Removed for off-topic content. Please PM me or a mod to discuss specific complaints.
Printable View
Removed for off-topic content. Please PM me or a mod to discuss specific complaints.
The first post says to ask admins about fake war tactics to see what is allowed. They have already stated that things are looked at case by case, so what is the point of the thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassy_Wolfie
If I bothered to play competitively in any way and I heard of a kd setting no aw/ no massacre war terms I would report it as I consider it against the code of conduct.
Reasoning: Honor/Sci are key in competitive wars.
If you don't have to repump your wizards after war and I do, you have gained time allowing you to load more honor/pump sci.
I am pretty much on the ethical side nowadays though.
Edit: I don't expect admin answers otherwise it may be abused by some, so giving answers based on my own ethics/opinions.
Thank you @Makeo for your honest opinion! I'm not sure whether the Utopian Lords will weigh in either (they are busy people), but I hold out hope, not necessarily for my question so much as for the newer players who may have questions or examples.
Being a Monarch is demanding; you're voted in to do the heavy lifting and have anywhere from 15-24 other provinces depending on you. At some point I hope this becomes an open forum where new monarchs, and old, can broach the concerns they have with real answers. By providing examples, hopefully they can receive a ruling on a scenario before they cause themselves, and everyone depending on them grief.
-DM <3
I remember when you used to be able to say no dragons as a war term. I'd be curious if that's still common place and/or an acceptable term.
That is a good question @Sassy_Wolfie! I'm sure a lot of veteran players have discussed this term before, so I wonder what the Utopian Lords would have to say. Thank you for your input! :D
-DM <3
Thanks Chris! Great to hear some thoughts from someone else. I added some brief further comments in Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris121
Not agreeing with your premise, but even if true - isn't it commendable that if someone unwittingly broke the rules, that he'd try to find out what they are to make sure they don't get broken again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetiepie
In any other community, that would be lauded as good behavior, rehabilitation and a sign that someone is truly trying to reform.
If you get pulled over by the cops and given a speeding ticket, would it be suspicious and shady and in bad faith if you then started paying very close attention and researching to find out what the speed limits are on the roads around you so you don't speed again?
No, if anything that shows you learn your lesson and are going above and beyond to make sure you don't speed again. In fact, any Judge would probably find you not remorseful and acting in bad faith if you didn't make an effort to figure out what the speed limits were after you were given your first speeding ticket.
Hmm, I never thought of it that way and you do have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by makeo
That said, the premise of that isn't that different from "No PK" rules right? If you don't have to collect science and rebuild a bunch of provinces from scratch, you have gained time to load more honor/pump sci (even more so since you were literally reduced to 0.
More of an academic example that, since I actually don't think I've ever seen, or be likely to agree to no massacre/no AW, though I have seen "no abducts" which is roughly the same principal (removing a resource that you can only regain by literally sitting around waiting for a week.
Though this might be a good example to discuss the reasoning behind the "No Fake War" rule and the considerations that come into play.
On the one hand, my understanding of the broad rationale behind preventing fake wars is preventing abuse of the "protection" aspect of Wars, whereby a KD is protected from outside hits, and hence gain an advantage in terms of charting over KDs that are not so protected, and have little feasible way of targeting them.
In that respect, agreeing to not allow land grabs on certain provs is a classic example of a fake war, as it allows a province to grow unmolested by outside forces. However, in terms of saying, no AW, this reasoning is unaffected - because outside KDs, if not hostiled, don't have access to AW anyway. So saying no AW doesn't give a province in war relative protection compared with being out of war, so in that regard there is no abuse of war protections. (In that regard, no abducts, for example, could be, as it lets a KD run like 50% labs and stock up on science in war with no universities, and be "protected" from outside abducts.
Another aspect is preventing people from farming out acres and benefits to one KD by agreement (rather than by merit), and thereby artificially boost the chances of one KD in charting beyond what that KD could achieve in a fair war or out in the open.
In that regard, banning AW doesn't artificially boost one side by transferring resources from one side to another, it just prevents the destruction of a resource - so no AW doesn't go towards this aspect directly.
Another aspect could be in making sure someone is not skewing the risk/reward balance in the EOWCF boost, which, I believe is probably balanced to achieve goals of 1) counterbalance the disincentives of war, and 2) allow for recovery time to minimize downtime, but at the same time, to make sure the rewards are not so great such that a non or less warring KD cannot compete. It is arguable that banning AW, by decreasing one of the "risks" of warring, while still retaining the "reward" of EOWCF could have a skewing effect on that risk/reward balance by taking away one of the risks.
