добро пожаловать

It was actually all my plan. I had iscode play in MD and suicide so that he'd destroy their illustrious netting set and then reveal himself after he caused countless damage to our FDP's stronger countries.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/.../en/images/a/ab/Aizen.png

Tyranny techer is a good strat for both. The whole idea is to stock as much resources as you can, while being on the lowest military possible (because millitary raises losses due to expenses). You then use that stock to buy military and fight during war... or if your netting you buy lots of military with your stock to finish a high nw.

Techer also has the advantage of making missiles and optimising war techs.

I can't comment on other alliances, but I asume like ours, everyone has an established active community as this game is very old, but also has players who are less active and are only playing because they've known the community for 5-10+ years. For example, the guy who founded SoF 10+ years ago is returning next set to catch up with everyone and I'm sure more old vets will return as a result. Also the chances are that all the punk-ass kids who played this game when it first opened are adults with families now.

Regarding dynamics, there are roughly two ways of playing. You can either plan to net, so optimise your strategy to get the highest nw after two months, or war, where you build up big countries and fight another alliance. When, where and who depends on politics and strategy usually. And war is about killing, not so much taking land. The way this game has developed, grabbing for profit is very difficult unless you arrange deals to take ghost acres. As a result most countries can net without the risk of being attacked if they wish not to.

But yes you're right, different alliances set up for different things and usually have strategies in place at the beginning of the set.

Alliances do declare war on this board, but its less role play and more people whining about year's old grudges. :)

I believe all of the alliances here openly recruit any player who is willing to be a part of the group. The size and the power of alliances can fluctuate from set to set, but most of them are very old alliances with certain traditions and their own community wesites.

Regarding reputations, alliances are roughly split into warring and netting, or some that do one or the other in different sets (if the political situation allows). You can look through the history of NW rankings or find warstat threads on this board if you really want to dig deep, but you could just read this thread as alliances try to pitch their alliance to you.

I'm a head in SoF, one of the bigger alliances, and our philosophy is to defend our allies, our interests and our pride. As a result, we war 90%+ or more sets, which our memberbase is more than happy to do, because we are warmongers.

http://sof.earth2025.net/

Good luck.

Funny. Despicable is the first SoF member to post on this thread.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26487096

This is just not true. Just because Rosiya 24 paints this picture, it doesn't mean that its true. Lots of people haven't died; as if the rest of the worlds media would ignore this. I've seen videos of agressive gangs beating up protesters from the other side in animalistic fasion, but nothing of the sort of genocide that is being portrayed by the Russian media. The Russian media which is strictly controlled by the government. My belief is that many Russians are more than happy to believe this though, becase they are very patriotic and want to believe their country is doing the right thing. This sense of patriotism is drilled into them at a very young age throughout the whole education system and tv.

To be honest because of this, I'm not surprised Russians see the BBC and western media as Nazi sympathisers. The concept of a pluralistic media coperation that publishes all sides of the arguement is a foreign concept for them. The fact that our news corperations try to highlight the opinions of even the most unsavoury groups in the search to provoke debate is seen to them as glorifying these people. It might be useful for Russians in particular to watch these kind of videos as it gives you an understanding why they think this way, hence gives you an opportunity to argue against them and change the views of nazi supporters. Because what exactly is a fascist? For most Russian I speak to its just a very bad 'man' who wants to destroy them... nazi and bandit is almost interchangable.

Russia with an authoritarian government, a state which arrested 100 people who staged an anti-war protest in Moscow last week, where authorities in spb beat up a WW2 veteran for protesting against war, where pro-Russian groups in Crimea are beating western journalists for what they perceive as lies, should look closer at what a fascist is; then look in a mirror.

Crimea has always been kind of autonomous with its own identity and effectively its under Russia's control now. It's diffrent in the East though, there is no demarcation of East and West and the peoples have lived with each other for a long time. I feel there is a more of a united stance here, despite some pro-Russian groups and people being bussed over the border to protest.

