Game 63 I jumped Wolfstriker1 on turn 41(nap till 40). Ten turns later I've lost 600 to his 1500. It'll be over in 2 or 3 more.

So in game 27 he starts next to me and asks for allie. Torn between killing him quick like I should and being nice I show mercy. But I find PimplnDistress (battle 47 to my 8) is my way to expand.

So a gangbang with wolfstriker on PimplnDistress looks fair. Though I might do better breaking the allie and taking wolf first then P. Nap P for 20 and finish Wolf quick. Though wolf would bleed him some. Just venting.

What do you think?

That Wolf and Pimp should ally and bring you to your knees, after you made your evil gangbang strategies public.

i dun understand what´s the battle rank has to do with the decision to gangbang the other guy.
but anyway, this is/was a gangbang

Shoot.....I don't think Pimp needs to allie with anyone.

With his battle record he should be able to handle things quite well. I figure it would be a bloody fight against better and more experianced fighter than me. I am rather mad at myself because my poor politics are going to end without the best fight. I left myself debating the ethics of two against better vs breaking a allie for more resources.

But if he wants to allie with Wolf against me. They have my vote. I think it would be fun. Mine is a good defense map.

My appoligies, this post was supposed to be in another thread debating gangbanging and I screwed up posting it, but oh well.

Ignore this concept of 'fair'
There's one major aspect of your reputation you should look after, and that's keeping your word. If you cn't keep your word, then you've already lost the bulk of your negotiating tools, and have to rely on your opponent actually NEEDING you before he'll talk, and even then - grudgingly.

On the other hand, if you base all your conflicts on what's fair and what isn't, you'll find that your rank and abaility to win will suffer as a result. True, victory isn't impossible, and some would even go so far as to say that you don;t deserve even a single point if you don't play 'fair'...but having said that I play the game expecting literally ANYTHING...if you play the game with expectations of your opponents you'll be very disappointed in the end

In short, if you lie, no-one will trust you, and so you cripple yourself.
If however you use ethically questionable tactics, you'll win, but you might make a couple of enemies. Oh well...I don't recall having signed up at PeaceTreaty.Net
If you use completely unethical tactics (i.e. inappropriate force, un-necessary brutality, (e.g. gangbang where the opponent is much weaker than you to start with) abusive tones/language and so on) expect to be widely hated
However, not many people do that, and even I don't go THAT far to guarantee a win...I want better than a half chance in fights, not a playground gang to enforce my will

But whatever you do decide on, keep to these two rules:

1) Be sure you can live with your choice!
2) Be quick! Dithering just gets you killed... Even the wrong decision made quickly can sometimes be more useful than the right decision just too late!

I'd like to reiterate ViveChe's comment - what has battle rank got to do with it? I'd consider being more cautious against 'maybe' the top 10 battle players in a campaign game. Anything below that just isn't significant.

what??? ... I guess I'll need to go up the ladder.
Fanatic, then right now in your scale I'm less than nothing...(ranking in the 30's).
Now seriously, I do not think your statement is totally correct, there are good battle players that don't do that well in campaings (since not everything in campaing is batling, there are resources, techs, politics, etc.), then there are good campaing players that don't do very good in battles (they are good managers of resources, etc., and maybe not as sharp on battle), and there are players that are good for both (this I DO pay attention to )

Thanks CTDXXX. That basicly what I want to hear. Soothing to my ear. Some sound reasoning.

In game 63 I chose Wolf because the other two options would have resulted in me fighting two with help from a third or fourth. There have been few straight up fights in the area I am in. Nor castles falling. Everyone of them fighting a little against many.

I am not sure from the news how many other area fights have been straight up with incidental interaction. I mean Tyler and wolf popped each other for 10 or 20 so it could look like a gang while me and wolf were killing over 2000 troops. Maybe the other distant fight were that way.

In other words I am woozy from what I see in games not matching the forums and wanted somebody to talk reality to me. Bizzare politics causing me to loose focus.

I agree that I should not let experiance and high score intimidate me.

But I would be a fool not to respect those who know what they are doing. I screw up my tech buys. Make poor choices on troop build up. Then err on the battle field.

All inexperiance talking.

Then people keep double teaming and triple and quadtriple teaming till I am dizzy from it. If they were not all in 3 or 4 fights at the same time it would be a slaughter. It sort a balances out. That guy is facing 3 armies from people each in two or three fights. The one he is invading is asking me for help and he is asking for help on another person invading him. So I go jump wolf instead. I am not good at these politics.

Careful about the 'respect' thing...the best policy is to simply not let the 'superior' player (allegedly ) know what you're thinking...simply be wary, don't do the whole 'bow-and-worship' thing unless it's part of diplomacy

Finally, anyone who has a high score in mid-game may be a good target...why? Because they've already expended a good deal of their force elsewhere, and you may be able to take them down in their reduced form...but be careful of alliances already forged...

That's right gueritol, you are less than.....

Course I've got a battle rank of 1, so look where I rank myself Actually gueritol you just validate my point. Unless a player is truly in the very top rankings it may not mean much. If they are in top 10 battle rank though they at least have a good grasp of the tactical side of the game. In such a case even if they fail to grasp the economic and diplomatic side of the campaign, one should still be wary when it comes to the actual fighting. So unless they are ranked near the top I wait to see how they actually perform in the given game before coming to any real opinion.

Even then, that's not...entirely valid
You assume that every player puts equal amounts of effort into each type of game. For example, TaurusRex just doesn't play battle games, as a rule.
I would only consider a player less than spectacular if they had tried to get a higher ranking and failed (i.e. many games, not much gain). Really, there are just too many factors for it to be a scale of anything other than success in battle games...

The point - I can dig up trash like the fact that in campaigns I have to play 41-80 games to uphold a high rank, but in battle games I can continually hammer newbie to slowly build rank...but at the end of it all, battle game rank measures battle success. And that's it

The best measuring tool, when it's available, is field experience. Only with this do you know who the REAL dangers are to you and your style of strategy

Yes CTD!
My battle rank is low, but I seldom battle newbies (A few of them have popped-in and have taken the place of the agreed battle player )), and going for top 10 players usually has its toll in points, but not on experience.

I think names in the game are just that, anyone can beat you, and anyone can be beaten, because we all make mistakes, the difference is the frequency

hey since we are on the topic ok this guywas strong well he invaded are lands then 2 of us mainly drove him back he does treaty with us then breaks it by attacking one of my allies do i gangbang him for you know breaking it or not

Laugh at me and call yourselves right

Pimpndistress went inactive and Steveabbot picked up his castle. I was watching the news and saw them trading a few. Not even 50. But never expected this. Steve said he was waring with Rabbit not Pimp.

Now what am I to do with 120 archers 250 scouts I have sitting just on Pimp, excuse me, Steves land?

Pimp is not inactive

Steve says he is trying to get his castle back.

Should I help poor Pimp get his back. Then take it from him

Nah I'll probably watch and root for Pimp while being ready to smash him if he should get lucky and win.

Tyler - treaty breaking is considered the more major of the crimes in the game
If you have public support and truth on your side, do what you will

ok one thing if you read the general chit chat
the one teseroff said i stabbed him in the back thats not true it was miss communication
what happened was i said i'm coming he thought that i ment to harm him but it was i was coming to help him

hahahaha... i´m coming oh man that is a joke or? if not lol... very funny thing

what are you saying you don't believe me or the mispelling