Mal you obviously havent been to a birthday ive thrown anything goes and clothes come off so your right its hard to intimidate when your standing there naked

I think I have thought of a solution to this code of honor problem and it is that the outter resource facilities should not be included for any reason of honor except by some sort of agreement like a NAP arrangement but otherwise they should be considered fair game at all times under any circumstances even if they are owned.

I repeat that you folks that like to get right down to business with a policy of aggression that is dependent on not having to worry about protecting your back from a neighbor who might take advantage to pilfer your resources need to change your style of play to at least be able to protect yourself at all times.

Then I think there will be radical changes to the game where there are less easy captures of even unskilled opponents not to mention the inactives and when a player does succeed to capture a second castle, he doesn't necessarily have to have an overwelming advanvage because he might be minus a few resource facilities.
Please think about it. In reality a few revolutions were successful supposedly because the cat was busy elswhere.

TR

PS:
Well state your opinions or is this a matriarchy?

www.rwf2000.com/2000/23pslm.htm

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

TR

Last Edited : Thursday, 14 July 2005 - 23:37

you are right Campaigns are not clan games... But Clan games are Campaigns

Harley, that's what I meant.. You aren't very intimidating when you're as cute as you are

well using another player to help you by placing his troops in a position where he can bloc ZOC and/or provide you with warnings and intel is wrong.

Okay I've thought of something that would work relative to my proposal in my last post here. Admittedly if someone poaches an outter resource facility while two players are at war, the balance of power could be tipped, and it could be definitely viewed as interference or even a gang attack;
So here is my proposed amendment:
a) to protect outter resources from takeover a player must at least leave a 5 pop army to guard it
b) if there is no guard the the resource facility can be taken over even if it is owned and even if the player is at war
c) resource facilities may be attacked or taken at risk of the owner declaring war or just retaliating by attacking with no declaration of war
d) if there is a guard at an outter facility and the facility or the guard is attacked while the owner is at war the owner can declare that a gang attack has been made against him and request a cease fire to deal with the transgressor

Under any other circumstances except where there is an agreement, outter resource facilities can be attacked or takenover without being considered a dishonorable act, but can be reason for war between the coveter and the covetee; and the same applies if you were at war, but didn't post a guard at the facility (i.e. the facility can be taken over but not be considered to be an attack or a gang attack).
You can request a cease fire to deal with the coveter or to recapture your facility but that is between you and your opponent. Again it would only be considered an attack and a gang attack if you were at war and your facility guard or the facility was attacked.

Really I think this would work and defence messages would be given as proof and I think this change of our idea of honor is necessary to balance the game which has been changed. I'm sorry, but when an easy capture of an opponent who is not an intensive player is made, and the victor gains a second castle with all the extras, an overwelming advantage is gained;
and also IMO as soon as the news shows that a castle has been captured I think there is no need for "rest turns" or any other "get ready turns". These are campaigns, "keep your guard up and protect yourself in the clinches at all times" is also my opinion.

My experience is that two castle guys unnecessarilly expect too much in the way of concessions from one castle guys to the extent that it is suicidal.
Do you veteran clans players play non-clan games anymore? Have any of you had to face a two-castle guy who has made an easy capture?
I ask again does anyone agree that this change is necessary?
Also I repeat and remind you all that many of you I believe have solved the problem by double-teaming a two castle guy which is still considered gang attacking by many.
This solution would put enough pressure on everyone that even the non-intensive players will have a chance to be competitive instead of providing *easy kills*.

TR

I see it all as a choice in how each individual wants to play. I personally have more fun when all aspects of the game are available. It is challenging to play the diplomatic side as well as the battle side of the campaign games.

There are problems, of course:
Gangbangers - those who specifically join forces against a WEAKER opponent in order to facilitate an easy kill (I will never agree that 2 weak players against a stronger one are gangbanging) --Think about it... If you are a player who has fought and captured 4 castles, the worst thing that can happen is for the other 6 players to fight three 1 v 1 battles for the rest of the game and you must just sit and watch...or be called dishonorable.
Clan mates who play as such in campaigns - this eliminates the aspect of diplomacy as well since they have a pre-existing alliance that no diplomatic initiatives can alter

These situations can be fixed through defensive alliances or a call for help from other players in the game. Or, revenge in a later campaign.

