[anticipatient]

I feel inclined to note for other observers of this altercation that we're only hearing from the participants themselves, and they are all biased.

I laud Pangaea for standing against a perceived oppressor, but I condemn them for their treachery. Were it not for their relations with Ashdod, I may consider them heroes. While Caelum is aggressive in the extreme, having consumed one nation and wasting no time in moving on to the next, I would say a better course of action for Pangaea would have been to pursue peace with Ashdod.

If Pangaea were truly interested in protecting Marignon and had thought it through, perhaps a better tactic would've been to maintain border tensions with Caelum, thereby making it more difficult for Caelum to commit to a full scale assault on Marignon.

That said, I am not attempting to vilify anyone. My goal is the same as Caelum's, the same as everyone's. And in Pangaea's situation, I would've fought against Caelum as well.

May I remind everyone that the condition of victory in this conflict is the control of five capitols. Caelum as two. Marignon's becomes a third. Pangaea's would make a fourth. Who else is then neighboring Caelum? Perhaps a better question would be, who is NOT then neighboring Caelum? And who is NOT then threatened?

I am both impressed with Caelum's success and threatened by it. I anticipate a somewhat scathing reply, despite my fairly neutral appraisal of the situation. But anyone knows that dominance in this game brings hostile attention . . . as it should.