It is true that the two far right parties did very well in the last Ukranian elections and a lot of them are anti-Russian. Three of the cabinet ministers in this caretaker government descend from that party and far right groups were present in the protests which attracted people from all walks of life. The new government did their best to remove a lot of legislation that the last regime implimented, including the revokation of Russian as an official language. It is likely true that there were groups of bandits desecrating Russian memorials too. However, nothing to the extent reported in the Russian media, which has played a big part in these events. I wouldn't say the Russians in Crimea are exactly liberal peace-loving people though. I saw a wonderful quote from one of them explaining that the Ukranian Nazi's were right about the white-supremacy thing, but wrong about everything else!

60% of the people in Crimea are Russian, but a minority of them are actually Russian citizens. The Russian authourities have started to give out passports to whoever requests one though.

Things have esculated today though. The Crimean parliament has declared itself a Russian state today and will ask the people to vote via referendum on 16/03. Ukraine claim that the parliament is illegitimate, but the Crimean parliament claim that they are not bound to the Kievan government, because they are illegitimate. Russia has neither confirmed or denied that they'd accept Crimea as a new state, but its very likely they are pulling the strings. It's obvious that the people will vote for Russian statehood. Even if it was a free vote it would probably be the case, but given that the country is under Russian military control and Ukranian media has been replaced by Russian media, expect surprisingly high figures. What will most likely happen is that Crimea will join Russia in practice while most of the world will refuse to recognise it. The rest of Ukraine will probably be galvanised though and the EU and US will move closer to oppose any future Russian interests. I think Russia will pay a hefty price, I see Ukraine applying for Nato membership which is a red line for Moscow. This could lead to a future conflict.

The immediate danger is that the Ukranian soldiers are still in their bases in Crimea and the navy is blockaded there. There is definately the possibility of them refusing to surrender and the Russians assaulting them.

Russia does have a long and intertwined history with Ukraine, they believe that the Russian state was born from Kievan Rus. Throughout history Ukraine has been part of the Poland-Lithuania Confederation and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, so although there has been a group of people who recognised themselves as the Ukranian people, there had never been any well-defined borders until they became part of the Soviet Union, where it became a region. During the Soviet period most of the Ukranians fought and died with Russians when opposing Hitler and the city of Kiev held out for a long time become a hero-city. After the war, a part of Poland was annexed to the country, which is where the majority of the staunchest pro-western and more unsavoury figures descend from and because there was no international border between Russia and Ukraine many Russians emmigrated to the Stalinist indutrial centres and agricultural rich regions of East Ukraine. The west of the country however always kept more of its European identity, hence the split.

Crimea is a different matter though. It's more its own entity, it was a Greek and Roman and Italian colony, it has been conquered by all the barbarian hordes and a vassal to the Turks until it was eventually conquered by Russia in 1783. At this time the population was mainly Tatar, but over the course of time the Russian population increased at their expense and after the end of WW2 Stalin expelled them all to central Asia for collaborating with the Nazis. In 1994 the Tatar population returned and now make up 12.1% of the population. The region became part of Ukraine in 1954 when it was transferred to Ukraine as a gift for their past sufferings (mainly the results of collectivisation and the war), but it was a nominal transfer as they were all one country. Now the region is about 60% ethnic Russian, 24% Ukranian and 12% Tatar. When the Soviet Union was dissolved it remained part of Ukraine as a autonomous republic, however the naval base was leased to the Russians.