And I think another aspect, of course, is the game owners would want to increase activity, participation, and the players in the game (because, obviously, the financial success of the game depends on that =P). And encouraging more frequent warring is one of those, so there's a balance between not allowing abusive wars to maintain a fair competition environment, while still allowing common rules that KDs use to counter otherwise disincentives to war. Allowing KDs to agree to provisions to minimize wizard destruction is one of them, since, destroying a KD's wizards, say for example AWing a DE Heretic reliant KD's wizards down to .1 WPA, would essentially mean that you have 25 players out of commission for 2-3 weeks repumping wizards, and some of those are going to get bored and quit. So that, I'm, sure is an aspect that has to be kept in mind too.
Wow, just wow. Can we give it up for @changeling for such a great and thoughtful writeup! :D I seriously hope to see some input from the Lords on a few of the issues you have brought up.
And I love your analogy; Ignorance is not a defense, and how do you combat ignorance? With Knowledge! That is the goal here for the Cavalier's Club; to inform the player base! An informed community is a strong community!
Keep them coming! Any questions, or opinions on this, let's see them! :D
-DM <3
I agree that a kd who doesn't have their wiz killed is in a better position to fight later wars. But the rules don't state that you are not allowed to agree terms in a real war with the aim of putting you in a better position in later wars - you can't exclude certian provinces form a war and the war has to be real.Quote:
Originally Posted by makeo
It would also follow from what you are saying, but to a lesser degree, that if I war a KD of 20 provinces / 80% of my nw (or whatever the minimum is these days), and you war one with 25 provs at 100% of your nw, I am more likely to be in a better position in a future war because there are fewer opposing provs to AW/massacre / whatever me. But I don't think anyone would suggest that is against the rules, provided both are genuinely real wars. So there has to be a line somewhere which isn't based solely on whether there is a benefit to the KD in question in a future war.
Unless we go with Makeo's school of thought above (in which case any agreement at all about anything related to the war would be prohibited), I can't see how this could be an issue. And yes I still come across KDs wanting to agree no dragons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassy_Wolfie
Your bolded text sounds fine to me. I agree that people don't really think about what PK means.Quote:
Originally Posted by changeling
A few ages ago I had a KD say to mine that they would war us if we agree to various things, which included no PK. I would have been happy to war without any terms, but they wanted them and I wanted a war, so I agreed to their no PK. It was 3am and I didn't bother to try to debate what that actually means. War started and we chained as usual. After a few chains, by chance we chained one of their players who didn't know how to deal with being chained and didn't release much / anything. We had already moved on to attacking someone else. I wasn't following the specifics at the time, although I had seen his peasant count was getting low but assumed he was just cutting things fine with releasing. But then I woke up one morning and his prov had died :P We weren't opping or attacking him at the time and literally made no attempt to PK him. He wasn't anywhere near to 0 acres (can't remember the amount but certainly over 100).
To their credit, the KD in question didn't complain that we had breached the war terms. The prov in question didn't even recreate in that KD, so maybe it was an inactive/semi-active we managed to PK. But it did demonstrate your point quite well. I assumed at the very least that "no PK" would mean that their KD would take normal reasonable steps to stop their own provinces dying after being chained... :)
Thank you @Chris121 and @changeling for your well written input on theses issues! I'm sure newer players will garner something from your experience :D
-DM <3
Yes, after quite a few bad experiences with disagreements and both sides accusing each other of "deal breaks" when a generic "no PK" rule is agreed to, I've since been trying to get more and more specific, based on experience of common situations in which the line between allowed attacks and intentional PKing will get fuzzy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris121
I'll put my current version below, so that the community can see and have a base of what I consider a formulated "no PK" rule, and to of course, check that it's within the rules.
Diamonds accepted an offer of a free WW in exchange for killing off certain provs after the war. If you believe that could possibly be unwitting FW for anyone with two brain cells to rub together, or anyone with eyes to read the actual written rules, perhaps you'd believe me if I said the word gullible has been taken out of the dictionary? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by changeling
The Devs do not do everything perfectly that is for sure, they are only human not really Lords, there are grey areas, but that situation isn't one of them.
