• You don't like snow? Turn it off here:

Fort Battles

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser14006

It does not take a bright person to see the bigger picture here, until viva la resistance and all their allies on board (EC and so on) acknowledge that their shady unofficial alliances like ATW and NBA are in fact on their side and are not exempt from the treaty as long as they gain support from them then the treaty cannot work.

It is common sense.
 

tom paris

its common sense that the no-limits attack was a not a multi, also your complaining you lost a single fort... you got plenty more :)

Anyway from what i saw on that day you failed to fill the fort battles, is this why moaning?
the opal moon attack 9 showed on attack 42 defended. the TW fort concord defence you failed to fill with 34 and we had 2 attackers, and finally once again a failure to fill no limits with 34 defence and 60 attack.

so we managed to pull together to fill a small defence and get 60 to a medium attack. you failed to fill the attack and the defence

I dont count the TW defence as a battle because the guy who started it is level 17... a noob :unsure:
 

DeletedUser20685

its common sense that the no-limits attack was a not a multi, also your complaining you lost a single fort... you got plenty more :)

Anyway from what i saw on that day you failed to fill the fort battles, is this why moaning?
the opal moon attack 9 showed on attack 42 defended. the TW fort concord defence you failed to fill with 34 and we had 2 attackers, and finally once again a failure to fill no limits with 34 defence and 60 attack.

so we managed to pull together to fill a small defence and get 60 to a medium attack. you failed to fill the attack and the defence

I dont count the TW defence as a battle because the guy who started it is level 17... a noob :unsure:

So what you are telling me is that if we didn't defend at the TW fort we wouldn't have lost the fort because the person that dug the battle was only a level 17. I missed that one in the fort battle rules. I didn't see anything in the Treaty about what level a person. What part of the attack only being 2 hours after the WWPA battle is confusing you. The treaty has an 8 hour time limit between counter attacks.
 

Jesse James

  • I want to clarify that V2 have no problem with VLR leadership.But with all due respect to VLR leaders I have to say that they have no control over some of their members mainly the ones in WWPA.They only reason WWPA joined VLR is that we were about to win 2/3 forts WWPA had left and posts made by WWPA members in this very topic will show you that they never wanted to honor the treaty.So they have changed the tag of one of their towns and every time e declare on a WWPA fort they retaliate by declaring multys through that town.Other VLR members join those attacks which in affect means V2 is the only one following the treaty.Now I am not saying that VLR can control who declares on our forts but if VLR members didn't join those attacks those attacks wouldn't have had any value.
  • I won't comment on EC,Tom paris changes his color faster than a lizard.You say you want to follow the treaty and yet you have no problem getting allied with a fort won by multy battles.
  • Now w1 is the only world left with few golden guns and we don't want to ruin the fun for anyone.So if you agree to obey the treaty we will do the same.But if you decide to violate the treaty well my members are lot more dedicated then yours so you can guess who will win in the long run. :) WWPA will leave your side at the very first chance they get and lets be honest changing side is the only thing they are good at.:laugh: Original VLR towns who were doing just fine before WWPA joined will be the one who will suffer the loses.WWPA and EC don't have much left to lose anyway....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser14029

I take no part in these battles unless its a single one in 10 hours
Just to protect my name >.<
 

DeletedUser14006

It seems that certain leaders in viva la resistance and EC are confused so I am going to attempt here with the use of pictures explain the chain of events that led to Jakkals retaliating with a multi battle a few days after he lost his fort due to a break in the agreement treaty.

11tq5ps.jpg


As shown above OPAL MOON IV SHERIFF of the allianceV2 initiated a battle against WWPA who are in the viva la resistance alliance, less than 3 hours later and there was a counter attack against OUTER LIMITS who are in the allianceV2 from the ATW alliance which whilst not officially part of the viva la resistance alliance they are one and the same, they attend battles together.

This friendship is shown below:

w14c4m.jpg


As you can see above on the profile page of the fort ATW took from OUTER LIMITS they openly announce their gratitude to viva la resistance and below in return for their help they award EC who are in viva la resistance a spot in this fort.

whfz2w.jpg


In clear breach of the multi battle treaty agreement here is short and not complete list of viva la resistance members/leaders who attended this counter attack:

Freedom75
tom paris
JLMEMT
filthgrinder
gigglestick
vikesfan81
Will Hornet
ConnorBrian


And to further display the audacity of viva la resistance and their shady unofficial alliance with outside alliances is the profile page of the New Bargoed Alliance in which they clearly name viva la resistance and ATW as allies, albeit unofficial as they are a seperate alliances in name but at the end of the day viva la resistance, ATW and NBA are one and the same!

