Understood. I agree with not posting names. I was upset because the breaking of NAP's seems to be happening just about every campaign I'm in.

Last Edited : Saturday, 29 October 2005 - 00:15

i agree if you're going to form a nap with somebody then at least give them the 5-turn warning which is in case ppl don't know, you tell them you're going to attack them
5-turns before you do.


BBBP

Breaking a NAP is a scummy trick and shouldn't be allowed to stand. I understand that you got burned but using names in the forums is a recipe for argument.

Folks, don't make NAPs unless you really mean it, it makes you look like a feces when you break it. Having a new ally means nothing to that agreement. In fact, I'd like it if that particular concept (allies) was dropped entirely. No allies!!! NAPs are just non-aggression pacts for convenience, allies are the next step to gangbanging.

In certain circumstances it is honorable to attack a clear leader while he is being attacked elsewhere. If one player has 6 castles and there are two other players left with two castles each it makes sense that both of them would attack the winning player.

Don't unilaterally break NAPs!! Discuss it with your NAPmate first.

Down to three palyers, NAPed or allied with both, which would I honour? The Alliance of course.

As for the attack, you might be forgeting that for five turns after the first attack I did not attack and in fact did not even move my troops. Then gave a few fairly easy shots at some of my best troops in order to compensate for pre empively killing a few spearmen, macemen and scouts.

I have lost two stacks of lvl 10+ ballista each 100 in number, one stack falchs lvl 20, 3 stacks squires, and two stacks of comms so far. What have you lost?

One may also check the scoreboard for slow 14 for more details.

Will attempt to remember the SOP for NAPs one more time, and if that fails too, I'll simply brand myself.

"Please gangbang me, for I do not honour diplomacy"

Happy(ier) now?

Post edit script:
Thank you for removing my name from that first post Dinkers, but I'll just let this post rust as is if you don't mind.

I've already shot myself in the foot, the least I can do is make it public and Oafficial.

Last Edited : Saturday, 29 October 2005 - 00:41

i like the idea of allies unless they are ur only enemy... for ex. 5 ppl in a battle but 3 are inactive if rhe other active person is ur ally gotta fight (after killing inactives first serves em right though)

Alliances dont work in this game...and note that if you get to higher level games...on alliances you will be dealt with in EVERY game by all players not involved...they will take care of you and your allie...and then keep on with play normally...just thought id warn you.in wol people are more centered on 'one on one' play and anyone using more then one caastle not his/her own to beat another player wont be looked at lightly.

It's true! As the code of honor stands now. There is no reason for an alliance.

There is no honor in WOL!

This is a war game and making and breaking NAPs and alliances is perfectly acceptable. And it will remain acceptable until Req decides to change the rules.

Now then to reality, it is generally frowned upon by the community to break agreements and or GB another player. As Juxt has said in higher level games GBing is likely to bring all other players into the game. Also frowned upon is clan members joining the same Free For All (FFA) campaigns and helping each other out. They can join the same FFA games but they should not consider a clan mate an ally in FFA games.

Why is GBing so disliked? Because it ruins the game for at least one person. Constantly losing 1v1 games can get old but that is just encouragement to improve your game skills. But losing because you are always being GBed causes players to quit.

I suggest you message every player in the game at the start and ask them 2 agree 2 a strictly 1v1 game.

Get it all in writing and if they break it you should name and shame then 2 all the other members of the game and see what happens

I so find that a little stick with the carrot helps, perhaps informing them that if gangbanging occurs you will do your best 2 bring it 2 a halt. get a few other players a agree with you and you will have created your own little police state.

Most people will accept thes conditions and those that that dont you can keep your eyes open 4.

However this can backfire, i have lost one camp 2 a weaker opponent just because there was only 3 of us left and they were fighting.

The more camps i play the less naps i have.

But i suppose im playing with higer ranked opponents who are less likely 2 gangbang.

Mostly I employ the "paper shield" tactic.

It allows me to pick early battles with little fear of being attacked out of nowhere.

The idea is simple but far from sound:

If someone I've NAPed with attacks me, I pull up the 'shield', give the attacker a nasty 'paper cut', and hope I live long enough to beat them off.

The 'paper cut' is the subsequent retalitory attacks from those who view chivalry in high regards, there always is one, and he is generally an uber good player too.

When the shield has no longer any use (all other players gone) I am - supposed - to burn it and declare war on whoever looks like easy meat, and follow the basic code of conduct that all players talk about but are almost never seen to use.

Of course, some people, myself included, end to forget one of these crucial steps, and the whole thing backfires (I give myself a paper cut with my own shield, and sometimes get burned up along with it). This does not happen too often, but often enough to piss off our friend Dinkers here.

Of couse, if your shield turns out more of a burden than a blessing, you have four options,

>Say it was an accident, sacrifice the oaf-ending army in an attempt to keep the peace long enough for you to properly declare war. This sometimes works, and makes you look like a foolish noob. (Which come to think about it is a complement)

>save face, lie, say you meant to do that, only you just did it rather foolishly, you will generally look like a jerk by dong this, but at least it leaves the possablity taht the next time you might do it right.

>Get him on a technicallity, color your troops like a non ally for one turn and place them VERY CLOSE to your buddy. When he attacks, let loose and don't listen to the "It was an accident" spiele, and if you want, pretend to do so and then continue the slaughter. This is a very mean thing to do, but I've lost many an NAP (and Camps) to people who use this tactic quite liberally.

>Decide your actions should forfiet you from the game and give up NAPs and Allies forever, perhaps become a nun or monk while you are at it. REPENT YE EVIL SINNERS!

Yes, that last bit was a bit harsh, should probably tone it down a tad.