Everything up until now has been kind of fine, but things are changing. Russia is no longer weak like they were in the 90's and Putin is determened to try and retain and increase Russian influence in the world. Why? You can argue that they are entitled to as other superpowers do, you can also argue that they are securing their long term economic and defensive interests. The shadow of WW2 and how close their country came to being destroyed is strong here. If you look at it from Putin's perspective, now is the perfect time to act. America's credibility is at an all time low and the majoirty of American's are fed of with politicians and foreign wars. The West were unable to show any united stance against Syria and looked weak, while Putin increased his reputation as a statesman. However, its obvious things wont be so rosey for him forever. The shale gas revolution is bound to change things; Russia's economy is so resource dependent and the strength of the EU and other powers are only going to get stronger. He was on the verge of losing his buffer to the West, and a country he genuinely believe should be in union with Russia. Putin has no desire for a new communist empire, but its obvious he feels that the collapse of the old Soviet political alliance was a geopolitical disaster.

Putin tried to use Russia's economic clout to bring the Ukranians back, something their president was more than happy to do given his Eastern Ukranian background and economic problems. However, he had won the election on a knife edge and his promise to join the EU while retaining friendship with Russia was one of his main pledges which had won him the elction. This led to all the protests, which would eventually force him out of office with the help of Western politicians. This infuriated Putin, he doesn't taking losing lightly. It forced him into making this move. From his perspective a worse case scenerio would be Russia securing Crimea, whether its through annexation of the country declaring independence and calling on Russia for protection (because his only Black Sea base is there). It is clear that he tried the old tried and tested method of provoking the Ukranians into conflict, but unlike the Georgians, they Ukranian army has not fired a shot. Russia has control of Crimea, but at the moment haven't moved into the Eastern provinces. I believe this is because the West is putting so much pressure on Russia at the moment. Despite what people say, the threat of economic sanctions will have a considerable effect on Russia in the short-medium term, but only if Europe is involved and Europe is still prepared to negoiate given the current situation. I think this is the right balance for the moment. The West has to keep negotiating while letting the Russians know that there are consequences that they are prepared to enact (even if its self-harming).

The US cannot do anything militarily, but they cannot afford to ignore the situation. We've seen from history that appeasement fails and the failure to check aggresive powers leaders to that power making more moves. They do need to be prepared to negotiate though, because people on all sides are no angels and their are a lot of legitimate concerns on both sides. However, I can strongly confirm that there is a big information and propoganda war going on, to the point where I'm no longer speaking to my best friend. She came to me last week asking about what's going on and I pretty much explained the broad arguments on both sides. However, after watching and reading the government controlled media she dediced that I was a liar and dangerous and the truth was that hordes of Ukranian Nazis were commiting genocide and speaking Russian could lead to the death sentence. The fact is that Russians are not bad people, they genuinely believe that their presence in Crimea is a humanitarian mission, but most Russians are so patriotic they are prepared to believe their media, because their country can do no wrong. As a result they really cannot understand the world's reaction, especially the US's after its past wars. Its very unfortunate and what's dangerous is that their government seems to believe in it too.

I don't want to give away too much regarding strategy, but I'll mention a few points.

SoL did have some higher land techers, but these had had less time to stock and the lower land techers had stocked much less effectively than ours.

When the war started SoL got off a FS with full turns and 5-10 more active members than us. They were able to catch out a bunch of members with BRs in the first few days too. However, instead of folding, as many alliances do, we were able to fight back and SoL wasn't able to capitalise on their chance. the result of the war is now in the balance.

Regarding SoL's peformance I think its the same as its always been. SoL has always had a high output, especially at weekends, and have always had a core of heavy wallers. They still have their long term weaknesses though. What's changed is that SoF's no longer an 80+ member alliance after being crushed for two sets. We started the war with 50 active members and activity problems, but we've managed to turn the corner.

tardland (#617)

Paradox games are pretty awesome.

Try paying all the way through Crusader Kings 2 and then export to EU4. I'm not sure if you can then export to Victoria 2, or have to wait until Victoria 3.

Maybe its getting to the stage where turns played means you restart with more land and cs.

