That is not what i heard or remember. If i remember correctly there was 3 cities. and in so doing this you started taking all the cites you could along the coast that you could under the naps easily. Still that was breach of the naps, we cant help it that your people fell out of bounds. It was clearly stated you cant take any cties in 55 and you did end of story. If you didnt like how we responded maybe you should control your people better.
Since I was the one handling the diplomatic arrangements on the Styx end I feel it would be prudent to enlighten you with some details that you may or may not be aware of and how things were agreed upon, in a diplomatic level between me and
Deadly Truth (raiders). The agreement was that both alliances keep all their cities four islands deep in each others core and could only conquer cities one island deep again in each others core (Styx core = 45 | EN/O core = 55). Admittedly there were breaches a couple of times on this specific part of the agreement on our side that I tried to resolve in coordination with
raiders and compensations were given (
WildNisa and
RogerDog cases). But you (and others) seem to have a selective memory on this. It seems it has "slipped" your mind that EN/O had breached this specific part of the agreement a
dozen times from the inception to the final drop of the NAP. Not to mention that your alliance had the privilege to initiate this trend. Also Kronnos seemed to have a serious issue with us conquering two cities
within the allowed zone that had previously been
agreed upon by
both parties, in a ludicrous delirium against us, which really tipped us that there were more behind this and possibly a pending attack was in the works. Unfortunately that was what happened a few days after with you breaching another part of the agreement, that of giving a week notice before cancelling the NAP. Partly ingenious because you caught us unprepared but added to your already bad reputation about trespassing your agreements repeatedly.
There is certain respect for enemy in a game that is called a war game because with out either us of what would either alliance have to fight for? Yet you dont show the respect that we show for you guys. Its not about what was broke or you think we are liars and cheats. That is what the war is for. Respect is given because after all this is just a game and we are still her to play it.
I am not sure where you got the impression that we have no respect for your alliance in general. I for sure have a great respect for many of you and certainly I have no problem with your alliance other than the fact that we are at war with you and have to fight against your members. I guess sometimes things may get heated and out of line, this stands true especially in the first days of war, but that doesn't necessarily denote lack of respect or acknowledge and is something expected more or less.
Taken inactive is a sign that shows weakness on your end because you go for the easy takes. Sure its easier but some things are more moral.
Yes recently you got lucky breaks on a few members duh! after what 90% of your cities are inactives of course your going to get easy breaks on the islands that you got from the inactives alot people would agree with this.
I will make a totally new post and ask people what they think of just taking inactives. I bet you 8 of 9 would leave the alliance in search of one that goes for enemy instead of play these silly little games especially since you guys have what 4 alliances.
taking a blind mans money is easy but doesn't mean im going to do it.
If you think taking inactive players is a sign of weakness then I am afraid you haven't fully grasped the reality in Grepolis yet. People playing part time or quitting are common place and leaving cities floating next door to be grabbed by others later can prove to be risky business for you and your alliance. You may be able to take enemy cities from active players during well organized ops against another alliance of the same caliber or less, but in a stage that inactivity is in high levels expect your enemy to not only quickly fill the cities lost with inactive targets but even more from the battle points gained. And if you persist on filling your slots exclusively from active players, part of active alliances that can decently defend their members, then you will end up with much more slots than you can fill this way and at the same time your enemy will steadily increase stronger than you to completely beat you down in the end. In the grand view, a smart leadership will combine all sources, active and difficult targets in well organized ops to boost moral and raise interest and loyalty, and easy/opportunistic targets in strategic locations when possible to fill the slots and strengthen their position with more cities.
As for your unfortunate comment about us being lucky on taking cities from you, reports of support flowing in several cities that we had been targeting and snipe attempts in some occasions prove that any success we may had was definitely not a lucky occurrence. I reckon we do jump on your inactive members as well for reasons already mentioned or we may have been targeting less active members of yours from time to time but
so have your alliance in many occasions. I recognize that you have some among your ranks that are suburb players and you have taken cities from us that you deserve credits for in some cases, but if you carefully analyze the facts and the conditions without bias then you may realize that both of our alliances at this stage are pretty much balanced and even, and if there is no change in status we have many battles ahead to banter for
Last but not less using the same argument that you have been accused for countless of times in the past and have defended so passionately, that we are two alliances against one (four vs two if wings are included), is ludicrous at least to say.
The Norse/Loki is a different alliance with different leadership and not the same alliance with us. If having allies is considered a crime then all of us are guilty as charged. As a memorandum
The Norse and us started as allies during the early days of
Belle, when both were just an average alliance struggling for survival in a local level, under the shadow of alliances like EN/O and PD. The fact that we not only survived but have gone a long way over the top five spots when other, bigger alliances have failed speaks a lot. At least when we decide to ally with another alliance we keep on it and will not back stab them at first opportunity.