So I''m away and harassing dragloon in a campaign that''s going on, wise move or not. When along comes Cypher and starts moving into my lands, I let him know immediately that I am away and would appreciate it if he didn''t move in on me while I was already battling someone else. He tells me I don''t own the world and can come pushing into my areas even though I have resources mines clearly marked as taken over by me. Anyway long story short I figure he''s just going to look and would follow the unspoken rule of chivalry on this site about not attacking while your away. What happens next, I''m moving my supply line down to reinforce for the dragloon castle campaign and he starts moving in with his troops and wacks one of my ballistas.

Is this standard practice to harrass other players supply lines, without an agreed upon 2 vs. 1. I''m not saying dragloon and he are in cahoots, although I can''t rule that out since I can''t see their PM''s, however, this is a disgustingly dirty trick. Is this condoned here, or is it, hey all is fair in war mentality?

Most people don''t do this, as it would be no fun to have done to yourself (the golden rule theory). However, there is nothing in the game rules that say it is illegal. It is one way to play the game, and he has chosen his path. You might be best served to pull back and clear his armies out, and advance on his castle. Explain your actions to dragloon, so that he knows the whole picture. If they both continue to press the attacks, seek the assistance of another player in the game. This will even the odds and get one of them off your back.

Neb

Yep, it doesn''t happen often (at least at higher game levels)...but as my recent experience with a long time player proves, some players will look for any advantage they can secure.
If other players are in the game, do as Neb suggests, or as I did, plan for that possibility...quickly damage the one player and then turn my attention to the one with the cheap tactic.

Then again sometimes one cheap tactic deserves another Talamanthalon, that is not that you have committed any cheap tactics though;

but, as in my recent experience there are all levels of cheapness and a player who side-steps a tougher, evenly matched opponent to roll-over an easier opponent to gain a flanking position on the tougher one,

not to mention a troop level advantage and a point advantage to be able to sit back and build his defences while forcing the tougher opponent to take the offensive is not only cheap, but a cutie-pie to boot imho

and in my humble opinion should realise that no matter how official he makes himself sound everyone knows from his past advocacies that he is a cheap cutie-pie and deserves a taste of his own cheap cutie-pieness.

rex

Last Edited : Sunday, 29 April 2007 - 16:21

Here goes the Maximus Mouthicus again.....
What''s your problem, man?!
You want to start hashing this same ole crap again?!
Does it bother you soooooooo much that I''ve played a smart game?
That I took out my first opponent 30 something turns before you could yours?
Was it a cheap tactic to wait for the other four players to finish their fights? or should I have moved in while the fights were still ongoing?...like you did mine and West''s.
That I instead used the next 30 turns after taking my second castle to prepare for the next fight...building walls and armies, completing research?
Was it a cheap tactic to attack the first player that completed their first war?...yep wasn''t you...it was West, you were still finishing yours.

Of course I had a troop and research advantage...that''s the point!...to bring more guns and ammo to the fight than the other guy...so you win!!

Point advantage? No...you and West were both ranked one and two and I was in third when I started the war with him five turns after he took his second castle. Then after taking that same castle from him, I then had a point advantage and first place...Duh...excuse me for passing you up...didn''t know you had first place reserved...I thought a player had to ''earn'' it.

You want first just because you run your mouth the most in the forums?...not gonna happen, you got to earn the points just as I did.

Name me one player here that wouldn''t have the goal of attaining first place in a campaign plus having their area walled off and towers erected loaded with marks and ballistas, requiring the remaining players to attack them if they wanted first place?

So the REAL problem is you got yourself into a position you didn''t want...and you keep bellyache''n and slinging little ''cutie pie'' insults...yep, that''s real brave, huh, TaurusRex?...that''s why you haven''t even attacked me for over 10 turns since I broke it off with West when you started moving your armies in.

You got no confidence in yourself?

Don''t even attempt for the second time to hide YOUR cheap tactic of butting in when West and I were fighting a one on one legimate war.

You could have been straight up and messaged me, asking if I would fight both you and West at the same time, but no...you crept in slowly, after West and I had been fighting a few turns...attempting a backdoor sneak attack...you hoped that I would be damaged enough for you to come marching in and win.

Funny isn''t it?...knowing that you might make such a weak weasel move, to your disappointment I already had walls up expecting that you''d attempt to pull off just exactly what you did...and you''re cheap tactical plans failed.

If I disbanded half of my armies and tore down all my walls and towers, would you call it a fair fight then? LOL

Probably not...so instead of doing what most, if not all players would do and make you assualt me if you want first....I''m doing just the opposite, aren''t I, TR?
Forgot to mention that, I guess, huh?

I''m attacking you now...taking the fight to you, even though I don''t have to, I got first...I got walls and defenses and should just set back and fight you, IF YOU EVER DID DECIDE TO ATTACK NOW THAT''S IT''S JUST ME AND YOU....of course, I''m sure you''re take credit for my decision to do that....explaining it off somehow as another cheap tactic....but here''s the reason...I''m giving you the chance to backup your Mouthicus...oh, and so we don''t leave out more details...I''m attacking you where you''re walled in and have towers and ballistas...I''m doing what you didn''t have the nerve to do...face defenses and an enemy waiting on you.

You''re patheic with your excuses and unfounded accusations...as I said before, I''ll say again...You''re a joke on the battlefield and even a bigger forum joke.

Last Edited : Sunday, 29 April 2007 - 17:51

Sorry for all this garbage again, everyone...but I''m going to always answer any geriatric that can only sling adolescent insults.

Last Edited : Sunday, 29 April 2007 - 18:20

First sugarleo ... how do you come off with the idea that I started this again? Do you really take people for idiots?
Don't you think people can read?

Second let's get this "gang attacking" cleared once and for all. I repeat as before, you attacked me first and did an overkill to boot. Even if I did trespass to do some scouting, you are the one who initiates war by attacking not me by trespassing ... sorry.

You can do all the warning you want, but it's my defence messages that show that you attacked me and I defy you to produce a defence message that shows I attacked you first.

The following are the first two messages I sent to West and as can plainly be seen I have explained to him that I intended to retaliate against you for attacking three of my scouts and destroying two of them that were no where near your territory and it can also be seen that I have asked him to stay out of our conflict and that I would not attack him:

"Message To : West View Messages Sent : Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 16:11 Campaign_13503 Thanks West, but the problem now is that sugarleo has gone ahead and attacked three of my scouts because he feels that at least one of them was trespassing.
Message To : West View Messages Sent : Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 16:21 Campaign_13503 ne ahead and attacked three of my scouts because he feels that at least one of them was trespassing.
Your Message
Of course I've declared war on him because two of them were no where near his territory and the one he claims was trespassing was in the swamp looking for the rest of Mog's units.

So now the problem is where you intend to stand on this. I would like to see you just stay out of it if possible, but I don't think sugarleo is going to want to leave your high teched basic troops alone.

Anyway I have no intentions of attacking you again, but I have been attacked by sugarleo and I do intend to retaliate."-TaurusRex

I won't show his answer, but he did answer and we haven't attacked each other.
However, yes you finally did stop attacking West and it has been between just you and me for several turns now.
West is in a position now to possibly finish second if I'm beaten and there hasn't ever been an exchange of combat between West and me since you sugarleo attacked me and started this war between us and there won't be even though West did originally attack me after you had initiated hostilities with him and by rights I really could have done anything I wanted to do in this game.

If the truth were known sugarleo, you grabbed the opportunity to start war with me as soon as you knew you had West's central castle "rolled over" and had access to my defenceless (at the time) left flank.
That's right I had only two units and no defences in the grass between me and West when you started on West So the way I see it, you should have considered that I would go after your exposed flank just as you went after my exposed flank.

In the meantime I wouldn't start chirping just yet sugarleo ... try adding up your points that you've recently earned in the exchange between us because if I'm not mistaken, I was still the heavy hitter with still a few hundred points or so ahead of you.

As far as being on the offence yes finally after boring me to sleep with catapult attacks for about 12 turns he made a lucky move ... actually caused me to dose off before the Start turn and scored against my commandeers and two ballista stacks.
My losses would have been just a tower and some scouts maybe if I didn't dose off and start turn about 12 minutes late.

It's not over yet sugarleo, but I'm going to look at the exchange of points between you and me, not at the cheap 10000 point lead you gained off West who had not even a quarter of your strength.

PS:
Mog please close this.

rex

Last Edited : Sunday, 29 April 2007 - 19:41

A classic TR move...he''s losing a debate and tries to get the last post and then close the topic...never saw that coming!