2hnne3t.jpg


So how can the allianceV2 be expected to continue overlooking the fact that the the viva la resistance alliance and Tequila Joe and Tom Paris in particular condemn any sort of multi battle action from us when right under our noses all the time external alliances NBA and ATW continuously break the agreement treaty set in place to stop the use of multi battles and counter attacks and for viva la resistance to support them.

For Tequila Joe to even have the nerve to mail me complaining about Jakkals when all the time he is ignorant and openly oblivious to their multi alliance alliance comprising of viva la resistance, ATW, NBA and god knows how many other smaller alliances/towns they have roped in getting up to all kinds of activity that is breaking this treaty apart, and for Tom Paris and recently Shorty to be piping up here with false and twisted information and distorted views when it is as obvious as a brick landing on your face, it is outrageous!

I know certain folk in viva la resistance agree with me after talking privately with them but the leaders named here and many others are for sure just being ignorant to what is really happening in world one and if you want the world to be doomed to multi battles then you are going the right way about it.

The simple solution would be for y'all to just dissolve all the smaller alliances like ATW and NBA and form under one umbrella but we know this will not happen as ATW and NBA do not give a toss and are happy with multi battles, it is a shame though that viva la resistance can be bought into this cheap game with them for slots in their multi battle won forts in return for support which is in breach of the treaty originally set up to stop them!
 

DeletedUser20685

It doesn't mater what you show them. They have no intentions of honoring a treaty in my conversation with Tequila Joe yesterday as long as at the time of the battle a town is not part of VLR it is not a violation, but once they invite the VLR into the fort the fort it is protected under the treaty. This way of thinking would mean that the -SB- could pull out of V2 and the Treaty. They would then be free to multi attack. The -SB- forts with a V2 member in it would be protected by the treaty.
When I questioned Tequila Joe on VLR's support of ATW's and NBA's multi attacks his reply was that only a few of his player help in these attacks. My reply was to point out that there were 21 Treaty member towns that attacked No Limits, and many were the Leadership of the VLR. I have had no response to this.
Tequila Joe has informed me that he plans to continue with the Multi attacks and with the next round of Multis by Ken Gunslinger and Tom Paris it looks like they do to.
How many more days will be wasted in boring battles?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser14006

zjih6u.jpg


Congratulations, you have with the help of your cronies from ATW and NBA effectively killed off the treaty agreement that was created to prevent multi battles.

You obviously have no interest of honoring the treaty.

In a few months time and hundreds of multi battles later folk will start to leave world one from both sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser10633

EC is not part of VIVA

also, wwpa's involvement was only my decision as too many multi's from your side went un-noticed

ONLY way to sort this all out is to introduce a new treaty , that has everyone's intentions at heart

only reason we went to NO LIMITS as earlier that evening we were defending a fort that saw only 8 of your members show up and we were full.....i saw that as a fake attack and it was pretty ^%$%^&$%%78 waste of time ranking all the players to have a fake attack

the TREATY thing to do was to say guys were not coming because we are defending our forts

i ordered my crew that wasted all their time there to get to No limits
also 2 weeks before that we dug on a fort only to have the whole of VIVA attend a fake defense at MIestas

but no one mentions this

i say we start a new treaty and wipe the slate clean as there is always gonna be different sides to the story

and maybe have 2 fights
1 for high levels and 1 for low levels so they too can get some practice

VLR finally noticed how V2 was getting away with multi attacks

thing is, when we notice it we don't complain, when we are suspected of it

Yittak and a few others are the first to complain?

