lol

MASSIVE difference between backstabbing another alliance and backstabbing your own alliance. That should be obvious.

Day of Darkness

Yeah? I didnt see all this "honor" talk back then is all am saying.



He backstabbed his own alliance. Thats totally different from breaking NAPs.



Well when these same people that you know well

a) Demand too much and get pissed that we take conquers, crystals and resource outposts.
b) Piss in your cornflakes and make every alliance you attack their subs
c) Match ETA with you with the INTENT of killing your squads (see previous pics)
d) Use cocky language to demand stuff from you

then in that case they arent really treating you as friends. Why would you expect us to treat you any differently?

Point is you want to win as much as we do. Hence why we see more explosive units in your squads. And you did have a plan to backstab later on, just that we jumped the gun before you. No biggie.

shut up...


here is the full BR fellows

http://www.imagetolink.com/i/3fee7ba29d ... 5263c71d9f

And about back-stab, yes we did back-stab.

But in one way or other UN was the one that back-stabbed earlier.

U know why?

We fought TA and PHX from tick 200 or so.
When TA and PHX lost and got weakened they relocated to australia as UN gave them asylum there and UN taking some OPs of TA.

Then both alliances PHX and TA merged to form UA and UB.

Again after that POTC and HaHa fought UA and UB and were pushing them off to eastof AA.

*Bang* -> UA and UB were declared as UN subs...WTF?
And all the attacks on them were to be stopped?

^ this is what era long allies were meant to do??
Taking our enemy and preparing to strike us with whole world of their subs? (oh yea some 18-20 subs)
And it was after all these nonsense from UN we decided to go war.

Win or lose. Lets have some fun guyz

Yeah take your own advice instead of making a lot of unnecessary noise.

ok backstabber

vaite foder amigo

Well, I've been quite for most of this talk. I've always been one who's against backstabbing, but I do have to agree; UN was looking for a war here. If not, then they are the sh#^est allies in the world. Purposeful sniping with intent to kill. It was constant "oh, that pro player is offline right now, and it just so happens he is conveniently about to kill BYZ units with a perfect anti BYZ squad incoming. Oh and if he doesn't get online in time, that OP is ours".

Add in the demand for us to back down on our enemies (remember PHX?) and then make them into a sub. When TA/PHX merged into UA/UB, they asked for a ceasefire and we gave it to them. Only to be back-stabbed then and have nearly 200 BYZ units killed off. And conveniently, when we went to get UA/UB after this fiasco, UN calls them a sub? But of course, this isn't considered a betrayal.

UN can claim they wanted peace all they want, but they've been pushing for us to war for a while now. Not to mention, who the hell are we supposed to war with? There's only 8 alliances that AREN'T a UN sub within the top 20. And to top it off, we're allied with just about all that aren't. Any enemy we did have, UN took in as one of their own.

So, what does this leave us?
1. Allies that are constantly trying to kill us
2. No enemies to fight
3. Constant demands from our ally (notice I said demands, not requests)

I'll go ahead and say that it was a back-stab from BYZ. But I would hardly call it uncalled for.

the really funny thing here, is that for the 6+ years that i am here, people don't learn... it is the same every era.

this is why i hate NAPs. they hold as long as both parties have no interest in attacking each other, but then what do i need a NAP for? once the interest in a NAP is over for one of the sides, they will break it, and then they will get excuses out of their as#!es to justify their move.

NAP is nothing... all you have is trust between real friends which obviously wasn't the case here. in E1A3 (old client), we (BUL5) fought along with another alliance (CRH), we became real friends and trusted each other completely. that was a full round true friendship that held even when our main wanted to attack them for the winning. We gave up #1 for them and settled for #2 because we wouldn't fight them (although we were much stronger). oh, and did i forget to mention... we never had a formal pact of any kind.

NAPs are nothing. think about it the next time you sign one.

cheers

Guys,

As usual Avi is wrong. NAPs are great. Best thing is to make a NAP, then 2 ticks later lock and attack the other alliance and kill them all. Especially if they are led by a wuss who doesn't like NAPs. That will teach them a lesson.

So I am all for NAPs as long as I break them first