Login

**Rogal** · 11-02-2016, 01:54 PM

Similar question I stated above, what constitutes an attack? Will an attack be based on specific orders? If it will be based on specific orders, what about non specific orders fire off against a kingdom?

**unclemike** · (This post was last modified: 11-02-2016, 02:35 PM by unclemike.)

(11-02-2016, 01:54 PM)Rogal Wrote: Similar question I stated above, what constitutes an attack? Will an attack be based on specific orders? If it will be based on specific orders, what about non specific orders fire off against a kingdom?

Only orders for conquering a pc: emissary rebel/usurp, wizard diplomacy, and group attacks/parley/siege. I would think nothing else in the game should be affected to keep things simple, just the important issues of being ganged up on and losing your pc's because of it. So I'm actually in favor of a Causus Belli/War Protest combo since it will prevent gang ups from happening in the game.

So if I were a victim of a 5 vs 1 gang up (and they all issued a Causus Belli against me that allowed their attack), I would issue a War Protest on all 5 to slow down their advance and to give me a chance to survive. Again, you may only issue a War Protest if 2+ kingdoms issue a Causus Belli against you, not if a single kingdom is attacking you.

If I successfully defended my region and want to go on the offensive, I would have to cancel a War Protest on one of the attacking kingdoms and issue a Causus Belli myself against them or I wouldn't be able to attack their pc's.

**Atuan** · 11-02-2016, 02:39 PM

(11-02-2016, 05:25 AM)IMPERIAL_TARK Wrote:
(11-01-2016, 05:46 PM)Atuan Wrote: Tark you initiated with one kingdom when you knew I was coming and declared me an enemy. You failed to communicate with people, set up alliances and NAPs. Yes if you hold up in your own corner of the world in a diplomacy game and pretend its an Anon game but everyone else in the game is talking, do you know what ends up being left. That's right, 1 guy without support. You also act like these 5 against you are not also involved in other fights. But at the same time. 5?? Think its 4 but not that that matters. Perhaps the 5th finished what he was doing but yes surprising I have allies or I am paying a bunch of money/status points.

Where in the heck do you get off deliberately posting false information about my game play and to the public forum no less?!

First, in game 523, I was already at war with the NE (and had taken his R2 from him long before you arrived on the scene) so where do you get off claiming I initiated combat with him when you came for me. A total lie. Second, of the 11 other players in the game, I communicated with 8 of them, of those 8, I have/had alliances or NAPs with 6 of them. And the other two of those 8, rejected NAPs and/or alliances when offered. And of course, that's a two-way street, the other three that I didn't communicate with also chose not to communicate with me. But I don't know of any player that would claim that when I've communicated with 8 of the 11, that I'm some kind of isolationist. So you can take your bullshit "hold up in your own corner alone pretending its an Anon game" and shove it up your a$$. If you're willing to spread these kind of falsities publically one can only imagine what kind of bullshit you're spreading privately. So its no wonder my earlier support has evaporated and there's a 5 on 1 against me if you're serving up whoppers like this above to gullible players.

So in the future, do everyone a favor, and stick to publically critiquing your OWN game play especially if you're going to be dishonest about the other players' play.

Tark you certainly let him sit in region 6 not attacking for enough turns to seem like you were no longer at war. Then you see I am going to invade, declare me enemy and even though the NO is now attacking the NE you decide you should move in. You can call it whatever you want. I tend not to try to continue/start whatever word makes you feel good another war when I know I am going to be attacked. You could have reached out to me about a NAP but didn't. And yes you are right that I could have reached out to you, but I had intentions of attacking you.

I have no idea about your communications. I will say of the people left in the game 7 people left in the game, I communicate with 4 of them every turn at a minimum, and I am at war with the other 2. As you are concerned about this. I don't know if you spoke to anyone once or you spoke to those 8 players every turn. What I am saying is to do well, you must have frequent communications.

Tomag's clique comment is "BS" as you like to put it. I am working with Cloud, but I think you remember me attacking him on your request. I am working with Rogal, I have not had friendly relations with him before this game. I am working with Devildog, I believe he can mention what I did to his AN. I NAPed with the DU for awhile and extended it, but have never worked with Jhereg before. JF I agreed to an early NAP and paid for it in PCs to start and now I pay in status points. Had he not been the agent kingdom(of which the AM seriously needs help there and wizard power) I wouldn't have bothered. If he was the WA and you were the UN. I would have offered you the same deal, and I would be paying you to kill his wizards. I could go on, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter.

Every game anyone goes into they need to look at their kingdom, determine where they are weak and sure up those weaknesses through allies.

