Printable View
So you really think they're wasting their time razing you because of something that happened well over a year ago? Why wait until now? No... clearly people got sick of you stealing from them. But one question... when does a decent kingdom have to stoop to fake wars to get war wins?
u madddddddddQuote:
Originally Posted by flutterby
My kingdom was debauchery's 7th win(Noobies don't bite) and I can't believe and am offended by the bandwagon effect I am seeing here. I had read all of the previous nonsense regarding their war with ED before we agreed to war with them, and dismissed it as sour grapes. Our war with Debauchery was clean, respectful and even friendly right from their first "are you interested in war" message.
I have seen a lot of people asking for a clear definition of "fake war" and as many people responding essentially "if we make the rules clear then people figure out how to abuse them." This is some of worst BS I have seen in 16 years of playing this game. If nobody knows the rules, anyone can be punished at any time without true justification. When I first heard the term fake war, it was explained to me as two kingdoms using war status (without attacking each other) to protect themselves from outside attacks while they pumped and proceeded to mutual peace their friendly kingdom. SOOO many mechanics changes have been made over the years to prevent this abuse... The hostility meter was the start, no more declaring war without any attacks, then they made the war win counter to show mutual peace as a loss, took paradise out of war, increased explore costs, limited sciences... and it seems to me to have worked, fake wars are a thing of the past in my eyes. Yet here is a kingdoms efforts reduced to nothing because they agreed to terms before warring?
Our war was over fairly quickly with me surrendering even though we were up in acres and honor, I felt we had lost every strategic advantage at that point and decided to get out before things turned from in our favor into a massacre. There were no war terms ahead of time, but I am scared now that had there been I too may have been deleted, if not for this war, then for others which I have gotten into knowing that we were beat ahead of time, and knowing also that we were playing out of our league and needed to either get dropped a bit or get out of the line of fire for top kingdoms so that they could grow away from us. I am confused now and left with an unclear understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. Must we war unconditionally every time? I am fine with it if that is the rule, but as is now much like SillyRabbit claimed was his motivation, I will usually accept almost any terms just to get a war started. I play this game for the warring, not for the sitting around waiting. So tell me am I not allowed to war a kingdom who expects to be beaten? Am I not allowed to leave provinces unhindered if they ask me? Am i not allowed to enter a war with a kingdom that might benifit both kingdoms? What is the line? I don't want to be deleted, or have provinces in my kingdom deleted without knowing exactly what the rule is. I have to admit this all seems silly to me when as far as i know the definition of fake war has always been a war where there are no attacks.
Now everyone seems perfectly fine blowing this issue into nonsensical proportions seemingly because Debauchery has made enemies with their EOWCF thievery... Well I hate to break it to you, but Debauchery is one of many culprits here, in every range that I have played in... and I have to ask myself what is more honorable... taking what isn't protected or teaming up to raze-kill 1 of 300 kingdoms who are probably all doing the exact same thing. I have never been a fan of gangbangs, not enough intimacy for me... If you think your strategy is better, beat them in a fair one on one fight. Don't be a part of the "you can't hurt me cause i am part of the mob" mentality. I keep seeing people talking about the playerbase dealing with these issues (thievery is an issue that requires the action of the whole playerbase?) What an insane concept, and something that has been frowned upon forever... so many changes have been made to this game to make hostilities a kingdom vs kingdom mechanic not a alliance or playerbase issue. As far as I am concerned if you jump on the bandwagon and assist in this mockery of "punishment" you are nothing but a coward.
If you can't understand why trading wins for acres is bad thing, not sure how to help you.
Lol. Why would anyone be butt-hurt over him leaving pixar when he said it himself that he was forced to abandon his prov. I have to admit that Pixar was a failure of a project though. Anyway, it's so funny to see Debauchery trying to justify their actions given that you guys have a past record of stealing into eowcf and then waving the kd when they come out of eowcf as well. Vulturing for the win. I used to have some respect for strippers as a warring kd but you guys basically admitted that debauchery is just after as many war wins as possible no matter where they come from. Try using photoshop if you are just after a number on the page.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sig
It is simple.
I don't actually care to read this thread, and thus I will provide two hypothetical instead, both of which deal with trading a win for acres in different ways.
Hypothetical #1:
Kingdom A and Kingdom B are at war. Kingdom A is obviously interested in the win, but the war appears as though it might drag on for some time. Kingdom B is really not interested in forcing a win, but they certainly aren't going to give up and eat a loss with nothing to show for it. In the interests of both their kingdoms, the two monarchs decide to negotiate a deal: Kingdom B will withdraw, granting A the win, provided they're allowed to exit war with an acre gain.
Hypothetical #2:
Kingdom A and Kingdom B arrange a war. As part of their arrangement, it is decided that Kingdom B will withdraw after gaining X number of acres. To achieve this, Kingdom A and be coordinate attacks in the most efficient manner possible. Suiciding for poor gains by A and max-gains by B, for example.
I don't see a problem with the first hypothetical. I can see an issue with the second, though.
Locations. Good to see you're on the ball, Dharan. Idiot gets removed as an expletive but locations are permitted to stay these days. Perhaps you really did remove the pastebin links in the other thread simply to save your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by kerb0724
I'm working through the reports, which started with your posts. You have no patience :/
is not deciding to do a max gain land/honor run 2 hours before withdrawl and coming out ahead in acres the exact same thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
I mean clearly discussing an acre/win trade adds more communication, friendship and community to the game... but the end result is exactly the same.
(edit) but that still isn't my issue here, I just want to know what the definition of fake war is.
If you agreed with them that they would not attack during those two hours and you'd withdraw, then yours was a fake war as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betatester
But I am understanding very little here...What a pity you were not stolen millions of gold in the eowcf. Everything would have been much easier since you seem to be sympathetic to the idea.
Sheister, tell me if there is something I can do to help. I have food.
ummmm dunno.... but the current raze target has like no DP. Just about any OOP province ought to be able to raze it once at least.
/me shrugs.
if you have a spare general to speed it up, that would be grand I suppose. hint the province in question is the little one......I know that would be hard to figure out otherwise, so I provide this sup3r s3cr3t intel.
I have five generals and lots of ElfLords!
I'll find out who is. I want to show how intelligent I am.
Edit: And horses!
bandwagon effect indeed.
please, there is no bandwagon.... first off, there is no band. until someone shows me a trombone, there is no band. WHERES THE BAND!?
but there is trouble in river city.............
<moved>