im sure marboro is a very good player! However, I dont see how one man is gonna make a difference to HOT and our alliance. You might get your tribe to buy into your leadership and goals but the fighting still has to be done! Talking is the easy part. If RB would have stopped attacking WB then all of this could have been settled and NAP's would still be intact and everyone is happy.

 

[DeletedUser7529]

well how can you moan, IF PIE were supporting your enemy, you was doing the same thing.....
Come on Gunbound, you need some sense...
another one added to the operation against me :icon_twisted:

Another one added to the operation against you?

Please, get over yourself.

I won't even bother launching at you.

 

[DeletedUser24109]

i will hold you to that quote

 

[DeletedUser7529]

Allies>>>>>>>>Neutral (i think)
damn that really beats yours

Yes current times, you are right.

But what I quoted, you were talking about past times when HOT was NAP with RB.

And Alliance > NAPs.

Hence HOT will support WB over RB.

 

[DeletedUser7529]

Uh oh....trouble in the tribe already!!!!!

Listen, im sure marboro is a very good player! However, I dont see how one man is gonna make a difference to HOT and our alliance. You might get your tribe to buy into your leadership and goals but the fighting still has to be done! Talking is the easy part. If RB would have stopped attacking WB then all of this could have been settled and NAP's would still be intact and everyone is happy.

Agreed. Talk is cheap.

Bring the axes.

Don't be like BOTK talking all that smack and RB still get owned.

BTW: BOTK... still waiting for you to turn this around. I remember reading quite a few posts where you kept saying to wait for a surprise / you will turn it around / etc. etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is interesting but it seems many people even can't read English in this English base web game.

NAP = Non-Aggressive Pact
It means there is no aggressive actions between the 2 tribes. But it doesn't prohibit any supporting actions.

It is an immoral action if you supports your friends against your ally because "ally" means you have to help your ally or at least not hurt his interests, but NAP is different, what NAP guaranteed is merely not attack each other and make the peace happens.

If you don't know that until now, you should thank me that I just gave you a lesson in Diplomacy.

By the way, Marboro, whatever you said, the account you are holding, pulashki, is HOT's property. You lie on schnapi4ever and got the account improperly. I am sorry to see you didn't improve your ethic standard since the day you leave years ago. If you think you are in justice side, at least you should not get an account in that way and make it RB's new flagship.

It is not a good thing that the account of new RB leader smell stink. It will make you very hard to bring glory to your new tribe.

 

[w33_chr1s]

NAP = Non-Aggressive Pact
It means there is no aggressive actions between the 2 tribes. But it doesn't prohibit any supporting actions.

But, if you supported someone, with the knowledge that that a NAP was attacking him, that would be aggressive behaviour...

 

[DeletedUser]

But, if you supported someone, with the knowledge that that a NAP was attacking him, that would be aggressive behaviour...

No, because your troops would merely be defending themselves, they would not be intentionally going on the offensive. Put simply, you would not be hitting the attack button by sending support, so no, that would not constitute aggressive behaviour towards a NAP.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, because your troops would merely be defending themselves, they would not be intentionally going on the offensive. Put simply, you would not be hitting the attack button by sending support, so no, that would not constitute aggressive behaviour towards a NAP.

But the attackers troops die right? I know HOT is great at word plays, but I'd assume you they consider killing as aggression, no?

By the way, Marboro, whatever you said, the account you are holding, pulashki, is HOT's property. You lie on schnapi4ever and got the account improperly. I am sorry to see you didn't improve your ethic standard since the day you leave years ago. If you think you are in justice side, at least you should not get an account in that way and make it RB's new flagship.

It is not a good thing that the account of new RB leader smell stink. It will make you very hard to bring glory to your new tribe.

