To flesh it all out:Carlson's guys have refused to attack players in our area, that we consider hostile - due to him having relations with them - players who were doing S&D terrorism (on purpose) upon our fiefs that set us back economically. We had people on the roster for him against SoA but we would help him almost no matter what given he is a friend of many in the clan, but for some obscure reason he rather want to run around on his own with his friends and commit terror upon innocent travellers.
It is true that 3 SoA members joined the Ismirala defenders and we --
I personally made that decision -- took it as a "violation" of our gentlemen agreement which meant we no longer would provide protection, this whole case was based on our good will in Strategus and it only stretches so far, supporting against us in a Morning/Night attack = possible retaliation, why not, and we really only gave him roster support. If an attack is during normal hours I wouldn't consider roster support a 'hostile act' due to prime time being when everyone should play because that is when most can participate for everyone's enjoyment and a fair battle. So yes, I will take support of what I perceive to be unfair battles as potential acts for retaliation. I have talked to tons of people who played against Nords in prime time (normal hours) throughout Strategus 3, because we either also asked them to play for us or they came and asked us in advance, and the answer was 99.9% of the time that people should play for who they want and always for their friends.
Some attacks are more "personal" to the war efforts than others of course
I took all attacks against Mijayet in Strat 3 "personal" meaning retaliation against those who stood against the coconut village.
To us SoA was a faction in the way of our lands, either they moved out freely or we wiped them out. Anything else in-between was a courtesy, we would have wiped them quickly in a few days long ago in the beginning if they had not moved out.
Now they have a fief waiting for them far in
safe lands with their friends, instead of having nothing or having to receive a fief from a friendly faction.
TLDR; The support of Carlson is mainly based on him being a friend and secondly the 3AM attack. We had to use a huge amount of randoms, Americans and Canadians to fill our roster. I have zero problems with taking that as a deal breaker. I've sat out of plenty of battles and plenty of clans often try to coerce our members into not participating in battles. So yes, potential
deal breaker at 3AM.
War game. War game. War game. It can't be said enough.
Tit for tat. None of it is personal or a "hate action". Get over yourselves and learn to separate Strategus from the rest of the game (and from real life - no reason to use personal slander).
As long as people aren't trying to DIMINISH the Strategus mode, meaning that people do everything they can, such as lying to each other on voice comms to try and make sure a battle
won't happen, or to avoid battles all together in favour of simply winning one sided battles. That is wrong IMO. Otherwise, attacking, fighting each other, all good. This is a mode where you attack and destroy each other, undoubtedly most won't think it is fair when they're attacked
