Originally Posted by
BeeNo
is it possible that when negotiating this retaliation between nations the retaliation you came to didn't satisfy the state involved in the issue. in my eyes you should have been killed along with the state who finished my state. was my opinion considered in all this? no?
1 land and 55million net worth is much different than starting a new state.
is killing a state an extreme retaliation for 1 AA on a couple of 100% infantry states around 40th rank or lower? yes, very extreme, and you know it MR. P!
i had no intention of attacking usa on the last day. yea i wanted to attack you at some point last month, but things kept coming up like wars and small conflicts, then i had a trip that lasted over a week and by the time i came back there was only 3 days left in the month.
we were faced with 2 options, push the retaliation back a month, or strike at the very end of the month. i did what i always do in these situations, i asked my nation how they wanted to play it and went with their overall decision.
me xav max itty ect. ect. just fool around with an attack here or there with no retaliations. its kind of like saying hello. i really only enforce retaliations inside the top 10 or states in competition for top spots, i hate to ruin someones month. but if your just fooling around expanding all month why should 1 attack make you all pissed off? take it as entertainment and part of the game.
what we've created with the current "unwritten-rule" system of no war attacks and spy ops other than state info is a stagnant boring game, where no conflicts, negotiations, or foreign relations are needed. and you all arguing with me now seem hell bent on keeping that way.
Private First Class
@ all of you on the lor comments, if you had 1/2 a brain and thought about it you would realize that just maybe, they might enjoy a conflict.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote