Please do not play them as such. This was a very big issue with Req a while back. This is why he almost banned Clans about 2-3 years back. There was supposed to be a rule against more than 2 clansmen in the same game, but that code is screwed and it happens alot. If you can play as such and keep it independent, then I dont see the issue. I understand making NAPs and I understand maybe not fighting clan mates first battle. But using your troops to interfere, in anyway, is wrong. I have had clanmembers move right up within 5 spaces of my troops while I fight their clanmate. ANd then they get the nerve to tell me that if I attack then I want to fight them too.


In 3 of my last 5 campaign games I have had to deal with clanmates interfering. Weather it be actually sending troops, blocking ZOC's or even the appearance of spieing. Just don't do it. If I see 2 clan mates anywhere near a battle, IMO it is Clan Bashing. Would you allow a non friend just bring scouts down and hang out? Hell no.

It looks bad, even if it is innocient. It just dont need to happen.

As far as I know FSA does not do it, unless we been messed over earlier in the game. If it has happened, unprovoked, inform me, as I have every clan leader to no avail.

basically what Big A is asking is dont clan gang bang imagine that!! we actually have clans gang banging and Big A is really putting it a nice way and not calling it what it is but since we are actually losing players over this bullsh*t i will open my big mouth and put it out there and say what it is GANG BANGING people and its not very nice nor is it fun!! so how about if some of you players doing it try STOPPING it? as i said in the other thread the only games it is acceptable in is clan games not campaigns. there are a difference and if you wants a written explanation just message me and i will draw it out for you in very simple terms. so lets try to turn this around and keep these players that are quitting and get back some that have left THANK YOU FOR THE EFFORT EVERYONE

It does not even have to be the obvious gnagbang attacks, just haveing troops in the area of a battle generates suspicion. And if it an open and obvious clan mate, it is very suspicious. If your buddy just got lucky it would look as if you gave him info. If your going to be in a Camp with a clanmate, make the extra effort not to look bad. And of course, don't openly cause an issue.

Personally and as the (current) leader of BoS, I wish to join BA's denunciation of gangbangers everywhere. BA is correct, double teaming especially at the higher ranking games where awareness of the rules is NOT an issue, should be avoided at all costs.

Personally I have no problem with spying- as in allowing an ally/friend/whatever to come and watch you fight someone else- as long as they stay well out of the action. Only if ZOCs are involved and hindering taking over mines and such are happening, then it is unacceptable. In Slow 11, I allowed kingrichrad twice (being the Peeping-Tom that he is ) to come and watch Ghengis and me fight.

So, let us all try to limit the amount of same clan members in any given game to no more than 2 and, not avoid, simply just NOT gangbang.


[Edited for icons]

Last Edited : Tuesday, 12 July 2005 - 03:04

But Rog, you told me I could join your game so I could attack you

he rog, i am in the middle of your fight and all players on the map are fighting without me.
Almost all fields arround me are full of blood and i am enjoying it.

Kingrichard the bloody action voyeur

ALowing other players, especially Clan members to "peep" at the battle is wrong. IF I can tell your enemy what you are doing I am interfeering. If it a clansmen, then it really looks bad.

This spectator/spy tactic was used on me at least twice by the same clan and in both incidents although they weren't clanmates, there was interference in that walls could not be removed where I might have wanted to make an attack.
In one incident I would liked to have left a stripped castle but the spectator/spy of this particular clan actually came right adjacent to my castle giving aid to a player who had attacked my flank after I had just managed to resist a first attacker.

In other words it would have been a gang attack except my first attacker joined me to resist the guy that attacked my flank but was backdoored by the spectator/spy and defeated by him only because I had left my original opponent in a very weakened condition. A scorched earth was warranted IMO but was prevented by the spectator/spy.
In the other incident movements were coordinated so well between my opponent and the spectator/spy that I actually suspected multis or at least shared accounts and that's another issue that needs addressing IMO.

If accounts are shared by players in the same game for whatever reason I think the temptation to use another's units to take a peek may be too great with rationalizations like well I was going to move some units over there anyway. Shared accounts can be used almost like multi accounts IMO.

cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/onwardcs.htm

TR

Last Edited : Tuesday, 12 July 2005 - 08:54

"Personally I have no problem with spying- as in allowing an ally/friend/whatever to come and watch you fight someone else" - Rog

I agree in that this is all part of the game. However, I will always seek naps with those I am not at war with and include territorial boundries. If a player refuses a nap but stays out of my area anyway. If they refuse the nap and enter my territory and do nothing but spy on me, as far as I am concerned they are free game regardless of whatever wars they may be in at the time when should I choose to attack them.