The seeming thrust of the elite players' honor rules is to make campaigns into giant multi-player successive battle games. You fight one person at a time and advance to the next round. In a 10-player game, you start with five 1 v 1 battles...then move to two 1 v 1 battles and someone forced to sit and watch...then finally, you get a 1 v 1 where one player has 4 castles vs a player with 2 or two players fighting with 4 castle each, while the player with 2 castles continues to watch. Then finally, the player with 8 crushes the one with 2 who has waited patiently for half the game. Or the one with 6 defeats the one with 4. Any other course of events would involve dishonorable behavior by someone.

"Campaigns are not Clan Games" and "Campaigns are not Battles" either. If you insist on 1 v 1 battles, that is what battle games are for. If you want to play with your clan mates, that is what clan games are for. If you want to gang up on those who are weaker than you, go to a different game, please. IMO, honorable players who have built a reputation for keeping agreements and playing well are at a huge disadvantage against dishonorable players because there is NO diplomatic benefit for honor. That is its only value other than personal satisfaction. Let's let it be part of the campaign games.

Fighting to win a battle while also having to secure your lands (diplomatically or militarily) is much more challenging (and I think fun) than moving your entire army against a foe knowing that nobody can attack you because you are already at war. I don't know of an easy fix for this, but I hope the new version will find a way to spell out this aspect of the game. That would be very useful.
All the best,
H.

Thanks Hwatta
for having the guts to speak your mind on this and after confronting a two-castle guy at least twice who made an easy kill and got all the trimmings that go with an easy kill, I can agree whole heartedly with you especially about your last two paragraphs, and even more especially about the last because it concludes my idea that we cannot expect not to have to secure our lands by some means while we go off to war;
and that IMO is the necessary ingredient to give the weak time to get stronger by putting pressure on everyone to make at least a basic effort to secure our lands.

However, I am forced to have to go along with the idea that most of the elite vets consider a 2 on 1 strategy to be "gang attacking" under any circumstances even though I have seen where a player has gained a second castle with possibly marksmen already researched there, plus all the extra buildings including barracks, castle with all towers and just needed to add walls and not to mention undeployed units. It just can't be denied that a 2 on 1 compensation is still too strong but my intention with this idea is to put enough pressure on everyone that even the weak might not be so easy to kill and the final kill might not be so sweet if a few resource facilities have been lost.
It is just a matter of admitting that our sense of honor is causing an imbalance and making the necessary adjustments that we can make.

TR

Well I didn't give the person permission to spy, but I did take advantage of the ZOC he provided. I don't like people spying on my combat tactics. Thye may not be that good, but the least you can do is learn them when I am fighting.

In the game Rog is talking about I came online and found KR's 5 pop scout unit in my castle. I promptly killed it. Now he has an 18 pop unit right where we are battling. He is in my territory but since Rog had driven me back I couldn't do much, now however Rog is on the defensive and those troops are still sitting in the same spot. Yes I used the troops for ZOC, but Rog was the one who gave KR permission to bring his troops up so it is his own fault.
(PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT ACCUSING ROG OF GBing. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IN THIS INSTANCE KR IS GIVING HIM INFORMATION. I WAS JUST GIVING THE INFORMATION THAT I DIDN"T FEEL IT WAS WRONG TO USE ZOC OF ANOTHER PLAYERS TROOPS, WHEN YOU DIDN"T GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO BE THERE.)

I personally feel that if you don't have permission to be in another players territory, then you have no right to complain if they kill off your troops to keep their area clear.

Here is my solution to the problem of clans GBing in FFA campaigns.

At the start of the game all other players form an alliance against the players of the guilty clan. They then proceed to wipe the guilty clan out of the game. Taking their resources and destroying all castle buildings, without capturing the castles. Unless a player suffered extremely high losses, none of the castles would be captured. This would force the members of the guilty clan to remain in a game they could do nothing in, or go inactive or quit. Until the offending clan vows to stop practicing these tactics they will continue to be wiped out at the begginning of every game.

Should one of the players still in the game have suffered high losses it could be permissable for that person to capture one of the castles to help make up the losses.


edit to shout above. Sorry for shouting.