Well Mog always waits until I get angry and start returning name calling. Did I initiatiate the name calling here?

I see a post with all kinds of insults directed at me and I answered like a gentleman with just facts ...
no insults. Aren't I entitled to a rebuttle?

PS:
Well let's here it. Whose right here?
I showed all of my evidence and can show it again.
I was attacked first and I had a right to retaliate.

rex

Last Edited : Sunday, 29 April 2007 - 19:57

I''d say do it in a different thread. This was Talamanthalon''s thread, and I don''t think you should continue to spam it with this arguement. Open one in General Chit Chat.

the number of posts is labelled with an individuals nick, perhaps there should be a label for the amount of useless words used in their posts total, maybe then TR would be first in something, that would make him happy.

Taurus Rex: nobody wants to see your evidence again.

sugarleo: next time you give advise to a new player, could you try to veil the exact instance a little better? I know you didn''t use names, but it seemed obvious to me that TR would respond after what you said.

Talamanthalon: This thing that interupted your thread has been going on between sugarleo and Taurus Rex for some time, and is an example of how the honor system can be too blurry sometimes, due to special circumstances, and sometimes is of no use at all. particularly on the 6 player map, things get tricky after 2 or 3 people are dead.

But in your situation it was clear cut: nobody had a new castle yet, everybody was mostly even in troops, yes? and you get attacked from behind just as you might have gained an advantage on getting a new castle. This is classic double teaming, and is clearly wrong - nothing blurry about it.

^

Last Edited : Sunday, 29 April 2007 - 20:42

killing 3 scout stacks at a point in the game where you should have huge armies is meaningless. You can''t justify double-teaming someone because they killed a couple meaningless scout stacks in a long-winded game.

*_* Biodus *_*

I won''t close this thread! Stop bringing your old fight into other threads.

I''ll sure be happy when you guys finish that dog of a game.

The game just finished, West and I voted to end.
TR has quit after only two turns of my assault on him.
I think that kinda sums it up after all his numerous posts.

Ahhhh, the smell of victory and strong black coffee in the morning....love it!

Again, I apologize for the discussion in a thread that wasn''t intended to discuss my personal details, even though the actions were certainly related to the topic.

Last Edited : Monday, 30 April 2007 - 16:16

That smell is probably coming from your troops when they saw me move 60 armies into strike position and then they beat a hastey retreat on the southern front.

The only thing my quitting sums up is that I refuse to allow some folks the satisfaction of taking my castle in a circumstance where I won't be able to take my turn on time due to real life reponsibilities.

My car does need to be in the repair shop early and I did decide to do it tomorrow because I'm tired, but also my financial credit is more important to me than winning this game ... bad enough I actually sufferred the pain of a kidney stone to try to stay with it.

PS:
You sound and look relieved sugarleo.

Oops
sorry Talamanthalon ... some folks used to affectionately call me "TR", but not all of them.

rex

Last Edited : Monday, 30 April 2007 - 16:16

Way to realize what is important TaurusRex

I''ve run into this before...the same tactic, hitting my opponent from behind while they were fighting me. What I did was form an alliance with the person I was warring on, with the express intent of double-banging the invader outta the game and splitting his lands/resources between the two of us. Worked like a charm

In another similar situation in another camp, I asked for and got a 20-turn NAP to bring all of my forces to bear on the invading third party. Again, they weren''t up for an all-out fight, they were just looking for easy pickings. When I wiped up the map with them, they went inactive, leaving me a nice new kingdom.

I actually have had this problem with the same player. I messaged the first player who (gladly as i was winning) let me go fight Cypher. it was the first and only time I was able to win using a wall siege stratagy. He way outnumbered me, so I used ranged and slowly expanded behind quickly built walls.

(anyone who has fought me knows I just love dem qute walls) I ended up taking three castles from him as he never stopped sending in HC to fight my protected Marksmen.

i just went through this last week but i dont need any help . . instead , i jsut held off the attacks on my base with no problem even tho he outnumbered me like crazy ... slowly brought the fight away from my base, too my base, and now holdnig themm off perfectly without even any castel upgrades. people gotta learn that attacking me with a bunch of scouts and archers is useless! hahah the same guy is doing it to me in another camp and now that hes face to face with my macemen , i bet hes ****''n himself. haha good luck minner