OwneD1991
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 12623 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:49 AM |
As I've seen on the forums, UAF has made this miraculous recovery since getting destroyed by TCD, but I have yet to see any proof of this. Instead of proving this supposed 'dominance', they are cowering behind FoA, waiting for their allies to take the blow so False can claim the victory.
I have nothing against False as a leader, thought he did pretty well with UAF back in 2015, but this kind of attitude towards warring clans is ridiculous. Clan leaders shouldn't have the ability to back away from a war that they know they might lose, they shouldn't have to call in their strongest ally to fight something for them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Sevoly
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Feb 2016 |
| Total Posts: 1751 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:50 AM |
| UAF always raided with allies. Idk why. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lightnize
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Nov 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3458 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:50 AM |
| Nobody is backing away from a war but RAT. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
OwneD1991
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 12623 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:51 AM |
'Nobody is backing away from a war but RAT. '
There is absolutely no reason FoA needed to declare war on RAT other than to try and turn a 1v1 into a 2v1. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Deraktus
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1715 |
|
| |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:51 AM |
| well from what I've heard UAF negotiators have since refused the idea to 1v1 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:51 AM |
| With all due respect, I'm exercising a similar diplomatic position here as I did during the "War of the Rap" just last month. I don't particularly care who joins so long as raids are happening en masse. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lightnize
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Nov 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3458 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:51 AM |
| But we do have a reason and it's not a 2 v 1. It's a 1 v 1 with allies involved. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:51 AM |
"Nobody is backing away from a war but RAT."
RAT declared war on UAF. RAT said "no allies!" FoA gets involved. UAF lets them.
Now here we are.
UAF violating war terms, and then trying to say "oh LUL!!!" is actually disgusting.
Though it's easy for you to dismiss it considering the side you're on. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:52 AM |
"Nobody is backing away from a war but RAT."
>RAT just wants a 1v1 with UAF as stated. >UAF wont do the 1v1 wants allies in to support them because most likely UAF will lose without allies
then you say RAT is backing out? lol! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Valrath
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Jul 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2665 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:52 AM |
| i don't understand what is wrong with helping allies, we're allies for a reason |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lightnize
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Nov 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3458 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:52 AM |
"Violating war terms"
Sorry but was it approved by UAF? No.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:52 AM |
"With all due respect, I'm exercising a similar diplomatic position here as I did during the "War of the Rap" just last month. I don't particularly care who joins so long as raids are happening en masse."
Unilaterally doing so is not diplomacy. It's tyranny at its finest, |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
OwneD1991
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 12623 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:53 AM |
'But we do have a reason and it's not a 2 v 1. It's a 1 v 1 with allies involved. '
But why does UAF need allies? If they are as strong as they have claimed, they should be able to flawlessly destroy RAT without the forces of FoA backing them up. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lightnize
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Nov 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3458 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:53 AM |
| Yeah because RAT fears UAF & it's allies since together we form a powerful force. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:53 AM |
"Sorry but was it approved by UAF? No."
Then there is no war until a decision can be made, however you choose to spin it. We did not approve letting UAF use allies. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:54 AM |
bringing FoA into the wasn't accepted by RAT, lightnize
so by your own logic you're in the wrong |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Lightnize
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Nov 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3458 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:54 AM |
It is to get clans actively involved within the clan community, what better but a war between 2 sides with a bunch of clans? Would this not better the community rather than worsen it?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:54 AM |
| The only thing violated here is Poly's gender identification. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:54 AM |
"i don't understand what is wrong with helping allies, we're allies for a reason"
There is nothing wrong with it -- however we've expressly stated we do not want such allies involved in the war, so now there is something wrong with it if you go against it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:55 AM |
Polymorphic, I've already explained to you that denying any of our allies entry to the war, yours or mine, would be a direct violation of their sovereignty and counterproductive to the ultimate aim of a clan war, the most fun for the most people.
I, for one, don't mind the chaotic atmosphere this breeds. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
OwneD1991
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 12623 |
|
|
| 07 May 2016 11:55 AM |
'"Violating war terms"
Sorry but was it approved by UAF? No.'
So by your definition, RAT can approve updates to its own base without UAF's approval during the war?
Both sides need to agree on term changes. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|