Speak to your member Jakkals, he was the final nail in the coffin

also, getting a Non treaty member to attack us and if victorious then you either attack them after they win

or get a non member to attack V2 fort, and then get Opel Moon Sherrif to traitor everyone that comes too

Fake attack is also a MULTI mate

[Battle report: -TW- Empire SE]

Also to clear things up as its been said WWPA has committed 14 muti's already?

when we broke from you, i was under the impression that we left the treaty behind us too, then all the attacks on WWPA forts, we had no option but to counter to distract the attacks on us, once again i was not part of the treaty as we split -- so cancels out me breaking treaty in counters, then we joined VIVA ( back to treaty land )

Com TOm and mt self miss-communicated a fort attack and dug at the same time

neither him or I knew we were breaking rules, since we found out the laws of the treaty we abide by them

i don't see a problem in helping out a fellow mate if called upon as long as we don't dig

but too many times your side did exactly the same even when we stopped as Tom and i only broke it once since being treaty bound, but YOUR friends there wont let it go and still cant get it into their thick skulls that we weren't part of a treaty when trying to defend our forts as we had NO other backing

as for Tom Paris, he has his own issues and claims he is not part of the treaty

as for tequilajoe, well he finally noticed how your side was getting away with multi's, by getting non treaty members to do it

all i ever wanted is for WWPA to live in peace and go to the odd battle as they enjoy a good fight.

as for YOU, i guess when you chose only 4 of my towns and exclude me still has a bad taste in my mouth

as for the little fort showings at that time which prompted your decision -- hear this

ppl stop attending fort fights if they don't get ranked

Enjoy mate

always hoped we could work things out, but WWPA is constantly marked and for what

trying to survive?
 

DeletedUser20685

ConnorBrian The reason for the 8 hrs between battles is so that all parties evolved have time to travel to the next battle with responsible HP. When the ATW attackded No Limits 2 hrs after the WWPA battle it doesn't mean that the WWPA battle was a fake what it meant was we had to defend our fort, blame the ATW for the fake attack if that is what you want to call it. I would like to thank you for admitting that you ordered your men to attend the battle. What you just did was call Tequila Joe a liar. He said that no such orders were given and it was all by chance that the VLR showed up in force at No Limit. I could go back through the fort battle histories and show the violations, but with your post it is obvious that you don't have a clue as to why the treaty was written in the way it was and what it was meant to prevent.

As far as you getting booted from V2 you no the reason it was because UVF. He refused to stop attacking the leadership in open forum. His insults were uncalled for and as a member of your town you should have taken control of the situation.
 

DeletedUser563

as stated earlier to your leadership a treaty should only apply to fort ownership not fort allies. NBA may declare multis but if we retaliate with a multi on them albeit a few weeks after the battles we are in contravention because they now suddenly are your allies. in fact on your side there is only 4 forts outside your alliance 2 nba's , my stolen fort and 1 of lone town which is allied to ec. so your allies can declare multis but we cannot on their forts. The treaty was drawn up a long time ago a lot has changed that warrants a change to it.
 

DeletedUser5677

And so, 4 multis against v2, and we left ourselves wide open with no counters.
Result: 4 decisive defeats for the attackers.
Lets get back to face to face battles.
 

DeletedUser2217

Should point out that Desi's attack wasn't a multi - it was Ken and tom who piggybacked it.
 

DeletedUser20685

Should point out that Desi's attack wasn't a multi - it was Ken and tom who piggybacked it.

We were also entitled to a counter which we didn't do in hopes of making some thing out of a bad situation and to show that even without the counter their Multi attacks would result in nothing but a waste of time. I would hope that the members of these alliances would contact their leadership and ask them to quit wasting your time.
 

DeletedUser14006

Well hopefully folk from the better half of the old viva will join in our plan to support the defense of each multi battle.

From now on it is a V2 policy to support the defender of a multi battle no matter who they are, this is in protest of multi battles.

World one does not want multi battles!
 

tom paris

but you dont represent world 1. ;)

also you say its policy to be a defender in any multi?? well you lot wont do a multi and the only opposition in this world is the resistance so you will be defending anyway

lol some protest defending your own forts
 

DeletedUser1121

I feel something for Derek's idea.

Although i am currently not in any position to say much because i only represent my town here.
It is the only way to get rid of multi's. It all depends on different alliances agreeing that multi's shouldn't happen on W1, which, sadly i think, is a utopia on the shortterm.
 

DeletedUser22685

but you dont represent world 1. ;)

No, but the treaty does. The treaty which was doing fine until NBA joined with the EC and WWPA went to the dark side. The treaty under which World 1 continued to thrive and remained the best world even after over two years. The treaty which you and your allies continually blatantly disregard and still claim that v2 is the alliance at fault. Will you only be happy when you've killed the greatest world on .net? Personally I don't think you or any of your allies are capable of anything of that calibre, so could you do everyone a favour and save both our trouble and any shred of integrity that you may still have in a small amount of people's eyes. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top