DeletedUser
Guest
I see that Bravehertz had a number of top level players leave and start up an alliance BDT TEMP. What is the story? Are they with or against Blood-Dimmed Tide? Drama Drama Drama...
DeletedUser
Guest
this is for certain , good , elite players from BH who left, who may be given a chance to join BDT, but first they have to proof themselves worthy (you know, not backstabbing and stuff) and i think after this war is done with BH, they will probably be invited
so we are working WITH them
so we are working WITH them
DeletedUser20801
Guest
Is the reason for the temp alliance, because of Veater's very strong stance on refugees has meant he forbid them from joining BDT?
It was only last week, he was telling me I couldn't invite a player because he had been attacked by BDT.
But now BDT has taken on board players who have a Great Warriors CS sat in their cities...
Sounds to me like the pot should be banned for a racial assault on the kettle.
It was only last week, he was telling me I couldn't invite a player because he had been attacked by BDT.
But now BDT has taken on board players who have a Great Warriors CS sat in their cities...
Sounds to me like the pot should be banned for a racial assault on the kettle.
DeletedUser22179
Guest
Lets not get into this here but remember the circumstances are very different
We made them refugees not GW
We made them refugees not GW
DeletedUser22179
Guest
It is only wrong if another alliances is attacking a player and then you take them in
and this can be aggravated by a person with little power over you in another alliance demanding you stop your attacks
.
.
.
SCMG
and this can be aggravated by a person with little power over you in another alliance demanding you stop your attacks
.
.
.
SCMG
DeletedUser
Guest
damn hypocritical bdt people...
DeletedUser20801
Guest
GW are the other alliance who were attacking them, and you've taken them in. Confused much?
Stunning diplomacy as always veater. - Maybe you could spend a bit less time on here, and post a message to your pact allies letting them know that BDT Temp is/isn't an ally as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thane Badger
Phrourach
When you are winning a war and your enemies are on the run it's your perogative what you do with them.
If BDT want to recruit them then that's all fine and dandy. If their allies want to call refugee then they can sort it out between themselves.
We had some Bravehertz players join the Northern Alliance, I don't know all the details but it was with the agreement of BDT, who quite rightly, should have right of conquest.
When we defeated The Untouchables we recruited the entire alliance as an academy because there was so few of us we had no chance of conquering them all before some poachers jumped in and scoffed them up one by one.
I did notice that a lot of alliances disbanded early in the game and formed a new group when they were getting their butts kicked.
But that goes back to the nature of refugee. If a person leaves an alliance that is losing a war does that makes them a refugee or does it only apply to a player who has already been targeted for conquest and who is under attack?
I'd lean towards the second definition because otherwise most alliances are made up of refugees.
If BDT want to recruit them then that's all fine and dandy. If their allies want to call refugee then they can sort it out between themselves.
We had some Bravehertz players join the Northern Alliance, I don't know all the details but it was with the agreement of BDT, who quite rightly, should have right of conquest.
When we defeated The Untouchables we recruited the entire alliance as an academy because there was so few of us we had no chance of conquering them all before some poachers jumped in and scoffed them up one by one.
I did notice that a lot of alliances disbanded early in the game and formed a new group when they were getting their butts kicked.
But that goes back to the nature of refugee. If a person leaves an alliance that is losing a war does that makes them a refugee or does it only apply to a player who has already been targeted for conquest and who is under attack?
I'd lean towards the second definition because otherwise most alliances are made up of refugees.
DeletedUser
Guest
i don't care about refugees, if you are targeting a player and he/she hides in another alliance, just let the leader of that alliance know what's going on, and announce that you will keep attacking him/her, then it is their decision to defend him or not
DeletedUser
Guest
I always have been hesitant to accept anyone willing to jumpship at a sign of trouble. What's to stop them from doing it to your alliance in the future? Loyalty, I feel, go's a long way. Then again, I digress because I am a first time player. I keep forgetting this is Grepolis.
DeletedUser
Guest
Just look at our pacts! We have none! We're a wild card! Maybe we're planning an attack on BDT, or maybe we're planning to join - impossible to know because we make all decisions by coin flips and dice tosses!
DeletedUser22179
Guest
Not these specific players Scmg
DeletedUser22179
Guest
Its like going to the casino.
We are crazy clowns that are hypocritical and stupid we are also all on our period and lie cheat steal and bully
DeletedUser20801
Guest
Care to explain why the Colonisations stats on grepostats.com shows that a Great Warriors player conquered a BDT Temp player then?
DeletedUser
Guest
maybe he won't be accepted then?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
He prolly got the motha ****ing boot!
Also, I hear those GW players are a bunch of rotten cheaters... Almost as bad as those sniveling BDT point whores.
Also, I hear those GW players are a bunch of rotten cheaters... Almost as bad as those sniveling BDT point whores.
DeletedUser
Guest
Don't beat yourself up KC66. Everybody else knows that BDT and the sniveling traitors that joined from Bravehertz are point whores but there is no need for you to start believing it as well
DeletedUser
Guest
Are u meaning that you're also a cheater?
DeletedUser
Guest
No, a point whore... I'm in BDT, not GW....