Well, I agree that the methods used on taking over the account might not be the most honourable (though, I don't know how it went excatly, so can't say for sure), but if an aristocrat of HOT goes and gives HOT's property on someone, who has openly stated in the public forums that he's still loyal to the remains of his old tribe = TIO = Confederation = HOT's enemy, I'd say it was well deserved. Just like RB got what it deserved, when it trusted HOT, right?


Heh, I knew from the start of the war, that while it was unlikely for RB to ever win it, there was a fair chance of HOT still losing it :lol:

 

[DeletedUser7881]

Hey Jirki88, whats with the recon photo of forsberg? I don't get what you are implying with that one.

 

[DeletedUser7529]

But the attackers troops die right? I know HOT is great at word plays, but I'd assume you they consider killing as aggression, no?



Well, I agree that the methods used on taking over the account might not be the most honourable (though, I don't know how it went excatly, so can't say for sure), but if an aristocrat of HOT goes and gives HOT's property on someone, who has openly stated in the public forums that he's still loyal to the remains of his old tribe = TIO = Confederation = HOT's enemy, I'd say it was well deserved. Just like RB got what it deserved, when it trusted HOT, right?


Heh, I knew from the start of the war, that while it was unlikely for RB to ever win it, there was a fair chance of HOT still losing it :lol:

Wrong. He said he would stay loyal to the tribe the account was in.

HOT was never in danger of getting beaten by RB.

 

[DeletedUser]

Wrong. He said he would stay loyal to the tribe the account was in.

I guess he said many things then. Still doesn't change the point I had.

 

[DeletedUser7529]

I guess he said many things then. Still doesn't change the point I had.

Let's replay this for the hell of it.

Marboro[No Account]:I will stay loyal to the tribe which the account is in.
Schanpi[HOT]: (gives account of Pulashki to Marboro)
Marboro[HOT]: Thanks for the help man.
Marboro[RB]: (leaves HOT; joins RB)
Marboro[RB]: Goes and makes thread.
Marboro[RB]: Claims he will destroy HOT and launch at Gunbound]Ss[.


LOL.

 

[w33_chr1s]

isnt he going to be a future RB leader? isnt he taking BOTK's acc when he leaves?

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, congratz for HOT letting one, who's tribe you once in the past betrayed and beat, back to the game and suspect him to fight on their side. That's like a pedophile getting raped in the jail.

Also, I've heard these kind of rumours from HOT's aristos:

After all, we are not a tribe that hoplds players prisoners.

Or did HOT change the rules again?

 

[DeletedUser]

But the attackers troops die right? I know HOT is great at word plays, but I'd assume you they consider killing as aggression, no?

The attackers troops die, yes (assuming of course that the attack is not succesful). But they were the ones who chose to hit the attack button, thus making the aggressive action. To make an aggressive action is to make a hostile manouevre such as to attack another village with the intention of killing troops.

How can you apply that to defense where the troops are just sitting there and should such occassion arise where they are attacked have to defend themselves. Assume for a moment that a PA takes a new village and requests support, you send this support and the village is then subsequently attacked by a tribe who are at war with your PAs tribe, but hold a NAP with your own. How can those actions be regarded as aggressive?

 

[DeletedUser]

PIE is not at war with HOT.

So once again, whats the point if you wont fight with them?

 

[DeletedUser]

How can you apply that to defense where the troops are just sitting there and should such occassion arise where they are attacked have to defend themselves. Assume for a moment that a PA takes a new village and requests support, you send this support and the village is then subsequently attacked by a tribe who are at war with your PAs tribe, but hold a NAP with your own. How can those actions be regarded as aggressive?

I'd assume HOT puts global NAPs over single players PA relations, but I might be wrong again.

I can understand, that HOT wishes to go on WB's side rather than RB, since the relations in theirs diection have always been better. That's not what I said.
When HOT sends troops to kill RB troops during the time these tribes have NAP, they are violating it.

But since the war has been started already, these don't mattermuch anymore. However, HOT is building itself a certain reputation, when the tribe functions like that in it's diploamacy by nature.