[Influence]

Originally Posted by Bashar

You are correct in the timing, though your post implies that we attacked out of some sort of spite at denial of a NAP request. This was not actually the case (though I understand why it appeared that way). At the time our political situation was changing very rapidly for various reasons and other agreements were being discussed and finalised at the same time. Shortly after the approach to you it became obvious that actually, we didn't really want that NAP as other agreements worked out better than expected and with you having been the most obvious provider of incs to us (we weren't keeping exact stats, though Vikings was cropping up repeatedly in our checks of who was hitting us) we had realised that at that point, we really wanted to be hitting you rather than NAPing you. Consequently I was personally quite happy when those discussions didn't work out as I felt that they had been sending us down the wrong path for the round.

That was why it worked out how it did from our perspective.

Then why did Forest state that we were the least hostile alliance towards you? And the wrong path for the round would be not blocking up? I mean, all fine that you wanted to war us, but don't act sanctemoneous when we choose to war you.