not exactly, we would have preferred a later war but didnt think you would wait if you had decided to war us again this set, and we thought if you waited long enough for the war to be at the time we would have liked it to be, you wouldnt have been planning to war us anyway and would have warred someone else in the meantime, and we would rather have netted than hit you late at that point as well

the 242 thing really boils down to me to:

242 was kind of laf, kind of helped laf, and sol and laf have moved on, neither of us want to do this whole shindig again next set, so i just dont get why you wouldnt have just moved on from 242 as well

SoL and LaF had moved on yes, if it was tagged LaF we would have left it like we left the original that went into vacation halfway through a kill run. As it didn't drop the pacts and our police were busy we had to wait until a suitable time. We didn't say we weren't going to kill it.

new game, new slate, people didn't war RD, because we probly believe that even D-Bags, as they were in E2025, deserve a second chance, and a clear slate.

you dont think laf who warred sol would be interested in sol killing countries because of that war?

anyway our position boils down to 'that was lame' not 'were going to do something about that' or 'you shouldnt have done that'

What was "lame" was that it didn't drop pacts when asked, simple as. It could have taken itself out of the equation completely but chose not to. This works on both sides, either #242 could have dropped the pacts itself, or after seeing that #242 needed more allies on AT the countries allied to it could have dropped it for them. If both sides didn't want the pacts dropped they must have been there for a reason to benefit both sides.

"I think the real reason is SOL did not like seeing a country run by a member of the alliance that FS'd them potentially finishing above their highest rankers, and potentially tagging up as LaF at the very last moment. Quite frankly, I see that as a valid reason for taking 242 out. "

well the problem there is already a few LaF restart that are already higher nw than the top SOL country. plus i doubt SOL cares about networth/rankings anyways.

i do understand the country is untagged, and SOL could just say they wanted to learn how to take out big targets, etc. as war practice and an untagged country is a good target. then the debate would be whether or not SOL is driving untagged players away from this game.

i find the attempt to justify killing him based on the already past SOL/LaF is weak at best. the timing of this is just off. it really doesn't compute, just like if i brought up stuff that happened to me from 2002 in earth: 2025 or something to justify something that i want to do now in earth empires.

there's usually a time limit for action on things that really tick you off. does it really take a war happy alliance that long to react to something that truly upset them? otherwise its just a conveninent excuse