The main reason MD went after LaF was because Arsenal wanted revenge for the LaF vs MD wars 7 years ago and LaF's connections with the old RD. However you didn't want a 1vs1. You plotted to take them down with SoL/Evo, who had pretty much begged SoF/LaF for one years of peace and put a sneaky little clause in that would allow them to help you. You FDPed two of our enemies in secret and planned to take out one of our FDP. Although MD wasn't hostile towards SoF, you totally sidelined us and relegated us to junior partners. We would have never known if Hanlong hadn't had access to your site. But instead of us being openly hostile, we took the decission to really make it a 1vs1 (and cover SoL) and pretend to be ignorant. We hoped that MD would have new elections, take a break from politics, have new elections and FDP LaF again. But then the Hanlong scandal happened and we decided to stick by LaF eventually leading MD to FS us.

Well if it is a bug it is undermining our war effort, as is the problem of not being to use the market despite being out of protection.

Really all these changes should have been tested.

You mean like the time you exploited back door access in OMAC to track all of Rivals untagged countries? And like the time you decided to reveal that Hanlong had Boxcar access when you fell out with him politically? Your are entitled to have your own opinions about the game should be run, but your problem is that you are very political and and opportunistic and the fact that you own the game makes that much more dangerous.

Wasn't your LaF policy to get pwned by SoL multiple times?

MD did mediate peace between SoF and PDM one set; the next set MD and PDM FSed SoF :)

Assuming we pacted LCN as well, we would have been pretty much pacted out and would have had a late civil war... better than netting on a server full of landtraders.

SoF was the first alliance to war against RD when they arrived to EE. We tagkilled them in a 10k FS. In response SoL 'forgot to renew our FDP' and organised a coalition with RD to go after SoF the following set. All the other alliances SoL invited told us of your plans...

So... Yea.

It was pretty obvious why Rival hit you last set. RD and Rival decided to team together to fight LCN who were planning on fighting alongside SoL, but also expected PDM/Rage to defend. It was intended to be a seperate theatre to SoF/LaF vs SoL/MD/Evo. Hardly some kind of blindside out of the blue. You also spin it that RD surprise FSed you or something. You actually did a missile defusal first strike, which everyone knows about, and you were one of the main instigators for their anti-SoF coalition. You were working to recruit allies and telling our FDPs to abandon, as well as warprepping. So don't act like you were some scorned little netting alliance.

Futhermore, I don't argue that you had a reason for hit Rival though. They must have thought your side would let matters rest after the victory last set, they must have believed all of the constructive propoganda... it was crazy for Rival to netgain. So that WAS a blindside and it left them in a state where they could continue a destroyed netting set, fight an unwinnable war or call in loyal friends. Your right, they could have CFed, but afterwards I was told about your offer of a CF, your plans to try and politically isolate them from us, your arrogant lecturing. I guess it was like the time you were telling me how badly we'd be perceieved if we hit Evo oop, despite ignoring the fact Evo was planning to hit LaF week 1 to demoralise them and by us FSing, we allowed LaF to crush SoL, hence saving Monsters, who were SoL's original target that set. But then again, being good allies does mean more to us than how we are perceived on AT... which is exactly why we defended RIVAL despite the inconvinient timimg for us.

And your are all wrong in thinking that we didn't expect this. We expected it all set. Although I cannot confirm it, I wouldn't put it past your coalition orcestrating the FS on Rival now to draw us out before we got even stronger. I've always felt that once SoL/MD finally had the upperhand, they were going to get revenge against SoF to make up for their past humiliations... This may take many sets and may not be completed until SoF drops under 50 members. BUT this thread reveals that it goes further. It is quite clear the leadership in these alliances are after SoV. No matter how much you attempt to paint him as the destroyer of this game and absolve Makinso, SoF, our true allies and reasonable neutral alliances will recognise that he is a force for good in this game. After rebuilding SoF internally, he's been working hard everyset to help other alliances, whether they are friend or foe. Maybe thats why so many small alliances are flourishing...

He also tried to make peace with SoL, despite their backstabs in the past and during that time they managed to do it again. The only reason SoL hasn't been bullying alliances around (although they tried to when they dropped their FDP with RD) is because they needed them for when they eventually turned on us.