Last Edited : Sunday, 17 July 2005 - 16:47

WEll, the issue of another player getting to "watch" a battle is just absurb. There is no such provision in the game, simply put, it is just not any of your Damn business.

The thought that one half a of 2 warring nations can give another permission to do so is a bit concieded. I suppose if both players dont mind then it dont matter, but either player should have veto power over any such actions.

The situation when it is a clanmate nakes it gangbanging IMO. Since I have no way of monitering what intell you pass to my enemy, how can I trust that I am not being bullied by 2 clanmates? You can't and such as that is, you must assume that they are passing intel, a false positive would be devistating if you didn't.

From the other side it also just looks bad if you participate in such actions. If your friend was to discover something you did not know and you simply got lucky and just decided to check another front for possible troops, it would look as if maybe he passed you that information.

I just think, you simply don't do it. It keeps the integrity of the game, it keeps your honor clean and it keeps the game balanced.

As far as Rex's issues with multi-castles vs 2v1 and all that, i know it has been something he has wrestled with for a long time. I can appreciate his determination to develop a code of conduct, if for nobody else than himself. I don't see where there is an easy answer, troop losses and castle locations all make that a personal call. I look at it simply as if the tables were turned, would I oppose my actions as being dishonerable? And then of course, remember his actions so at a later game you can do to him as he did to you.

BA
thanks for acknowledging my dilemma and yes I have been wrestling with this a long time but I realised too late that I should have started a separate topic on this. It's not so much that I'm trying to get approval of a personal code of conduct though. I'm really trying to find a solution that will work for all of us.

For example there are people getting taken out early because they can't get into the game often enough and for those who can't log into the game at least 4 times/day I would say that we should compensate them by allowing someone to make their moves for them if they are willing to share their account with someone they trust.

I really felt bad that a young kid I think who had asked me to join his clan messaged me to please help him because he was getting crushed by an intensive player and I had to say that it's not fair. It is just a matter of adjusting our code of honor to allow more game related harassment of each other. In other words I could have helped that kid if I could have harassed his attacker by poaching his unguarded outter resources (i.e. if our code of honor allowed it).

Sorry but there is a matter of chivalry that is being unaddressed IMO. I see all too often strong players going after the easiest kill they can make like a wolf that starts preying on sheep or a bear on cattle.

TR

This is my warning. Do with it what you want.

Well I can tell you this for a fact. That if you play a game with Rog and Overlord they will use cheap Clan style tactics using each others units to spy on your movement and interfer with your war. The actually intemix each others troops so as to either gain intell of justify a gangbang. I find this to be the most disgusting form of gangbanging, If you want to play 2v1 Rog and Overlord, do it in the open.

You can deal with this at your on risk or your own way. But I think if you see either of them in your game expect then to play as a team.

I have asked them not to intermix their forces and not to do these things to no avail. I have lost all respect for either of them.

I will no longer reply here, but I will bump this thread from time to time just to keep these actions fresh in the minds of the players.

Bump and latest.

Overlord has spent the entire battle between Rog and I "watching" our battle. no matter how much I insest that he back off, he claims that he is doing nothing wron. But I do thet same to his and Raptor's battle and what do I get?

The following major battles rage on...
Overlord vs Raptor
Rog Ironfist vs BigAmigo
Raptor vs Overlord
Overlord vs BigAmigo

I get attacked by Overlord. Seems he has a double standard.

I never attacked a single of his units, never one. I simple hung around like he did me. And I get attacked.

Your army, Scouts_2, was attacked by Overlord : Ballista_2.
Army, Scouts_2, has been destroyed.
Ballista_2(102,24) = Wounds : 0.0, Killed : 0, Exp : 19.5
Scouts_2(106,32) = Wounds : 149.6, Killed : 5.


Shame that now Overlord is such a hypocrit.

So now not only will he hang around your area when his ally is fighting you, he will kill you if you do the same.

I was waiting for that

Now you are LYING BA! !!!

You have attacked Overlord in this game ! and earlier ! when Overlord was still in his land on your border, because you didn't like him watching the action between us. He wasn't anywhere near my lands and only entered them afterwards. Actually, you did what I was told you would do, which was to try and entice Overlord to react to your attack and thus show everyone how you were gangbanged.

I asked Overlord NOT to react to your attack and he obliged and moved away. So you lied about not attacking him before!