Ever since CoC got rid of savetuba we've been a clean clan. You'll never have to worry about clan bashing from our group.

Pats Gutter on the back awwwww what a good leader you are these days Gutter

I realize everyone uses spies these days and such in the 61 and up games man those games are complicated from what i gather *wipes brow* thank god im not to that level and actual hopes not to get there cause thats where most of the gang banging is and the vets are leaving from
But im just going to stir the pot alittle more more here and ask a question okay? these so called spies are they in the form of oooooo say 5 pop troops that get killed or another player that sits and watches and reports back to you guys? and if its a 5 pop troops and it is killed does that person have the right to smack you back then call it even with out you yelling gang banger? stirs and stirs

It's a little of both harley ... sometimes they are stacks that can't be taken out so easily, and in the circumstance I was in after being at war with a guy for several turns and sufferring a vicious flank attack from a would be gang attacker, I was in no condition to smack a spy that was even interfering and then have to also defend myself against him;
and yes it can be taken that you struck first, So if you do take out a spy, be sure to message him first that if he plans to retaliate you reserve the right to call for help and maybe he will back away from his spying ways.
It seems to me that a certain clan has perfected this tactic of spectator/spying and interfering with wall removals where it is convenient to do so also.

PS:
Another thing that needs attention IMO is a circumstance where it is a known fact in a game that a player cannot possibly survive against a player who is probably at least three times as strong as him. Except that I don't know who attacked first, I am tempted to go to the weaker guy's aid because really I'm not very strong either but I am strong enough to help the weak guy in this circumstance. If the weaker guy was attacked first I would at least think less of the stronger guy but I suspect it may be vice versa.
The weaker guy got that way because he was at war with me initially and didn't ever really have a chance to come up to par with anyone except that several turns have passed since we were at war.

TR

So what i understand from your message is that you can't scout in another area when a clan mate is having a war... while normally i scout everywere i want.. but when my clan mate is involved i can't scout... that is a little bit strange...

appearently not Hanky your going to have to russel up all your stray scouts when you play the 61 and up games or they will be shot!! then your probly going to be called a gang banger too and you cant shot back when they get shot this is what im getting out of this

Scouting out your borders is fine. Parking a scout next to your clan mates enemies castle and watching everything that pours out of the castle is uncalled for.

Even players I have naps with I have a 5 pop or 2 or 3 sitting on our mutual border to keep an eye on things. Battles between players seldom take place in view of my scouts though such that I could report anything to either player.

I'm taking this opportunity to say something else. IMO these are not the old days when recouperative turns may have been warranted. I have had at least two experiences where I was made to feel that I would not be considered honorable unless at least 5 turns was given from declaration of war to players who had captured second castles with all facilities in place and today's extra barracks production/castle not to mention undeployed troops in captured castles.

Will you guys please come off this recouperative turn idea?
I mean for "God's sake" there are a large number of veteran players with the attitude that it's ok to help a one castle guys defend against a two castle guy. I'm not advocating that but IMO this is "bullcrap" that a two castle guy needs warning turns or any other kind of turns against a one castle opponent and as far as I'm concerned when I see castle captured in the game news the victor will have about 2 turns to collect his spoils and I will feel no remorse to make my move to attack in the future.

Change your style of play because these are free for all campaign games So protect your borders and your back with palisades and then even walls and if I get the idea that I'm being chastised in games for my attitude about this and getting ganged, then I'm going to revert to similar tactics myself.
Really, I'm sorry but this is baloney.
IMO the only guys who need recouperative turns and as many as 10 turns are guys who have been slugging away at each other from early rounds for at least 5 turns and made no gains.

TR

I agree 100% with Fanatic. ANd as far as I know FSA does not participate in such actions as openly spieing for your ally.

The only way I can see allowing another player to "peep" at a battle is if BOTH sides agree to it. Otherwise, it is gangbanging.

Whether it is any current game I'm in or ones I'll be in, in the future, I invite all and sundry to watch my battles against others... especially if it's against BA

Just ask for my permission and arrange for a safe passage through my lands, and you can all be voyeurs as your pleased. I do NOT consider this gang-banging unless your spying (big word woohoo...)/watching troops interfere with ZOCs or any type of action. If you're just watching from a safe distance, then feel free to indulge your peeping habits and my exhibitionism.

The Circus is as good as disbanded :'(
So I guess there's no real fear of us gettin' ya :-P

And even when we were together, we were about as intimidating as Harley at a Birthday party

But hey, we're having a hell of a good time!