So, again, I reiterate. SoF is a warring alliance. SoF will fight hell bent for our friends and SoF will continue to fight for the things we think are right. Alliances can try to beat us down, but we'll see how that goes :)

P.S. If SoL and MD were 'really' netgaining this set; didn't we dictate who could war and net this set? ;)

History suggests not so, I seem to remember beating MD 5 or 6 times in the last year and a half, fairly and unfairly...

Our ability to recruit good quality and active members is a strength of ours indeed, but you cannot deny our warring prowess. Back 2/3 years ago SoF was one of the better wargaining alliances. We fought a series of late wars and won some TNWs, but given the chain of early wars during the last year we have probably gone rusty and haven't had the opportunity to show it off... but it's not like we've forgotten how to; just look at our countries, more than decent.

Also, I'm tired of the same old line about netters being good warrers. It's not because they are good netters, but because they are good players. Although there is a lot of overlap between netting and wargaining, there are so many other factors. The biggest factor being teamwork.

mrford and a few others play in SoF if you like war...

believe llaar is netting in evo, and TIE above are also a good choice.

I've been alerted that you lose all jets out on PS; is this a bug or intentional, because it's a tactic now being employed against us.

I've long maintained that almost everyone who post on this forum is a hyprocrite. I admit that its amusing seeing SoF members complain about the number advantage, while MD/SoL/Their disposable Cannon Fodder, abandon all of their past 'public' ideals about fair wars.... "We felt this way until... 'last set', 'oh sof's an exception', oh but its ok now' 'we'll punish sof for a long time'..."

The server has been spun upside-down, but little will change with the politics. I find it all so interesting though. As it was in our one day of war against SoL, we are the best damn individual war alliance in the game... but now we'll get to see, how well we can fight ourselves out of a hole.

I really never understood your overt hostility towards SoF, and your friendliness towards MD. We had a lot of problems with PDM years ago, most of it about landtrading; which were genuinely grievences of ours. It's still something we disagree with, despite the claims that we were using it to invent wars... and even though the landtrading ideaology won out we still don't practice it ourselves. That's the thing about SoF, we have strong convictions; people may disagree with them, but at least we stck to them....

And even in that case it should be me and Ivan you resent. Once Xyle became a leader he's been working damn hard to help PDM, as far as to recruit for you guys. Yet all love MD, who never defended PDM once against SoF or LaF, but were happy to let you fight alongside them when they needed help.

I'm sure I'm on a different wavelength than most people which play this game. :)



If LCN didn't hit Rival (over the holidays), then SoF wouldn't have FSed over the holidays, so why is the onus on us... Furthermore, how come when we called LaF in last Christmas, our claims that we didn't want a war over Christams met such scepticism. Swings and roundabouts.

SoF members, leadership orders!

Stay on AT!

Is my memory fading. I thought SoF survived the SLIT era, which was a lot more daunting than this .

High land Techers and Cashers I agree with...


Low land techers and All-Explore Farmers with max agri... not so much.

I can confirm we don't like netting.

We at MD will decide whether LaF will leave SoF out to hang in due process.

Please stop posting fake war decs.

I don't know what your talking about. We had to break away from our netter missiler strats to even up this war. Even now we may need to call in more allies to plug the skill gap.

We declare war on SoF in defense of our good friend and ally SoL.

SOF made it very clear to us they would defend Rival, as any ally would expect them to. Being we felt that just crushing SoF with our FS was not sporting we decided to just add ... SoF to the mix to keep things even right from the start. SOL has also FSed SoF the last 2 sets in a row so it is our turn now.

SoF got a good FS off on SoL and crippled them severely, so the 51 country advantage SoL/MD/LCN have will count for little especially with SOF being fully war prepped. Should be a good fight especially with the changes.

TIE will be policing for SoF.

Good luck to all involved.