Afterwards, you promised me how you will run me over quickly and easily and your invading army had to run back with its tail between its legs all the way back to your castle. Since that happened, you started whining again about Overlord presence in my territory. So shut up and stop complaining when things don't go your way.

I have an alliance with Overlord since I know I can trust him. I have a agreement with Raptor (from YOUR clan) who can also roam my lands free, since I know I can trust him too.

BTW, a small, tiny, little, slight difference you 'forgot' to mention in the situation between Overlord watching me and you fight, and the situation of YOU watching Overlord and Raptor fight, is that; Overlord was only ever in my lands and never in yours to spy on your castle or build up or whatever. However, yet again to try and entice a show of gangbanging you have moved a 5 pop scout into his lands and almost to the entrence of Overlord's castle. Raptor's forces are nowhere near there, Overlord is nowhere in your lands and you just tried to scheme again. You're just sad BA.

Stop complaining and stop b1tching when you scheming doesn't work. The only hypocrite here is you. You got Raptor involved hoping for all sorts of things to happen as you try to squeeze one lucky shot through the chaos. When I asked you to stop sending me messages about 'wiping me out' or anything else, I didn't mean you should instead do it publicly.

Enough... play the game. If you win then great, I salute you, if you lose take it like a man.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 27 July 2005 - 04:47

NO, I shot Overlord when his army was the same color as yours by mistake. He was 7 spaces from my castle. Before that and since that I have asked him to leave our war. He refuses, so I did the same to him as he had done tome. My units was not as close to his castle when it died on purpose 20 turns later. You dont get "even" 20 turns later.

Your ally has spied on me and you are a gangbanger because you use your ally to advance your intelligence. If that were not so then he should have removed his armies from in front of my troops, betwen yours and mine, when asked. He refused until raptor killed them off. Then he decides that me being in the same position is not a good idea for him.

If you are afraid of what I post about you, play fair and I will have nothing to post.

Hmm ...
on one side we have a man of high honor and integrity, a man who believes that facts don't lie, and he presents facts to support his argument;
but most important is that his word can be trusted on his past performance, and there are witnesses of past grievances to lend him support.

On the utter side ... um ... err ...
well, I have nothing to say.

TR

BA, Overlord was never the same colour as mine! ... and even if he was, that's a pretty convenient/dumb excuse...

...and spying on your clanmates enemy... is that what Raptor is doing now? Well, Overlord didn't and I'm sure Raptor doesn't either. Some people have a bit more integrity than you. After you shot Overlord's Scouts, mistaking them for mine (yeah right!), I see no reason why he shouldn't be around your lands watching you very closely.

Regarding your posts... not only I don't "fear" them, I just find them sad. You sent me lots of annoying messages in private with stupid comments like 'hehehe, I got your scouts' or 'you better bring more than those spears' until I asked you to stop sending me messages. Not to mention the fact that you sent Overlord lots of messages of the same calibre. Doing it in public and telling everyone how you shot Overlord's troops because they had the same colour as mine... come on BA, is this the 7 year old brother of the BA from the political forums?

...and last thing, (finally a smiley icon) having the senile, babbling, incoherent geriatric add a few lines of support is really not doing you any favours with anyone. Maybe I should shoot his troops for having the same colours as yours... Ooopss... it's not exactly the same... silly me.

When Sugar had problems with Overlord and Rog in one game. Sugar and I declared a 2 on 2 war. Maybe you and Raptor should do the same. That way you could kill each others troop with no problem.

well Rog now basically you are now a liar. Everybody here knows that both you and Rog usually wear that orange color.
I never sent you messages bragging about what I killed. That is a lie too. The only messages I ever sent you were messages asking that you not allow your ally to sit his troops in front of mine becasue it gives the expectation of you being a cheat. Since you and he always refused I guess I was right.

SUre I got no problem with a 2v2 on this one. LOL
Good point Finguld. WE can call a short break to get troops reset and such and then go at it 2v2. I'm sure Rog wont want that, it might resolve something.


The point is ROG, that when somebody asks you NOT to place troops near an ongoing battle that have no impact inthat war. Like Overlord's sitting spaces frommy troop lines and my castle, then you should comply. You just don't do it. It is not the way you want to be known to play.

Last Edited : Thursday, 28 July 2005 - 04:59