Things like agreeing no dragons are not even grey areas to me - there is no requirement to send a dragon in war its optional. There is no requirement to AW, there is no requirement to use any specific strategy at all in order to win. It is not even a rulebreak to call in your friends even though it's ****ty play and gets you a bad rep (hello Alliance of Diamonds). Not everything can be a hard and fast rule because context is really important, lots of situations are analogue not digital. Cheaters like digital and do not like the use of judgement and application of common sense. That's why the Devs decide on a case by case basis.
What is not optional about a war is genuinely trying to win.
Is it legal to war a kingdom you know you will beat? It seems to me the outcome is predetermined whether you message and agree to terms or not. How is warring a kingdom like WsK any different from arranging a farmwar functionally? They both achieve the same results regardless of intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris121
A personal example of "legal" pre-determined outcome: I've always found it easier to war kingdoms that don't know they're about to be at war using players who are taking ages off to join and deliver buttons. I have taken comfort in the fact that this is a legal move since the monarch/kd in question are indeed clueless and no multi is used for delivery. I sincerely hope that I will not have to change my tactics under the new administration.
I have found in the past that agreeing to a "No Intentional PK" rule, without further elaboration, can tend to lead to disagreements about what PK actually is. While we all recognize that FB and Kidnaps on a deep-chained province with low peasants is the characteristic hallmark of intentional PK, there are other situations where the line is not clear - i.e. massacring a chained T/M to remove opping power, or noting when exactly is peasants too low.
The following are designed to minimize risk of PKing, while balancing against legitimate war needs that increase the risk of PKing even if not intended to, and to provide a framework whereby that can be done safely.
(I normally assign actual acre numbers to the following based on average numbers, not use percentages. So if we start off with a KD of mostly 1000 acre provinces, I use "250 acres" instead of 25%, but I give percentages in this post to better convey the overall meaning).
1. Define "Semi-Chained Provs" as provinces that have been taken to below 25% of original acres, define "Deep-Chained Provs" as provinces that have been taken to below 10% of original acres.
2. No Kidnaps or Fireballs on either Semi-Chained Provs or Deep-Chained Provs below 500 peasants.
3. No Massacres on Semi-Chained Provs below 200 Peasants without notice pursuant to section X. No massacres on Deep-Chained Provs at all without notice pursuant to section x.
4. No attacks on Deep-Chained Provs on land defense below 120 peasants.*This one is per my earlier post that I was asking about, I do not currently use it, but am considering it and would like to see if I can get a mod to approve, as I'm not sure if it is within the rules, but at the same time it's to address that attacks on land defense provinces do kill peasants, and in sufficient number can be used to PK.*
5. For the bans on actions in sections 2, 3, and 4, the burden is on the attacking party to obtain up to date SoTs and intel to ensure that the peasant levels and acreage are high enough to meet the requirements for whichever action the attacking party is intending.
6. To accommodate massacres on Semi-Chained Provs or Deep-Chained Provs when necessary to remove opping potential, the following notice provision can be used. If a Kingdom wishes to massacre a Semi-Chained or Deep-Chained Prov, that kingdom can give a "12-hour notice" whereby, a message should be sent to the province, the opposing monarch, and posted in the war forum, stating that at X time, set to no earlier than 12 hours from the time of the message, they intend to massacre X province, and to release 1k peasants by then. This notice will be deemed continuing such that X is expected to consider himself a massacre target, and continuously maintain the 1k peasant number whenever lengthy periods of inactivity are expected. But, if there is a 15-hour gap with no new massacres, the notice will be deemed expired, and a new 12-hour notice will have to be issued to resume massacring. Once the 12-hour notice is sent, the massacring Kingdom will no longer have the burden of checking SoTs before massacring to check peasants levels, and the burden to check on and maintain appropriate peasant levels will be shifted to province X. Note, this rule is not intended to allow PKing after giving notice, but to shift the burden of intel-checking and allow for a reasonable presumption.
7. Both Monarchs also agree to work together and communicate and to hold themselves to a duty to act in good faith. I.e. even if 12-hour notice is given, but you notice someone forgot to release enough and is down to 20 peasants, even though you may have given notice, please do the right thing and shoot the prov a warning and temporarily pause massacreing. That said, if a province is continuously abusing the rules, i.e. given notice, but hovering himself at 199 peasants in the hopes that massacres can be avoided, please still communicate with the opposing monarch, and the opposing monarch should keep in mind that while this provision seeks to ensure communication stays open during a war and monarchs cooperate to make sure everyone fights a clean, fair war, a province given notice is open to massacres, and will not be considered a rule-break if he gets killed - so the risk of keeping low peasants to try and avoid massacres is on that province.
