"TR as for the messages, when a player starts attacking a resource building you own, you get defend messages. When a player actually captures a building you own, it is reported in game news."-GK

I repeat that there is a distinction made by the game messaging between attacking a resource facility and capturing/taking it over. Takeover is not treated as an attack.
The truth is that the children of all the barbarians that were slaughtered have grown afraid of everything including the king who slaughtered their fathers.

They had been living in fear until a peaceful commandeer of another kingdom came along and promised them that if they swore allegience to his sovereign, he would send an army to protect them;
So naturally the new generation of peaceful working barbarians accepted the offer and the chump that couldn't spare an army to protect them was minus one resource facility.

TR

TR if takeover is not treat as an attack why do I get messages in my attack history listing who or what I've attacked?

If I attack a resource you own, my attack history will show your name as the person sending the message. Should I successfully take your resource building then the game news will show that I am at war with you. At the same time you would be getting defend messages telling you that I am attacking you.

If there were no other combat between us, game news would say Ghengis Khan vs TaurusRex. It would also report that I took your resource building.

So I would say based off of all the messages and what happens when you take a resource building, that the game treats taking resource buildings as an act of war.

I suspect that the game news only gives a one way conflict (i.e. if it says Ghengis Khan vs TaurusRex it doesn't say that TaurusRex vs Ghengis Khan), so that IMO the event of a takeover is not actually treated as an attack;
but I don't deny the chump who lost a resource facility because he couldn't spare an army to protect it the right to get angry and want to make war over it;
I do deny him the right to call it a "gang attack" if there was no attack.

TR

Well you are entitled to your oppinion. But IMO and I think most other players, if the game says one player is battling another that is enough to mean they are at war.

Otherwise I can sit there and use my ranged units to kill your troops, getting the same onesided battle report. Which in your oppinion would mean we aren't fighting.

I would also get a defend message in the circumstance of a ranged attack against my troops ... wouldn't I?
I'm just trying to show that the self-righteous attitude that some of us have can be argued because as I said, "our ideas of honor are a state of mind that can be altered";
but the mind has to be open.

For example in this ficticious tale in medieval times Luther the Danish king was at war with Ludwig the Austrian king. Along comes a commandeer of Luigi the Venetian king who doesn't even know that there is a Danish king named Luther much less that Ludwig is at war with him and he happens upon an iron mine that he doesn't even know is not in his territory and there isn't anyone guarding it;
So he promisses the people a "chicken in every pot" and an army to protect them and they agree to start producing for Luigi. A month later Ludwig doesn't even know he has lost a mine much less who took it.

PS:
That was fiction but would probably in medieval times not be far from the reality.

TR

But TR in your oppinion as long as the game news doesn't show both players fighting each other it isn't an attack.

Yes if my archers fired on your troops, you would get a defend message. As I have stated earlier, if my commandeer unit takes over your mine, you also get a defend message.

In both cases the game news would say Ghengis Khan vs TaurusRex on.

It would not say TaurusRex vs Ghengis Khan unless you were to retaliate against me.

But in your oppinion because of how the game reports it, my archers firing on your troops or my taking over your mine would not constitute an attack.

That is what I understand you to be saying.

No GK,
that's not true because if you read back you will see that I have insisted that the attack/defend messaging is the ultimate proof of an attack So that if I get the defend message also with the game news for the ranged attack which you only get the game news for a takeover, I'm certainly not going to think I wasn't attacked when attacked by a ranged unit.

TR

Yes well when I get a defend message, I don't care what the game news says it means that I'm being attacked. Even going by your logic the game stills treats the actual take over as an attack as you get a defend message when they take it over and it gets posted in the game news.

Now if you don't want to treat defend messages as attacks, just because the game news doesn't report it, that is your choice. But unless I have actually given a person permiision to take a resource building of mine, I will be treating every defend message I get as an attack.

If a defend message is given for the takeover, that does put a different view on my point;
but I have already shown twice where you didn't say that before and I did ask, followed by you saying that it is reported in the game news.

On your other comment:
"Now if you don't want to treat defend messages as attacks, just because the game news doesn't report it, that is your choice."-GK

I have to say there you go saying, "you" again and it is completely false that I think that but at least you didn't address me directly that time.
Seriously, when making a comment like that, if you mean it generally, it should be phrased "Now if folks or players or something like that".

Sorry but this has been between the two of us for several posts now and I'm inclined to think "Now if you" refers to me and I'm used to your style to be perfectly honest.

TR

TR I said that defend messages were sent for attacks on the resource buildings in the first page, 5th or sixth post.

I've copied it here:
Posted : Monday, July 25, 2005 - 00:00 edit
TR as for the messages, when a player starts attacking a resource building you own, you get defend messages. When a player actually captures a building you own, it is reported in game news.

To capture the building they are attacking it, which means you get defend messages.

My other comment was directed at you this time. I will make a serious effort to make sure when I am using generalities to say something like "if a player" to make sure there is no confusion.

Very intereseting read.

TR makes a point of our honor system is baised on what we see as being in good interest for your self at that point in time.

So being ganged is not in your good interest so it is wrong. Having someone take resources while you are at war and can not easily defend them, it is wrong by the honor code.
Teaming up on a ganger(one person) or a resource stealer is ok, yet in their eyes you are ganging them.
Hoping(forcing) that all 11 other players will stick to a 1 on 1 or else they will be ganged is ok, yet being ganged is not ok.
Breaking an agreement is not ok unless they are a ganger then it is ok to break the agreement to gang the ganger.


I could go on yet it doesn't matter. in the end you may think you are honoring your own code and that everyone finds it aceptable. Truth is no one out there thinks that there is an honorable person unless you were either the defending party, never the attacker, or made agreements with everyone and kept them.(without attacking anyone) But then if you did such you could never be above the top 5.

