How would you play this honorably?
I have sent the following message to one of two remaining players in an "unranked ultra game" except that in the message I sent, I did address the player by his "game name" and I also made mention of the other player's "game name".

"Our "NAP" is over but as I said before I won't attack you while you are at war with the other player.

However, a circumstance exists where you have already doubled your lead in points over me because I have no opponent and it is very possible that your war with the other player can continue until "game's end" with both of you accummulating points and possibly leaving me in third position;

So because there are also other possibly unclaimed resources and castles inaccessible to me because I am blocked from them by your territories, I intend to cross your territory in order to claim what I can of the unclaimed territories;

and you may attack me if you want to do so, but I would then feel justified to retaliate against you.
Sorry, but I see no other way to continue to play "honorably"."-TR

PS:

I have even considered to challenge both of the other two players to war against me at the same time because this is a real circumstance where I can go around this map accummulating assets only to find that the game has ended with me in third position simply because I didn't have an opponent.
I did have an opponent who turned out to be an "inactive player" after I had sent several units to attack him and one other player also on the other side of the map has gone inactive. There are "unclaimed unknowns" all over the map and as long as I have NO existing NAP with either of the two remaining players, IMO those unclaimed resources can be claimed by me;
and it is the only way I might possibly get the other two players to attack me.
Again ... how would you play this honorably (i.e. knowing that the war between the remaining opponents can possibly continue long enough to possibly cause both of them to finish ahead of you on points)?

TR

Last Edited : Friday, 18 March 2005 - 00:55

PPS:
Well I'm lucky to have a "game opponent" who has answered me that his opponent is almost finished and that I can start an attack on him at anytime.
He has answered "let's rumble"
I may still not initiate the hostilities but I'm really interested to hear how some of you would have handled this.

TR

lolz....i will certainly challenge both of them at once

Well I attempted to cross his territory as I stated above (i.e. to get to the "unclaimed unknowns" of the other player who had gone "inactive" and we are now at war because my opponent didn't allow it).

TR

I would have attacked them both (assuming I felt at least comfortable with the strength of my armies to be competetive). There can be no cry of foul play in that situation as neither is being ganged up. I don't see any problem with entering a war in progress so long as you are not heavily weighted towards one side or the other.

I would agree with Fanatic. And letting them know up front what you are doing and why is fine. There is honor, and then there is pusposely delaying your score at your own detriment and doing nothing. After all, it is a game to play. Doing nothing and watching is not that fun.

Being new to the game, perhaps I'm being incorrect... and if so, please correct me.

But if I find that I'm doing nothing... and right beside me there a war raging on... I would only do as it was suggested in the first post... IF i didn't intend on joining the conflict.
But if I intended in gaining more points or resources and so on... I would send an expedicionary force to "grab" some land onto the first bloke I'd found.

And if he did find that he was being beaten or couldn't handle himself, then He would need to make a truce with someone or join one player as a temporary allie.

Would my point of view be considered unhonorable for the normal game player?

Well IMO I have done nothing dishonorable because I explained to my opponent why I was attempting to cross his territory and when I say,
"he didn't allow it",
I mean that he attacked the unit;
So I felt justified to retaliate as I had said that I would do.

It's a shame that I had to leave this game at a very critical point due to a serious real life problem yesterday and then again early this morning because I was really enjoying this "Ultra" surprizingly even though it is unranked. I did make a serious blunder though ... overstepping my initial advantage just before I had to leave this morning and leaving my units for a few full turns, vulnerable with me unable to respond which has caused a serious turn of the tide of battle against me;

and with me now making precarious attempts to regroup,
but these "Ultras" are really great and IMO it is ashamed there is no kind of "reward incentive" for playing them.

TR

Well TRex, in that case I wish You all the best onto getting back together and pushing Your invaders back from where they came from.

And hope that in the "real" life You're ok also.

I'm Izno not Imo but no prob with that.
I understood your point of view on "crossing" a battlefield and being "jumped" upon.

For me, if I had agreed upon a cease-fire I would be honour bound to fulfill it until at least I had announced that after a "x" time I would start acting as if the cease wasn't "active" anymore. But without any "agreement" I wouldn't care less about "crossing" the other blokes land (unless I wasn't interested in "fighting" him at these moment).

Hope to find You in a Game TRex

"iznogoud",

"IMO" is an acronym for "in my opinion"

The NAP I had with the guy ended on "turn 30" and I made an attempt to cross his territory at a midway point between his two castles, well away from any battlefield with a scout army on "turn 35" after having sent the message above on "turn 32". He also captured the other guys castle on "turn 35".

I was after territory of the player who had gone inactive which was blocked by the territory of my opponent who is now my enemy because he attacked my scout as I mentioned. I was NOT after territory of the player my opponent had defeated.

