AMA vs sanct round 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goodz

Immediatly on elit waving sanc i contacted him and told him I would reset notice if he let sanc retal 1:1 to get land back that they just took in wave. Then he would have 48h from a bit later and a cf with sanc. He asked for 30k and 1 week at that point I said no to that :)

---

I didn't ask land from you, not like you can give it. Its how much we can gain from sanctuary. Reset notice when they just burner all our gold and FB our provinces is not deal what we can accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

Am I allowed back in #forfun now?

---

Lucky you're no faery this age, cause it seems AMA is mean to them atm :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Lucky you're no faery this age, cause it seems AMA is mean to them atm :p

---

Its why we are friends now :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elitbg

not all is accurate. For example Sanctuary was full trained before his war.

---

Sanc being trained before war wasn't mentioned. Didn't think it needed to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elitbg

Sanctuary accuse us in bug abuse come first and after it we asked them for gc farming.

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goodz

Immediatly on elit waving sanc i contacted him and told him I would reset notice if he let sanc retal 1:1 to get land back that they just took in wave. Then he would have 48h from a bit later and a cf with sanc. He asked for 30k and 1 week at that point I said no to that :)

---

Privately or publicly? And was this before or after his public offer of 20k acres from Sanc and 1 week cf with you? I ask because:
a) Order matters
b) There are continuous claims of no private negotiations made all the way up until Elit makes the public offer

Ezzerland, he offered reset notice if we give Sanctuary land back in private. All this summary is very complicated and bring some propaganda. Events order is simple.

1 Sanctuary loss his war vs AMA in fair 1vs1 war.
2. AMA had clear cow and core advantage vs Havoc so Sanctuary decide to mess with us oow
3. After Sanctuary robed us (not only cow prov) WE did wave. Sanctuary is not really in position to war ot retal war us for long.
4. Sanctuary start cow trade hits for prevent our cows train up.
5. Havoc was mad about wave on Sanc and Goodz told notice is send but he wont wave us in hostile. 48h later he broke his words and waved us in active hostile.
6. Because all our core and cows was untrained we loss our cows in hostile.
7. We declared war ~~2 days later.

Its facts. All accuse about dodge, offered deals and other is propaganda and lies. Sanctuary never proposed any deal with us from few weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezzerland

Sanc being trained before war wasn't mentioned. Didn't think it needed to be.

Fixed.


Privately or publicly? And was this before or after his public offer of 20k acres from Sanc and 1 week cf with you? I ask because:
a) Order matters
b) There are continuous claims of no private negotiations made all the way up until Elit makes the public offer

---

Privately

I posted logs ages ago.

I do think Sanc had retaliated 2x during our discussion.

they were hostile with us ingame, like when u go to their kd and it says hostile :). I don't think we should be discussing if they were or not hostile with us :).

<removed>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goodz

Privately

I posted logs ages ago.

I do think Sanc had retaliated 2x during our discussion.

---

fixed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soul_Hunter

they were hostile with us ingame, like when u go to their kd and it says hostile :). I don't think we should be discussing if they were or not hostile with us :).

---

What is this comment even in reference to? I see no discussion about this o.O

to goodz. It is his comments i am referring to, in his thread. As I said before i got no problems with your summary :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soul_Hunter

to goodz. It is his comments i am referring to, in his thread. As I said before i got no problems with your summary :).

---

I only went back to page 53. So this must be prior to that? From Pendel's post also I'll assume yes. I didn't think you were questioning me, I just missed this part of the discussion was all :)

Will Heroes of Absalom crown for the 3rd time in the 50s?

Which part? Havoc claiming it was not a double hostile? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syntico

Will Heroes of Absalom crown for the 3rd time in the 50s?

---

Only Simians can answer it ;)

ASF posted early in the discussion(before Havoc Waved MA) that hostile is defined by the presence of a button and the word hostile on opponents kd page. He was arguing that stealing was somehow not an act of hostility(which I disagreed with, he is right that it is not hostile but it's still an act of hostility)
As that was clearly present when Havoc waved MA it is a 2v1 situation even by ASF's standards.
I think that may have been what Soul_Hunter was referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezzerland

[*]Fort was bugged and did not offer the -75% protection through double fort (instead, it offered 0 protection). As a result, Sanc got screwed when they under trained and MA robbed them blind.

---

dorje reported this and in the relevant support thread bishop posted the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

Never mind, figured it out. There are 0 tpa/wpa mods of any sort in fortified, only gains mods. This is, obviously, in conflict with the age changes + guide which have been updated to reflect this. What fortified does is reduce gains, which do indeed stack.

---

So there is protection in the form that there is -75% gains through double fortified but there is no penalty to wpa/tpa. Bishop states that this is not a bug as it works as intended but the age changes and guide clearly stated otherwise in error. This has since been corrected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezzerland

[*]Both Kingdoms are hereby double hostiled. Specifically noting this as it seems to be a point of contention.

---

Ezzerland I don't think anyone claims pewpew didn't double hostile Sanct, they obviously did because the situation can't be a double hostile for MA and at the same time not be a double hostile for sanct. Altho I guess I'm not entierly sure, some Abs leaders seems to claim that Sanct was double hostiled but MA was not because sanct offered ingame cf and stopped attacks for 12h(but not ops according to claims made by MA)

The opinion I and some others express is that Sanct initiated the conflict with MA and therefore is the cause of their own situation and thus have no legitimate reason to complain about it. If they had not provoked MA none of this would have happened.
ASF claims that because MA didn't try to cf sanct they would have gona efter sanct wether they had stolen gc or not. However he has not presented any sort of evidence that this is the case except that MA managed to pull off a wave pretty shortly afterwards(but I've seen skd's do that before with no advance warning so the act in itself provides no backing evidence)