Why do ghettos act like this?

[Che Guevara]

Che, per definition more then 2 hits IS a chain... If you agreed to not chain T/Ms during war, then you are dealbreaking per definition.

If you wanted it more simplified you should have specified it, in this case and what you agreed, yes you did dealbreak by hitting the same T/M more then twice.

No, more than two hits is NOT a chain. Especially over the course of an entire war like you said. You are quite obviously from MTP, because only a delusional MTPer would think that three hits in 80+ hours in a chain. The definition of a chain is something more along the lines of "losing more than than half your land within a couple of hours" or "Five or more hits within a couple of hours"

If it's not done within a couple of hours it isn't a chain.

[Palem]

Past Fake war: Punishment received.

Non-aggression pact during war: Deletion of players making the agreement.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You were punished for the exact thing I said you can't do lol

[Aranfein]

Che im not sure you are trolling or what... But PER DEFINITION a CHAIN is anything more then the number 2.

So by your own war agreement, you have broken the deal that was made by hitting more then twice.. You can not assume people will know what your limit of "chains" are when the official definition of a chain is more then 2. Makes sense?

Im not sure why you are trying to argue, you asked for opinions but when told you dealbroke you get a hissy fit.. Then DONT ask lol.

You said NO chain, ALL war, that doesnt mean within a few hours, that means ALL war in that case, as you hit more then twice, you did "chain" per definition and therefore broke the war agreement deal, not sure what is so hard to understand here, its pretty straight forward in the way you outlined the messages.

If you had chained, as in taking a T/M to 200 acres from 1600, you should have specified as such. You argue for no reason really, the messages says no chaining during war, that means no T/M can take more then 2 hits all war as that is what you have agreed to, as you have hit more then twice, the deal has been broken.

(before you start arguing back to this message, i understand what you mean by chain, but that is not how the messages with the agreement has been agreed, so as i said, per definition of a chain, you broke the deal and that is likely what your counter part is disgruntled about).

[baboykanding123]

ghetto it is

[Wolzly]

Doing a 'one-off' attack and doing an attack that is part of a chain are both trad-marches, by that token agreeing to anything based on 'no chaining but hits are okay' leaves room for interpretation, and essentially your 'dealbreak' (where the line is crossed making a series of hits become a 'chain' is up to interpretation, especially by ghettos).

You were setup basically by 'sloppy' terms.

I may have misread, but if I understand correctly your kingdom basically asked for a favour from this kingdom, to help you run from a war with a 3rd kingdom. By asking another kingdom for 'help' you've lost any bargaining chips. Not the way to diplo imo and it's no wonder things went sour.

If you want to run from a war into another war, wave another kingdom don't message them. Imo diplo through action is always better than diplo through communication. If you feel that simply waving won't get the results you want, well then deal with the original kingdom lol.


Edit, just scrolled up and saw this:

"Che im not sure you are trolling or what... But PER DEFINITION a CHAIN is anything more then the number 2."

Who says? In what timeframe? Thankyou for proving my point :)


The confusion could have been avoided if instead of asking for 'no chains on tms' it should have been 'only one hit per tm all war'. They are simply not the same thing.


Edit again, so I support the original poster but it's only 51% of my support because the terms were just sloppy.

[Bart of Sparta]

Why do ghettos act like this?

Che Guevara. Next time please rephrase your question in a more particular way: "why does this ghetto act like this". It would require significant ethnographic research to really understand the mindset of the "ghetto" as a general group.

[Aranfein]

Wolzly, thats the issue, he didnt put a timeframe... He put "war" so as long as war is not finished.

[aBhorsen]

While this war was flawed, arguably on both sides, some of the definitions and "fake war" comments are golden. I guess the game has changed significantly if the top Kingdoms consider something like this a fake war. Historically it involved a lot more scheming.

[Elldallan]

Che im not sure you are trolling or what... But PER DEFINITION a CHAIN is anything more then the number 2.

By what definition, and do you have any source for it? because it sounds very arbitrary and like you're just making things up.
"Chain" has several different definitions depending on the context, it can for example be a unit of measurement.

[goodlilwitch]

I've really only been skimming this tread, but for the record...

Chain A form of concentrated attacks targeting one, or several provinces. They are normally carried out in war (as opposed to out of war, where GBP applies). Chaining is normally done to overpopulate, taking a great deal of land from a province in a short span of time which causes their military to desert.

^ According to the Guide.


So, your "two hits" theory cannot count as a chain. But, compared to the 20+ hits on the real chain targets, nor can the 7 hits they're complaining about be considered a "chain".

However, this whole war was just full of bad orders... starting with the sloppy terms.

[starz]

I honestly don't care enough to go back and read it but I thought there was something about "no chaining T/M's" or something which sounds like sparing a province, and therefore a fishy war term. And if you don't like how ghettos war, then why are you in a ghetto..?

I'd make the argument, if this was actually important in any way, that any deal regarding terms and/or conditions on the war itself is suspect to investigation on the grounds of a fake war. Terms on a hostile is fine, but once war breaks out it's a free for all IMO. PK's, learns, massacres, whatever it takes to win.

TL;DR: Stop complaining in the forums and win the war! If you can't win the war, then you lose the war, simple as that. Get good noob!

^good point

[trolltide]

Che, per definition more then 2 hits IS a chain... If you agreed to not chain T/Ms during war, then you are dealbreaking per definition.

If you wanted it more simplified you should have specified it, in this case and what you agreed, yes you did dealbreak by hitting the same T/M more then twice.

No, more than two hits is NOT a chain. Especially over the course of an entire war like you said. You are quite obviously from MTP, because only a delusional MTPer would think that three hits in 80+ hours in a chain. The definition of a chain is something more along the lines of "losing more than than half your land within a couple of hours" or "Five or more hits within a couple of hours"

If it's not done within a couple of hours it isn't a chain.

No definition on chain that you speak of...

[trolltide]

After deep thought, I have arrived at the conclusion that 2 links make a chain. Therefore, Aranfein wins this discussion.

[StratOcastle]

That makes it a fake war. I'm not saying it's with evil intent, just a fake war by happenstance of mercy. I agree with the baby because I'm not going to count the number of z's in his name. But not because of the z's, because of his reasoning.

But my definition of FW might not be the devs definition. There's a reason though. I'd rather not get close to the line that caused Walter Sobchak to pull a piece on Smokey.

[yeng]

War them again when you guys are ready...