The attack was made by him on the scout army on "turn 36".
Other subsequent attacks followed but the initial attack, although I do not question his right to make it, IMO still gave me a right to retaliate because I announced my reason for attempting to cross his territory and I did not attack him or his territory. He could have allowed the unit to pass and we would not now be at war if he did.

TR

PS:
I was asked if I wanted a NAP or a WAR initially. I answered that I wanted a NAP until "turn 30" with WAR possibly starting on "turn 31"
(i.e. meaning no extentions).
I got no answer and I didn't pursue an answer. There were no details specified for this NAP concerning boundaries either or right of passage.

As far as I'm concerned, when a person doesn't answer a NAP proposal by at least saying "AGREED", a player is taking a chance that he may be attacked without warning with the other person giving the reason that he didn't ever "AGREE" to the NAP.

So as I said once before folks I will not pursue anymore for an answer from folks who keep me waiting for one and if someone gives the excuse I have just given for making an attack (i.e. that he didn't ever give a final agreement to a NAP) or if someone attacks because he didn't get an answer to a "NAP proposal", I may very well side with the attacker.

TR

seriusly...i saw that as a tactical plan..
the way that you said you will cross his land over the other side to get your land,if he attack,he let you have the chance to attack him. If not,he risk being attacked by you. I saw nothing wrong with that proposal at all. In fact,i used such tactic(although not exactly that way but the same principle-is it spelt that way?..)all the time.
I once vulture someone`s land because i enter that land at the same time of the other attacker with the intention to engage the defender,but since i was a bit late,i took one of the resources building to provoke the attacker to attack me after he finished the defender.

you guys see any wrong in that?

TR sorry about the "IMO" stuff, since I'm not an English language speaker as my mother tongue, sometimes I lack a few acronims.

Well in the way You put it. You have all the right to consider the other guy as an enemy, after having "informed" him of your intentions and giving him time to "study" it.

I have a question though, is it possible to "see" a game as a non player? I was trying to take a peek onto your game, but couldn't do it (or even find it).

See you later

I could provide a "screenshot" where I could explain every "bloodstain and rubble"
(i.e. to explain where I blundered, overextended myself and was unable to close my defences because my opponent attacked and so I was unable to continue building);
but I have actually been able to salvage some of the defences and remove towers that might have been used by him.

I am now vastly outnumbered but still fairly secure behind my defences and I would imagine that the lull in my opponent's activity is probably due to his having to "retool" so to speak to build catapults and also commandeers which I did manage to reduce somewhat.
I also have saved key diplomacy messages and defence messages in my log so that I can verify my story;
but sorry I really don't think there is a problem here.

My opponent has actually invited me to attack him and I just gave him first shot to be honest.
We are having IMO a very great war and I'm enjoying it especially because I'm starting to close the point gap a little.
I really thought this was an interesting scenario that required "fine tuning" of our ideas of honorable behavior so that was the reason for the thread.
I can save my log to file also but really folks I'm being truthful.

PS:
"Disturbedyang",
Yes ... that is the correct spelling and useage of the word "principle". There is a word "principal" which refers usually to the head of a school.

TR

Sorry if there was confusion, TR, but I had a different perspective of the situation at the start of the war.

The first part of the "Let's Rumble" message said: "Go ahead and start attacking...I'll do likewise..."

Which is what I did at the next opportunity after you confirmed receiving the message.

If it's any consolation, if we had started with equal resources, I would very likely be the one in the defensive position...

Thanks "Luger"
PS:
I haven't ever seen so many archers since I started playing WOL.

TR

Last Edited : Saturday, 19 March 2005 - 14:41

Right now, Taurus, I would build a porous outer line of ramged units, and a heavy concentrated force close to your base.

I'm going to post a couple screen shots so you folks can see what the "Trojan War" was like.

TR

PS:
As promised:

geocities.com/marsgranite/UltraWar2.JPG

geocities.com/marsgranite/UltraWar3.JPG


Without defences (i.e. walls, pallisades and towers), I had no chance because after about turn 40 my opponent had 6 castles to my 4 and he probably had well over 1000 archers alone in the field which were soon followed by plenty of marksmen, knights and HC's on top of 1000's of basic troops.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 20 March 2005 - 08:46

PPS:

geocities.com/marsgranite/UltraWar3.JPG

That long snake of pallisades in the "dead earth" was just to retreat my ballista armies safely back to my castle and I did manage to salvage most of it.

geocities.com/marsgranite/UltraWar4.JPG

Again I was right that he decided to produce catapults and easily broke through my outter wall to the right of the screen in the "rough earth" but the pallisades were only good against his ranged offence which was his dominant tactic for several turns when he was unable to get past my walls ands towers in the north for several turns.
I suspect that he finally bought the "master armor" and possibly the "master weaponry" because in the last few turns his attacks were more effective and mine seemed very much less so and I think that is more than anything the reason I won't be able to survive longer in this castle.

TR