Here is a neutral view for all of you children



I think the whole problem is right here in these two lines. GIFT first off, should have declared who the subs were, and who weren't. If I was SNN leader, Id have tried to kill G1FT off early, knowing they were subs and knowing they weren't declared as such. SNN is not wrong here for having attacked GIFT's sub. Nevertheless, if I was GIFT leader, I will immediately call off the NAP, my mistake or not, and attack SNN. I think that is what happened.

The matching ETA issue, is a lame reason to start a war. I don't like territory deals myself, and I always like to share area, since that gives me better coverage. Secondly, it makes another side think twice about attacking me since I have outposts all over, so planning a war isn't as simple, when you have a territory deal. And I have won every time I have shared area

The downside to having a shared area is competition. When 2 active alliances clash, there is bound to be sniping and loss of squads etc. I will blatantly say, that if you play against me and share area with me, I will snipe you where I see you, just to kill your units. I ain't ashamed of that, I will do it just to kill your squads and to have the upper hand especially when it comes to resource outposts and infrastructure along the coast lines etc., Anyone can try doing the same to me no problem. I am sure both GIFT and SNN did the same, so none of them should really be bringing this as a reason for the war.

Lastly the most important thing here - GIFT are simply better at war than SNN are. Sorry to say that, I am against GIFT this era, but facts are facts. GIFT know their members, how they perform (except for a few imo, who are playing first time or are not regular members) and therefore it gives them an upper hand in a war. If SNN were equally capable I am sure there wouldn't be so many arguments.

And Finally, Twilight, I don't think you mean to be a suck up, and I know you are sticking up for your side, but not everything GIFT did was right. I am not gonna go quote every point of yours and negate your arguments (though I can), but that's that. SNN were politically correct, but GIFT has the upper hand in war. And you should really make your posts shorter. I read the first few, then I totally skip your other posts. Your arguments kinda fly over people's head, just because of their sheer length.

Gosh, I made a long post

LOL look whos talking

I know

That's why my last line

Looks like Andy couldn't help posting again, with more personal attacks... big surprise. I would like to see him fight 1v1 if he is so confident, but I am used to 3v1, fighting alliances insecure in their ability to perform without a large numerical advantage, and we'll still out-perform them.

Daerduo, I agree it's a lot of finger pointing... I am merely playing the game, I didn't create whining threads when SNN violated our agreement. I simply messaged the leader to try and talk, and when he refused to negotiate I started planning the attack. I did my best to remain peaceful, but they forced my hand. Just because Twilight is on my side doesn't mean I'm a saint, that would imply that the neutral position is that I'm wrong... which is incorrect, I'd say the neutral position is that this is a war game and SNN is slinging mud because they lost their territory. No one is a saint in a war game.

Deadman. Going ahead of our ETA's is not a reason for war, that's sniping. Matching ETAs purposely is reason for war when our agreement was discussed to avoid it, and when they refused to turn around when we got to OPs first is also reason for war. They attacked GIFT OPs! Just because I didn't post screenshots and create a whole forum debate over it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm not out to prove to the world what horrible people SNN are, they just made some faulty moves and paid for it. What people think about their morals is inconsequential, facts are facts, no matter who believes otherwise.

If you were in SNN's position and tried to rush to take G1FT out, no honorable leader would let you, war would be declared. So that wouldn't be in your best interests.

SEE That's the problem. Last page I made a long rational argument detailing how both sides were at fault and we should recognize that and now both YOU AND DAERDUO are land-basting me for doing the exact opposite of that because I started shouting at Ferr3t and Trevor!

SHORT POSTS FTW!!!! I need to shut my trap and stick to my Name! THE WARRIOR POET!!!! Maybe if I write all my posts in Rhyme, people will listen to me.

Too much prose and a mouth much verbose
Makes a man roast his own toast
His audience begins to zone out
And even his friends begin to pout

@Cosmin & Mfreak
Myess I thought about being a lawyer and I think I might be good at it but I've hated every lawyer I've ever met...

Going ahead is alright, yes. If GIFT had taken outposts, and if I was in a NAP deal with them, then I would turn my squads around.

Purposeful matching of ETAs cant really be proved. I mean, it can be argued both ways. If SNN matched your ETA, you are matching SNN's ETA. Unless they message you - "Watch me snipe you and kill your units "

And if I was in SNN's position, the first war wouldn't have happened. I would have probably messaged you a map with a boundary of a few ticks from each others hive and maybe a NAP until all relics were claimed. That's just me.



No am not saying that. I certainly did read your posts. Though your posts regarding GIFTs faults were akin to responding to a question like - "List 5 of your greatest weaknesses" in a job or college application

Which means, you say negative stuff that still sound positive

Well I asked them not to match and they replied saying they were doing it on purpose. Is that not clear enough?

Hahaha, I see what you mean then. If that's how it sounded then I'm guilty of the same thing I was getting onto Ferr3t for, with his whole "We were Defending" line. lol

I too would have handled things completely differently. I think my biggest problem with the whole ordeal is SNN's handling of it all. It's so very different than how I would have done things, but that's assuming I wanted the NAP and most of the time I just feel like SNN's intentions were simply to goad GIFT into a fight to begin with. Taking everything they say at face value just doesn't seem to add up.

But whatever. I'm keeping my posts short so people read them, right? That's all for now then.

twighlight you haven't been playing long enough to know about NAPs. please stop commenting like you know everything a out BD...

this is to your remark about GIFT attacking the op and "never going through with it except 4 squads" what you said on the last page.

It does not matter if it was a massacre attacking an op of an alliance with whom you have a NAP is breaking the nap. just because ping was "massacred" doesnt take away from the fact that she launched on the allied op.

now please stop commenting till you have played at least a year in top alliances to learn the rules.

I disagree Trevor. I have actually already experienced 2 separate and completely independent cases with 2 different top 3 alliances where a blatant attack was made during an NAP and both sides made up, apologized, and continued on their way. At least one of these two alliances has actually won at least one era that I know of, so they clearly know what they're doing.

Forgive me for asking you to simmer down back there but I honestly thought you were being rude or I wouldn't have mentioned it. Just like you are now...

Now to return the favor.
If it honestly took you a year to learn the rules of Battle Dawn then perhaps you should see a Doctor... as you may potentially be a moron.

Just because the new blood sees things in a different light, doesn't mean you have to jump down my throat and tell me to be quiet for a year. I'm hardly going to apologize for having an opinion on the forum of the game I play in a thread about a war I'm involved in when you're hanging about making it repeatedly clear that you have no part in all this.

I think my position makes me infinitely more qualified to comment on these subjects than you sir... and furthermore I think you owe me an apology...

Take back what you said and I'll retract my Moron comment and we can be friends again.