Very good discussion points @octobrev, far beyond my scope to answer, but hopefully further discussion will get some clarification on the issues brought up.
@changeling another great write up! Even outside of discussing war terms, such a great reference guide for avoiding and mitigating player killing(PKs) :D
Just because I feel clarification is required:
@changeling is referring more to a broad concept and not the individual escapades of the 6:2 v 1:9 controversy. This thread is about clarity and guiding players to not make mistakes and, more to his comment, when infractions are made, a good attitude and equipping yourself with the knowledge to not repeat these mistakes should be commended, we got rid of the stocks decades ago lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by changeling
Opinions, answers, questions, come one come all! You're on the air here in the Cavalier Club! :D
-DM <3
If you "know" you will beat them, then it's a fake war as the only way you can "know" that is if the outcome is pre-determined. If however you are very confident you will win based on knowing your ability and theirs (or their state of readiness / set up etc), then yes I believe that in itself is within the rules (obviously assuming that there are no other ways in which you are breaking the rules, such as having provs in both KDs!).Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
The legality of the method of getting into war that you describe is a separate point. Honestly I am not sure if that is against the rules, but I would say it is against the spirit of the rules and therefore illegal.
What I was talking about was an opposing KD making a free choice whether to war with your KD or not (albeit sometimes that "choice" gets made by a couple of provs unwittingly giving out buttons). What you are talking about is having a deal with other people inside that KD to give you the button.
ps I'll have to come back to the other recent posts here when I have more time :)
Thanks for the response Sweetiepie. Thank you for contributing your input into this laudable thread trying to ensure that rules are not broken in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetiepie
I agree, of course, that the communication Diamonds accepted could be construed as problematic.
I was just pointing out that even if this thread were started by Diamonds (and it was not) as you contended, it would be evidence of good behavior and a good-faith attempt at reformation. It is something that should be encouraged and celebrated by the forum community that we are a community of players, who rather than just fill the forums with vitriol and hate when deleted or otherwise actioned by moderators, make the effort to make lemons from lemonade and use it as a learning opportunity, and more importantly, seek to help better the experience for everyone by working together on threads like this to make sure everyone learns from their mistakes and develop a better understanding of the rules we play by.
That said, this thread has been useful in bringing to light that there are actually more grey areas than we would have expected. For example, there are actually monarchs that disagree with your assessment that no dragons, no AW etc. are not against the rules. So you have just provided an excellent example of why this thread is here, and how unintentional rule-breaking can occur, where we have, for example one monarch like you, who thinks it's clear that "No AW" is clearly OK and not even a grey area, while 2-3 other monarchs here have argued that "No AW" is clearly a rule break intended to set up a KD for future wars. So this demonstrates this thread's usefulness for everyone, so that, for example an innocent leader like you won't get investigated next time when you send a "NO AW" rule request to a monarch who thinks it's against the rules.
Thanks again for posting! Your insight and involvement here is always welcome :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris121
Any innovative thinkers with an opinion? Any players with a question? The lines are open here at the Cavalier Club! :D
-DM <3
It's pretty blatantly obvious in most cases just by looking at the KD pages who will win! What if there isn't a physical player in the opposing kingdom but I have access to their intel site, plans, and orders?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris121
On another tangent, I see it's against the rules to "create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others." Does this apply to top kingdoms masquerading as ghettos early in the age to bait easy war wins?
I have been in several tiny ghettos where both sides have agreed to "no dragons" as neither has enough gold to send one anyway.
So no need to start a decoy as some ploy.
@Octo:On another tangent, I see it's against the rules to "create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others." Does this apply to top kingdoms masquerading as ghettos early in the age to bait easy war wins?
That has happened to my KD last 3 ages. 3 BB, 2 Emereti, 1 FS this age.
We did land on same island with them all 3 times.
Agreed, but in those situations I believe that is within the rules. I don't see how it could possibly be workable to have a rule that says you can only war a KD where you think you have a fair chance of losing. It's far too grey. We have war declare limits for a reason - if they are too wide such that wars are not fair, we should narrow the war declare range.Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
I think it depends on the situation. If you have a deal with a prov in their KD to give you the information, then I see it as the same as your first method.Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
At the other extreme, if by luck one of their KD mates happens to defect to your KD during war and *you had no involvement or awareness etc of that going to happen*, and that player tells you their plans, maybe that's permissible.
