Originally
posted by
Flamey:
Once Rival called us in, we were always going to defend them; we stand by our true allies. Rival did not abandon us last set; they were a victim of circumstances and had our blessings to withdraw, rebuild and consolidate. I am a bit surprised to why they chose to net this set; they seem to hold a lot more trust in SoL/LCN than I do. It allowed LCN to blindside them while they were in total netting mode and when most of their member base were packing to go on holiday for the New Year. Given the code change, once Rival was flattened, there was no way back; even if Rival rallied their stock and killed back it would have had little effect
It left SoF in a tough position. We also knew that both SoL/MD could defend LCN, but if worse comes to worse; we'll rather die as good allies. In the end we decided to hit SoL too, because they were on full turn save, warprepped and had made it clear that they'd defend LCN. Regarding the numbers, just like the LCN vs Rival war this war is numerically even. Yet, just like that war, this one also isn't 'even' in practice. Despite SoL and certain leaders acting like they were god of war last reset when grinding us down with MD, a continuation of this war without interference would highlight the true power gap between our alliances and war teams. I'm sure rather than experience that SoL will call for allied support instead of following the propoganda they've been spouting out here for the last few years. And although you all exagerate about SoF always fighting uneven wars; it is true that we've fought many to preserve a strong political position in the server. Why did we do that? Well isn't it clear, once the shoe is on the other foot, those 'oppressed, honourable, even war alliances' turn out to be even worse.
And netgaining my ass. You were wargaining from the offset, we saw it in the ops when taking retals. Even if you claim you weren't planning to war; you were wargaining at the very least. And if you were netting, you went about in a funny way... When approached for a uNap or friendly war, you rebuffed us in an arragant fashion; arguing that we didn't give you the same preference in prior sets, but at the same time forgetting that you had backstabbed us for the third time in three years. Aponics point was that without a pact or something arranged we'd end up coming to blows anyway. There is such hostility and a lack of trust between our alliances, and we have allies on other sides... Also taunting our President in a public chat about how much you beat us last set (somehow forgetting that MD were involved as well) wasn't particular the most constructive move, as were the multiple topfeeds per day.
And yes, Of course we had planned to war this set... we are a pure war alliance, who sees no interest netgaining in a server full of landtraders, internal farmers, FA chainers etc. We had many reasons to hit SoL/LCN without this, but we hadn't planned on warring for a few weeks. We only went red as a result of SoL's turn save and buying up. We expected to be the target of SoL/LCN aggression on Thursday; but it turned out differently.
So, you allowed RIVAL to rebuild and consolidate by gang-banging LCN? and when LCN came back for revenge, in a somewhat even 1v1 war, you wont stand for it? Sound logic.
What you should have said is "Except for the triple tap, that we made out on HUGE, SoL did a good job of not giving us a reason to hit them, despite our efforts to bait them, so we had to use RIVAL as a backdoor into a war."
it would have been much shorter and to the point. RIVAL (who claims they didn't want this war) were offered a CF within hours of the war starting and dclined it. Why? Could it have been because SoF saw their opening potentially closing?
As for the topfeeds, that is laughable, the first land exchange between SoF and SoL was a blatant topfeed from SoF on SoL. All the hits are recorded, there is no need to lie about it. For the most part, the land trading was pretty even and fair, minimal topfeeds, and certainly not "multiple topfeeds per day" as you claim. Furthermore, if either side was winning retals, it was you guys.
SoL WAS in fact, netgaining, with minimal war techs until it was very evident SoF was going to hit somebody (likely us) as the threats from earlier in the reset were becoming a real possibility. Up until Aponic left we were still telling him that we were not interested in war and that we were netgaining, did we not? As SoF continued to grab it was in our best interest to carry SOME military, especially with the landgrabbing picking up coming from SoF. If you go back and re-check your ops, you will also notice that SoL has very little or no offense, what we did have was almost 100% defensive units to prevent the landgrabs that we were promised would come.
I really hope your clan doesn't believe this stuff you post. This is why I feel bad for Aponic, at least he would stand here and be honest about things. If you are a war clan and you have no other reason to war, just say you are being fluffs and are going to war. We all know that is the case this reset. Aponic said that, in pretty plain text. He is a stand up guy and you guys just keep making his job harder. Posts like this, and the mentality that it is derived from, is precisely why SoF is where SoF is at today.
You were told repeatedly by us and by every alliance on the server that SoL was not going to initiate any aggression to you. The conversations between SoF and SoL went about like this.
SoF- do you want a pact or an arranged war?
SoL- we are not interested in War or pacting this reset, we are keeping our options open in the even our ally gets hit and we are not pacting out to isolate them. You of all clans should understand this
SoF- well we need to war
SoL- and...? we are not interested, we offered you even wars the last 3 sets and you spit in our faces and ended up either ganging up on us, or isolated our allies and hit them, we are done with it.
SoF - but we need war, our clan will fall apart without war, especially after last set
SoL - and...? we are not interested. we are not going to war unless we are hit or our allies are hit. We are netting.
SoF - well we cant just wipe out a small clan, so it leaves either you or md.
SoL - We are not interested. especially with it being a holiday reset.
SoF - we will just have to landgrab and bully you into a war then if nobody is gonna take us on.
SoL - threatening a war isnt going to get you a war, we are not interested. We are netting. Ask around, everybody we have talked to knows our plans, we are netting and have no intention to war.
SoF - .....
That is pretty much how it went. Now you are trying to put the onus on SoL for instigating this war? What a joke.
Aponic, I am sorry you have to deal with this.
EE Patron