**Tomag Ironfist** · 11-02-2016, 03:28 PM

All this discussion makes me want to play in a diplomacy game Smile

**VballMichael** · 11-02-2016, 03:38 PM

Makes me want to cry. From the above I hear there are 7 kingdoms left and 5 are NAP'd. Yikes.

**Atuan** · 11-02-2016, 03:40 PM

1 kingdom is NAPed with 4 kingdoms. That does not mean the those 4 kingdoms have NAPs with each other.

**Rogal** · 11-02-2016, 03:48 PM

I kind of blame ESO's for the new game mechanic of turn 10 or turn 15 NAP's. I think the new wizard spell should be cast : Mass NAP which will send to all players an offer of NAP for 10 turns at level one or 15 turns at level 2. The player made NAP is becoming the easy non official way to start then ignore diplomacy. It is weird that all official NAP's I had with most empires used Diplomacy the least.

**Tomag Ironfist** · 11-02-2016, 04:09 PM

HA! A wizard cast NAP message - brilliant! Big Grin

**IMPERIAL_TARK** · 11-02-2016, 04:11 PM

(11-02-2016, 06:44 AM)Devildog Wrote: Tark, I sympathize to a point. 5 seems excessive. As a new player I was attacked early on by an experienced player. I had a NAP with you and approached you in extending it as I preferred not having to fight 2 experienced players simultaneously but that was not in your plans. Then the nomads jumped in against me and I sent them a similar email. They had the same response.

It would be nice if people didn't join in against people who have already been attacked but it is apparently just good strategy

As a new player, you should expect 2 on 1s, they are quite common and expected when there are more kingdoms than regions to go around. Three on ones occur less frequently and its frowned on but sometimes a necessity especially against a kingdom in a podium position (currently in first, second, or third based on most recent status points).

4 on 1s are generally reserved for a top current podium position making a play for the win.

5 on 1s are pretty extreme and really should be reserved for the first place kingdom making a run at winning the game.

I did give you a 20 turn NAP to give you ample time to prep, and with only two long borders for R3, it was going to be you or the AT when the NAP ended but had allied with AT. Generally, if your border neighbor doesn't renew a NAP, I would expect trouble in the near future.
[/quote]

Understood. It was 15 turns, but whatever. I am not complaining. Obviously just because I would prefer not to be ganged up on is not a good reason for you to not attack me when our NAP ended. I avoided facing a 3 on 1, none of which were initiated by me only because the atlantians dropped just before the nomads attacked me.

Out of curiosity, am I one of the 5 ganging up on you? Because I was attacked by you and am basically defending myself. I hardly think I should be lumped in with the other ones unfairly attacking you. I know that the amazons have attacked you in northern mists. I see the SA has advanced HC issues against you. Has he done much more than that? Someone attacked the druid. I assumed that was you but I honestly don't know. If so I don't think he should be accused of ganging up on you. And if in fact you had 2 territories and we're going for 2 more. I could see that other kingdoms might think they needed to act. I am not sure of the 5th kingdom but it is hard to believe that they are exerting serious pressure as you still have both NM and TM, and Oakendell and eastern steppes remain uncontrolled and heavily contested by you.
[/quote]

I stand corrected. It was 15 turns not 20. While I include you in the 5 on 1, I have mentioned that you certainly have every justification to smack me since I picked the fight with you; you have been fair in all your dealings and have managed quite well despite the initial loss of your home region. Since the game is on-going, I'm not in a position to reveal specifics in regards to the other aspects of the 5 on 1, but will happily show you when game is over.

11-02-2016, 04:30 PM

(11-02-2016, 02:21 PM)unclemike Wrote:
(11-02-2016, 01:54 PM)Rogal Wrote: Similar question I stated above, what constitutes an attack? Will an attack be based on specific orders? If it will be based on specific orders, what about non specific orders fire off against a kingdom?

Only orders for conquering a pc: emissary rebel/usurp, wizard diplomacy, and group attacks/parley/siege. I would think nothing else in the game should be affected to keep things simple, just the important issues of being ganged up on and losing your pc's because of it. So I'm actually in favor of a Causus Belli/War Protest combo since it will prevent gang ups from happening in the game.

So if I were a victim of a 5 vs 1 gang up (and they all issued a Causus Belli against me that allowed their attack), I would issue a War Protest on all 5 to slow down their advance and to give me a chance to survive. Again, you may only issue a War Protest if 2+ kingdoms issue a Causus Belli against you, not if a single kingdom is attacking you.

If I successfully defended my region and want to go on the offensive, I would have to cancel a War Protest on one of the attacking kingdoms and issue a Causus Belli myself against them or I wouldn't be able to attack their pc's.

UM, your War protest idea sounds interesting. If there were some way to slow down or deter multi on one attacks I might, and others might also, consider participating in diplomacy games.