There is no rule to identify your own KD. So if they are merely not using their normal name and/or not using a theme and/or not building up their provinces fully, I don't see how that is against the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
If they actively seek out other ghettos to lie "hey, we are a newly formed KD. we are not active but would like a fair war to try to learn" then I would say that's illegal.
If no dragons, PKs, and AW are acceptable war terms then where does it end exactly? Could two kingdoms agree to carry out their entire war in a google doc instead of in-game as to preserve their provinces for future conflicts? Or agree to decide the war based on a game of chess while they pump sci?
Ha ha 'problematic communications' AOD snake oil rears its head, neither you or Diamond's Munchkin can admit 'Diamond cheated, got deleted' :)Quote:
Originally Posted by changeling
The PR department of Alliance of Diamond working overtime. Hope you guys get paid double rations.
I don't give a FF what other players think. (Who says it is monarchs posting in here?) Players do what they want, how they want and if they get caught and are clearly going against the spirit of the rules in the Dev's opinion they get deleted. Superb, problem solved! :)
This thread is about as useful as a life buoy for a fish.
Your earlier post did make me laugh though with your reference to 'the rules' agreed for the war and the minutiae of the definition of PK in your opinion. It made me wonder if you are so set on so detailed 'rules' for a war engagement what justice you mete out to those you believe have broken them. Get your alliance to whack them, perchance? :)
Yep, establishing the boundary in between allowing certain agreements that facilitate encouraging more real warring but preventing abuse, I think, is the point of this thread. So there's really two extremes. If one of your interests is the best "long-term" interests of the game, for example, on the one end, you want to allow "no PK" rules, as that is something that mitigates an aspect of the game that leads to increased numbers of people leaving the game. On the other hand, as you pointed out, taken to the other extreme gets kinda ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
Why is it only ok if it encourages wars? Maybe I'm more into growth and, with the recent changes made to prevent banks/cows, agreeing to terms where select provinces go unhit during war is the only way to facilitate what I desire to accomplish. I may very well leave the game if I can't get my bank off the ground...
Perhaps it would be more ethical to push for changes to the mechanics rather than circumventing them with underhanded agreements. We could remove AW/massacre and strengthen MAP(GBP) in warstance so players don't get upset and quit, for example.
Thank you for your opinion Sweetiepie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetiepie
Everyone has a different style and opinion, but I believe the open and respectful discussion is the best path forward and the key step to building a better community. We all become better people if we are polite and respect each other's opinions and contributions, as everyone here and everyone in the Utopia community has something important they are adding.
There'll always be certain individuals, like you, who do not care what people think, and think that players can "do what they want, how they want". However, for the broader community there are many fine people playing this game who do care about community standards and acknowledging the opinions of others, even if they may disagree.
This thread serves that purpose, of allowing a forum for fair-minded people to debate, and demonstrate that we are a community that, on the whole, are thoughtful and respectful.
That said, you bring up an excellent point of discussion, in a thread that seeks to invite discussion on community values and honourable play and standards.
In the scenario Sweetiepie mentioned, If two KDs are warring, but made a private agreement as to terms for the war, and other KD broke said terms, which I think there's general agreement amongst the community that breaking deals is considered bad form - is it appropriate for third parties (whether an alliance, or a friendly Kingdom, or the "Utopia Police") to impose punitive actions afterwards?
My personal opinion is that it is not. If two kingdoms privately agree to any terms for a war, I consider that a manner of internal dispute between those two kingdoms, and it should be resolved between them. (i.e. if an opposing KD violates a no-PK rule, an appropriate response is to PK back, but without any involvement from external forces). And external "justice" should be restricted only to a scenario involving "external" action. I.e. using an third-party to KD to intel or attack into a war, then it's justified requesting a third-party to attack that third-party, but not ok for a third party to intervene regarding an internal war dispute between two parties, even if one side engaged in actions the community considers to be bad.
Interested to hear everyone's thoughts though on appropriate and inappropriate times for a KD to ask for external support.
Good point octobrev, I made a longer post earlier on that goes into more detail about what I think some of the rationales could be (encouraging wars is only a small factor imo, as you're right, there are plenty of growth KDs as well).Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
Perhaps a better way of defining it is balancing war and growth.
Basically, for a KD that exists and finds primary enjoyment in warring, a mechanic that, practically speaking, enforces downtime of several weeks (i.e. wizard regain time) could lead to more players leaving the game, when they're forced to just sit and wait (in their POV) for half the available game time. However, a private agreement not to AW does not change the overall balance between a warring KD and a growth KD, as the growth KD would not normally have access to AW anyway if they have normal relations.