You can say what you want about us; we are what we are:

We are warriors.
We fight for our friends and honour pacts.
We hold grudges.
We try our best to help new alliances, and help smaller alliances internally and with their recruitment.
We don't have an AT ban.
We can be fluffs.

When we were in a more dominant position, we were pretty harsh at times, with the carrot and the stick. We were there for about 3 years, including times when we very weak internally and militarily; we made a pretty good run of it. If we weren't there someone else would be and the grass isn't always greener. I lived through the SLIT coalition... People have short memories.

The other way around, SoF has unspent stock, SoL hasn't.

I concur, why is that? Why hasn't the netgaining alliance got any stock?

You've been here for a few days and already made the worst decission possible heh.

Of course the MDer is going to buy into SoL's crap. They're all on the same page and part of the same coalition.

Nazi admin!

The game changes have made war so dull; AT is the only thing interesting.

Again, you misunderstand. SoF has never attempted to dominate the server; any attempt to do so is doomed to failure. Instead we wanted to be an alliance, which warred everyset, stood by its allies and had 'A' dominant position on the server which allowed us to fight challenging wars when active and easier wars when not so active. But yes, along with our allies we have fought unfair wars to try to preserve this position and avoid being in a position where our openents can do the opposite against us, which is exactly what is happening now.

And it's not just Makinso, it's you as well. Seeing as you felt the need to publicly post aponic's private convo's despite all the faux respect. I'll post a few choice convos.

mdevol I wouldnt join SoF as long as Xyle is leading that sinking ship
[SoF]Xyle lol
[SoF]Xyle sinking ship
[SoF]Xyle you listen too much to your own propaganda
mdevol ha i do?
[SoF]Xyle indeed you do
[SoF]Xyle for example, I challenge you to name one lie I've ever told SOL
mdevol I am pretty sure its you guys spreading propaganda in your recruitment letters
[SoF]Xyle aww does our recruitment upset you?
mdevol no
[SoF]Xyle lol
Boltar id rejoin sof but would need to be under my terms and conditions
mdevol it makes me happy
Boltar sof is my 2nd home
[SoF]Xyle oh but wait Boltar, we are a sinking ship
mdevol more of you to kill when you FS netting clans...
mdevol
[SoF]Xyle better keep clear of us
Boltar thats fine, i use to be very fat and have some boyancey left
[SoF]Xyle we FS netting clans? pretty sure SOL has more of a history of doing that than us... we've FSed what, 1 netting tag and that was for topfeeding us purposely and being assholes in FA dealings
[SoF]Xyle come on now mdevol, which netting tags has SoF FSed?
mdevol im talking about your intent to FS a netting clan this reset...which would also include the discussion of your recruitment
[SoF]Xyle lawl
-->| jon () has joined #earthempires
mdevol but yea
[SoF]Xyle "our intent"
mdevol yes
jon i intend to rape u xyle
[SoF]Xyle
jon then rape mdevol
mdevol jon, back in your cage
jon with same condom
jon who is tpa leader ffs?
mdevol
mdevol also, xyle, how does it feel to lose a war to a rookie war leader?
[SoF]Xyle It's unfortunate the way things are with some of SOL's leadership these days. At least Dragon is still there who I have implicit respect for. I still love Suni too
mdevol i am currently 1-0 vs sof
mdevol
mdevol that is all
[SoF]Xyle I didn't lead much last set, this much is known... and you didn't win anything, MD did a lot of the heavy lifting... but overall I am still 4-1 against SOL
[SoF]Xyle so I'll let you have one to feel good about yourself
jon hrms...
jon BS?
jon I think so. .
[SoF]Xyle explain to me how it is bullfluff
mdevol JON
jon I cant...censorship is a bich
mdevol yep, I have respect for aponic, it is unfortunate for him to be thrown into the fluff show of FR dept
mdevol hopefully in time he can get it back to where it needs to be
|<-- DeathRider has left irc.earthempires.com (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - http://www.trillian.im ~)
Boltar ok ok enuff of that
Boltar on to more important stuff
Boltar mdevol is trying to get with a hot little asian # sov has a hot wife
[SoF]Xyle no Boltar, I want to hear more about how I am the devil
Boltar do either of them have sister/cousins that are just as hot that u can hook me up with?
Boltar u have to be the devil brother
Boltar u live on the fluffing sun..
[SoF]Xyle according to them I lie all the time and I manipulate etc, I'd like some examples
Boltar its ok i love u all the same
Boltar next time ur in the states, u gotta come to dirty jersey we can hit the casino and have a drink in atlantic city
[SoF]Xyle indeed

