Granted the pre-emptive strikes offer a great early advantage, perhaps even crippling defence enough for you to win battle's.

But would you agree that such tactics are consided wrong by most WarOnline players? If yes - why?

- Luca

So long as you conduct yorself reasonably fairly, you can do whatever you like

'Unwritten rules' are usually just to cover disquietning issues, like not mentioning "Uncle Bob's accident" at the dinner-table

What CTD?! Then why the 8 page thread when you said you didn't have enough notice that I was going to attack you?

Seriously though...I've almost always delivered a declaration of war with a number of turns to prepare for the clash. If there isn't other options in the game(other players to attack), then the other guy should know what's coming and then a declaration isn't necessary. Another time that I think a pre-emptive strike may be in order is when a nap as been offered or communication sent without answer from the other guy......probably means he's preparing to attack you so beat him to the punch if you can.

Attacking during talks will make you unpopular with almost anyone
Not an unwritten rule...just plain logical

that is true CTDXXX, and so does sugarleo.

it all depends on the player u plan on attacking, is he/she a "Vet" or "Newbi"???

Newbi's:

True a honorable player will lets that "Person/Player" know that he is going to have battle with ahead of time to make it or try to make it a fair fight. Which is good, only to help newbi's learn on how to prepair 4 war in short time.

Vet's

Now thats a different story. Vets know's who's is a vet and how good they can b, and will attack on sight. an ofcource that depends on if the player who is attacking the vet doesn't think he/she will have a chance to win if he/she lets vet know ahead of time.

My thought

Regards:

Kingmen3

kingmen, what are you saying here? "that is true CTDXXX, and so does sugarleo."

I gave you something like 20 turns notice when we fought. And we've fought only once.

CTD is referring to our first clash....there was no other option for me or him other than to fight...plus I had already told him I was on the way...but he felt that I didn't give him proper notice. Which, btw...started our forum battle/debate.

The second time I battled CTD..he had a 24 turn nap and then a 4 turn extension before we fought.

Last Edited : Monday, 21 April 2003 - 23:45

The second battle was merely a case of being out-resourced. Although maybe I should have whinged about it not being 'fair' and you having more than a 50/50 chance
(This fairness stuff really does get insane at times...are we only allowed to attack each other when at a disadvantage guys? )

Back to the subject

The first case was the one that caused most of the trouble. Yes, you said something like 'contact has been made', but that was about it
If fighting was the only possible outcome all along, then you should have specifically said "NO TALKS - prepare to die" or somethiing like it

You don't REALLY think I'd just leave lines of ballista just begging to be slashed, do you?

Anyway...most of the stuff I moaned for I eventually got...Sugar is no longer a falchs fanatic, and the spare castle issue got addressed - so it served it's purpose

P.S. We really are getting off-topic here....time to return to pre-emptive strikes, yes?

Back to subject though; here is a hypothetical question on a situation...

"Player X has been minding his own buisness, when one turn Player Y sends down a fair sized force.

The force is on the verge of entering Player X's immediate territory, Player Y has not messaged Player X with his intentions.

From Player X's point of view Player Y is on an expanding mission due to the buildings Player X can see that were previously owned by his neighbour."

In this case what would Player X be morally obligated to do?

Attack first?

Message Player Y, even thought he does not seem to care much for communication?

Leave Player Y to do as he pleases? After all he may just be passing...

- Luca

Message Player Y while keeping track of his movement with a light scout unit. If need to obstruct the advance by making use of the blocking zoc. If your unit is attacked, then war is declared. Your loss is then just a single scout.

And also, no moral obligation. This is one of the few cases where it REALLY IS your choice

Mmmm, as a newb, I never considered a war declaration, I kinda thought that was made upon entering the game I dont recall seeing it refered to in any political threads. What is the proper manner?

dsul, there isn't any proper manner to war declaration. The game does not fix a rule on how we declared war. You declared war in your own way. Some would message the opponent that a war is coming his/her while some dun even bothered doing that and straight away attacked without any notice.

But how you declared a war do have an effect on your reputation later on in your future campaigns here. People tends to have a good memory for nasty surprises which they deemed unfair to them. If your reputation is bad (meaning you tend to break agreement, attack without warning, etc), you will find it harder and harder to establish agreements in future campaigns. This would then put you at a disadvantage in all future campaigns. Karma at work?

Here's a question that I recently faced...I had an opponent who was already at war with my ally, but my ally had pulled back and was no longer engaged with the common opponent...I had staged troops at his border to seal it off and so that he could not send troops toward my castle...he messaged me and stated, "move your troops or die!"...I chose to attack as I took offense to his diplomatic stance and the way that he addressed me...this seems to be a gray area for me...frankly it honked me off so I felt like taking it out on him...my ally did not join the battle and I destroyed the opponent, but did I do the right thing by attacking him...

If your question is asking whether you should attack after receiving that message, I would said I would attack anyone who send me that kind of message.

But I would not believed you would not have attack without that message. It just that the opponent's message happened to give you enough reason to do it, right?

Correct...I was content to let him and my ally fight...I had actually planned on attacking the opponent in the opposite direction and had to re-route all of my attack armies to be able to finish him...

Abe - He threatened you, you killed him
No problem

Dsul - usually war declarations are made because you were doing something else - e.g. 'our nap is over, war bgins in 4 turns' or something like that. If it's a total stranger to your territory, assume hostile intent until they say otherwise

"Move your troops or die" should be the banner for waronline. It has everything - spirit, aggression, confidence, with a bit of cheekiness and taunting thrown in. It's also only used when someone wants a fight anyway. I say the more lines like this, the better. And by the way Abe, in our game, please move your troops or die.

Yes, you should react. Message is a good idea, too find out, if not his motives, then his mind-set. And when trying to effect a solution in his immediate sphere of influence, you don't have to actually press the battle-button to cause a change of heart. Just advancing closer will make him think, standing in his way will, too. And it will also give you time to plan or build to meet the threat.