Banning, for example, agreements to leave some provinces alone makes perfect sense, as that gives a KD at war an advantage (growing provinces that are immune from attack) from the war protection mechanics itself, above and beyond what it would have in normal.
And yes, I also agree that changes to mechanics is the preferred way forward, and a mechanic to allow faster WPA recover after war (with various ways to make that happen) is a frequent suggestion. Private agreements in the mean time are just a crutch while the official process makes it's way forward.
That said, as I mentioned before I don't see no AW terms ever really, and I would not be likely to agree to such a term personally, but up there as an example of a kind of agreement KDs may make that restrict certain actions on both sides, but is useful to think about as it is not as broadly accepted as "No PK" but it is also something potentially justifiable.
Final warning, kiddo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweetiepie
Great High-Altitude Discussion from all our contributors! Please feel free to jump into the conversation anytime and keep the discussion going! :D
Stay tuned for more hot topics here! live on the Cavalier Club!
-DM <3
This is a public forum open for anyone to post in and voice their opinion if they dont align to what you want to discuss tough luck but thats a risk you just have to take.
I totally agree! Not sure what name calling has to do with the discussion, is considered a form of harassment, and can be reported. I hope we can all be respectful to each other here, especially with soo much great input and conversation going on! Anything pertaining to all your questions and topics, please feel free to post! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Korp
-DM <3
A kingdom in normal relations isn't exposed to AW but it also isn't getting a war win bonus while it's doing it. A kingdom that is setting such terms is gaining access subsidies that were implemented to compensate kingdoms for the risks associated with warstance while, at the same time, removing or reducing the risks.Quote:
Originally Posted by changeling
I won't fight you on this point! We sometimes have to force things to work until the developers get around to making changes that benefit us. I'm only using friends to provide buttons from ghettos until paradise stops taking pool acres. Otherwise, where the land gonna come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by changeling
Yep, I agree about the skewing of risk/reward balance problem - I made a longer post discussing this further back (no. 49 on page 4).Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
Of course not because then they wouldn't be attacking/doing anything to each other which is one of the very obvious examples of a fake war. I appreciate you are trying to come up with an extreme to prompt discussion, but those examples are so extreme that if you step back they are obviously against the rules :)Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
This all sounds good, except you refer to deep chained/semi chained as "provinces that have been taken to below x% of original acres". Technically, that doesn't mean they still have to be below that size, and so it is theoretically possible (eg after a very long war) that a "Deep chained province" regrows and ends up big again and it is possible that there could be a scenario where they still nonetheless have land def and under 150 peasants (especially if the war terms say they can't be attacked..lol). I suspect you probably intend to include and additional part of the definition to make clear that if the prov in question regrows above x% then they are no longer considered deep chained/semi chained (unless/until they are back below the acres threshold), because without that you risk handicapping your war effort. From a rules perspective, even without that additional part, I think all of it is within the rules except #4 because that prohibits ALL attacks. In my view, #4 is fine if it relates to a prov that is already badly damaged (ie the aim is just not to kill them) but not fine if it ends up relating to a big prov that has ended up becoming immune from attacks due to these war terms. So in my view to make #4 permissible you need the war terms to only consider a province "deep chained" if they are still below a sensible acre threshold.Quote:
Originally Posted by changeling
Is it against the rules? The outcome of the war is far definitely not predetermined in this case. Which is more than I can say for most of the "real" wars that take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris121
The problem with that would be that deal breaks don't necessarily have to be in war. So you could have a big KD deal breaking a small KD. If that happens, it's pretty hard to meaningfully deal with it yourself without damaging your own interests even more (eg you could do your best to attack one of their provs / mess up their plans, but ultimately you will probably end up having more of your provs razed or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by changeling
But realistically, most of the time most KDs just have to hope that the KDs they make deals with will stick to them. If not, make a note and don't trust them next time. Some players are known to be fairly trustworthy with deals, some are less so. So think about who you are dealing with :)
I'm fairly confident the devs would say that is against the rules, yes (but obviously i have no more knowledge on it than anyone else).Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
Being pre-determined isn't the only way a war is a fake war and/or against the rules. For example, agreeing to exclude certain provinces from the war is also against the rules. So agreeing to exclude the entirety of both KDs from the war must surely be against the rules too.
You're not designating any excluded provinces. You're just banning certain destructive operations like AW, propaganda, fireballs, massacres, razes, abducts, traditional marches, conquests, etc.