Will you call in MD and claim another impressive war win again this set?

[17:26] '[SOL]Makinso' well
[17:26] '[SOL]Makinso' tbh with you
[17:26] '[SOL]Makinso' SoF was kind of a cakewalk
[17:26] '[SOL]Makinso' from the beginning

I wonder if SoL is delusional enough to even notice MD in their warchats.

[20:01] 'mdevol' actions speak a LOT louder than words, any chump and say what you want to hear. it takes men to honor that word.

So... SoL in the last 3 years?

[20:15] 'mdevol' my thought was when maki rejoined as a red sof refused to deal with him
[20:16] 'mdevol' and it naturally broke down
[20:16] 'mdevol' because of the histroy they have
[20:16] 'mdevol' but im not a historian nor was i even in leadership when that happened
[20:16] 'mdevol' so i dont know

No... actually, Xyle and Makinso were communicating for a while. The first war we had post-SPERM war with MD, we asked him what he would do in the situation and he agreed with us hitting MD. Also when SoL was going after RD, we didn't try to strong arm SoL, we tried to get them to agree to an arranged war as we did with Rival SoL a few sets before when Rival was intent on FSing them. What broke down the relationship was the fact that SoL started pacting all our enemies, neutrals while picking off our allies and then moved onto directly recruiting from us.

01[14:23:20] 'aponic' what would you like maki
01[14:23:33] 'aponic' im just trying to steer this alliance out of a poor position
[14:23:38] '[SOL]Makinso' what we're gonna do is sit around
[14:23:46] '[SOL]Makinso' watch what sof does
[14:23:53] '[SOL]Makinso' not be dictated in what you believe or what your paranoia tells you
[14:23:57] '[SOL]Makinso' I'm not gunning for anyone

Right...

[14:24:57] '[SOL]Makinso' I was not amused with how SoF has performed with SOL in the past year
01[14:24:58] 'aponic' you have gone out of your way to accuse me of things
[14:25:00] '[SOL]Makinso' double ethics
[14:25:12] '[SOL]Makinso' and while I won't commit to warring SoF
[14:25:27] '[SOL]Makinso' I'm not very reluctant on pacting sof either as I have no idea where that curve ball will fall

Um...


... yea.

Wait so you apparently panic buyed in the last week, because Aponic who hasn't been playing, while on holiday, for a month, mentioned something about an arranged war after the Holidays (aka: Second week in January) at the end of last set. This is despite having members and MD allies update us all (and failing) while we were swimming along fine on green. But, oh wait, we made the terrible crime of stocking; something alien to most SoL countries I've come accross. We hadn't even got to our conversion stage. Hell the later any potential war the better, our stock gap would have grown ever more.

Btw, I've seen the logs. It was actually me who warned you all about us coming early. That is because I believe you are working on trying to destroy us as a power and I have umpteen reasons to justify this. Hitting early is the best counter to unwinnable conflicts where we are outnumbered designed to weaken us. Yet, others convinced me that hitting early wasn't the right move, so we didn't...