Save GBing, breaking alliances, and using cheap tactics aren't wrong by Req's rules in the manual.

That doesn't mean that players who have a code of honor has to like them. It also doesn't mean that if I have a code of honor I have to follow it if some other player has used cheap tactics on me in the past.

Why should I be hampered by my morals, when facing a player who couldn't possibly win with out using the cheap tactics. I am more than willing to descend to their level to teach them the error of their ways.

But I also give players a chance to show what kind of player they are. If you don't want me GBing you in the future or breaking NAPS with you anjd attacking you, then don't do it to me.

i agree wit him

Yes GK,
I repeated the message to you twice and now thrice:
"TR as for the messages, when a player starts attacking a resource building you own, you get defend messages. When a player actually captures a building you own, it is reported in game news"-GK;
but now you are saying,
"To capture the building they are attacking it, which means you get defend messages"-GK
which is not completely true (i.e. maybe there is a defend message given, but a commandeer has the option to attack or takeover a facility).
If he attacks the facility damage is done to it but not if he just takes it over, but although I think there IS some sort of message given as a defend message EVEN just for takeover, I don't think an attack has actually been made to perform a takeover.
There isn't even a "swinging sword" activated to perform a takeover.

TR

Last Edited : Tuesday, 26 July 2005 - 20:58

TR a defend message is sent for take over. When a commandeer unit successfully captures a resource building damges is done to it.

But I don't care if damage is done. I recieve a defend message, thats good enough for me to consider an opponent attacking me.

GK,
I'll make one last defence of this really off-topic debate that I started in another thread.
The following is where I explained that the idea of a guard is a "game gimic or device" to force a condition. That condition I desired to force was a direct attack of the guard or the the resource facility with the idea that if the defender was already at war, there would be no question that he was "gang attacked".
I went on to explain that another reason for this guard idea was because I wasn't sure how a takeover was handled by the game messaging and for a fourth time I have posted your response to that:

"Also my idea to post a guard at any outter resource that we have claimed is intended as a game gimic to cause a distinct act of war that cannot be questioned when a player is at war and also ... yes, to slow things down. Of course you would rather have your armies in battle ... So would everyone else. Realistically would a future enemy hesitate to take your outter resource just because your name is on it and just because you are at war? I'm also creating the condition of the attack because I'm not sure how the message reads. If the game message reads something like TaurusRex's woodmill was taken-over by *name of another player*, then that might be good enough to consider that an act of war has been committed;
but I honestly don't recall for sure how it is handled by the messages, and it does defeat my purpose to force a player to guard his resources."-TR

"TR as for the messages, when a player starts attacking a resource building you own, you get defend messages. When a player actually captures a building you own, it is reported in game news"-GK

Sorry again GK,
but I think you knew exactly my meaning the first time but possibly also forgot exactly how a takeover is handled by the messaging but now that it has been recalled that there is a defence message with a takeover, I think there has been a change of tune to conform.
In other words I asked how a takeover was handled by the messaging and the first response did not include that there was also a defend message with it (i.e. it was said that a takeover was announced in the game news).
I had admitted that I did not recall.

In any event that is neither here nor there because now I just revert back to the idea that my idea to post a guard is a "game device" to slow the game so that rush aggressors can't take advantage of players who are easy targets because they can't play as intensively as others and to create a distinct unquestionable attack circumstance so that a player who is at war can prove he has been "gang attacked" because inspite of all that has been argued here, IMHO it is still questionable that a takeover is truly an attack unless the owner's guard has been killed first.
This idea is also to cause a balance so that a one castle guy might still be able to go 1 on 1 with a two castle guy because maybe if the two castle guy didn't post a guard at his resources, he might have lost a few and so not be so overwelmingly stronger than a fresh one castle guy (i.e. assuming the worst that he has captured a "fully intact" castle with even many undeployed troops in the barracks.

PS:
All of this is my opinion and again the idea we have been discussing is aside from the suggestion here but is IMO a necessary game device to adjust our ideas of honorable gameplay so that we can have a more enjoyable game experience playing this great game.
Also I haven't done any of this in the games and I don't intend to do any of this in the games unless we can find these ideas acceptable.

TR

TR I am sorry I didn't spell everything out for you when I posted about the defend messages.

As I get a defend message from take overs, I consider them attacks. I do not consider them seperate. So, sorry for not spelling it out to you the first time.

I will also state again, that attacking my resource building to destroy or capture it, is enough for me to consider it an act of war.

so much as sniffing round my goldmine is a act of war

Yes
we all know that and I'm not denying anyone the right to make war because another is "sniffing round their goldmine", but I AM trying to get a change of consensus of opinion as to whether a player has the right to call it "gang attacking" unless he has posted a guard at it and the guard is attacked and destroyed in order to takeover the goldmine while he is at war with another.
We've been all through the game news and the messaging which does treat it differently although a defend message of sorts is given, but I'm still trying to say that this guard idea is a necessary *game device* to cause a balance of the game that is being made unbalanced by our present code of honor.

Again I won't use such a system unless it is accepted by enough of us to play a game, but I AM going to take the opportunity to say something else. My experience is that players who gain a second castle come on as if the other players owe them something with demands for turns to recouperate and even to gather their spoils and I have given them turns too just so that I could really see for myself if they were needed. Well I'm saying here and now that my experience has shown that extra turns are not needed in most instances of easy early captures and in the future as soon as I see in the game news that someone's castle has been takenover, as far as I'm concerned that player has been defeated and I will start making my moves to attack the victor as soon as possible because at present IMO it is the only chance a one castle guy has to defeat a two castle guy.

TR

Last Edited : Wednesday, 27 July 2005 - 14:14