... and you talk so nice about Aponic in public, but in fact in the logs you saw you treated him and SoF like a fluff. He offered you an aranged war after the holidays. You declined on the pretence that we refused to arange wars in the past. As if we were going enter something so cordial after you had spent the last year recovering under our protection and at the same time plotting to weaken us and our allies, directly recruiting from us and waiting for the opportune moment turn on us. He also offered you a uNap and left the table completely open... but your response was no... 'We'll be watching you'... the arragance. 'We'll be netgaining, trust us... are you paranoid?' Yes, we fluffing are after being backstabbed three time in three years. The first time was when SoL 'forgot' to renenw our FDP when they planned to hit us with RD. For years, you denied this was your plan, but it became clear a few sets ago when you dropped RD's FDP and fought them with the excuse that RD bailed on them back then during the anti-SoF coalition (Which was never supposed to have existed). And even more... this recent aggression towards RD was in the same period after the SPERM war where SoF offered SoL a FDP to start on new relations and leave the past behind, but almost immidietly after agreeing to this SoL drops one of our major allies over a reason in the past. (Then they went ahead and secretly signed a FDP with their long-term enemy LCN who FSed us that set and was hostile against us). And then there is the one that takes the cake... The set where LaF crushed SoL so hard, a few hours into their FS Makinso called a meeting and threatened to disband SoL unless we signed a peace. Eventually LaF/SoF signed a year peace deal with SoL/Evo, but at the same time MD/SoL/Evo were in a chat plotting on how to kill LaF and inserted a clause to which would allow them to do so. Sorry that I don't take SoLs words as gospel.



1. I was talking about the incident where Rival CFed with the enemy, while we continued fighting. That was when they were able to rebuild and consilidate. Regarding Rival's FS on LCN, it was one stage of a larger war, one which Evo and PDM joined.

2. I never said there was anything wrong with LCN hitting Rival. Yet, given the circumstances the war was over after the AB FS. Rival had the choice of CFing or calling us in. They called us in and we oblidged.

3. We didn't need this excuse for hitting you and LCN. We have more than enough reasons, not as if we need a reason since you didn't pact us. It would have been more convinient to hit you later, given our potential stock and missiles. Yet, we had to mobilise quickly as we saw failed ops on us, saw you jumping and saving turns and then believed us to be the targets of a SoL/LCN FS. And yes things turned out differently and we had three options, continue running turns on alert, go back to green, or hit. When Rival formally requested our assistant it made the choice easy, then we had to choose LCN or LCN and SoL; we chose the latter.

4. You are almost making it sound like we got Rival FSed on purpose as a pre-text for a war... If anything, it's more plausable that its the opposite; LCNs attack was to bait us in and give SoL/MD the pretext to crush us some more... and to do it before we got too big.

5. I admit that one n00b did do a topfeed on a SoLer. But in response to that there was a volley of SoL grabs far outnumbering grabs the other way. It is almost as if the one grab damaged your pride and you tried to get revenge (This is what some SoLers told us). However, we won out big on the grabs and members were told to stop (Also conveyed to us by SoLers).

6. I never put the onus of the war fully on SoL, I recognise that we had a big part to play in it and we would have still probably warred regardless of this incident; just later. However, no one is under any illusion that SoL is an innocent party, except perhaps their deluded members.

7. So in summary, you effectively told us no war, no pact and you'lll be keeping us on a tight leash and threw in a few insults for good measure. Then the same alliance who has screwed us over multiple times in the past tells us to trust their words. We did what any self respecting person would do, we didn't put up with your voyeurism. When your little brother put his hands on our little sister, we decided to teach him a lesson and give you a good kick in the knee before you had the opportunity to move from voyeurism into something much more perverted. All that remains to see now is whether your bigger brother in the Morally Decayed police force will put trumpted up charges against us.

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.

Reform ZT?

1) The Russians see the shield as a potential counter to their own Nuclear deterrent, so this secures that they still have something that is sure to evade a potential missile shield.

2) They are trying to frighten these countries into withdrawing from the project. Once the shield is completed, the US has a lot more influence over them.

They are basically trying to fight Western military/economic encirclement of their country.

I wonder, is any alliance in favour of this?