No, well yes, while I did it, but after I vent it off, I feel like a real jerk.

Ooooh sounds like you had your first power trip. Just give me a shout if you want another fix.

Luca

Well Luca, as I said before I do appreciate you making public how you play, and I can respect that. The only difference between you and me is that I think that starting with betraiing alliances makes the alliances as an institution in WOL completely worthless. And yes I can follow the direction you are going with "why make alliances for just one game... I only make alliances with friends..." I guess if you tell somebody he/she is your friend he/she will just have to trust you.... right? And with that we are bakc at the beginning of backstabbing people from out of an alliance. How do you know your "friends" don't have friends you betrayed? How was the saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", does that turn into "My friend is the enemies frined and therefore my enemy". Well Luca again I respect your straightforwardness but the example you set for newbies is not that respectfull. I hope they will follow the handbooks advice on NAP/alliances to learn and then chose for them selves what kind of player they want to be. I hope you understand the opposite side of your point as well. Although not verry long into this WOL campaign thing i've met only players who make alliances for the whole game, with some nice agreements integrated into that. I have trusted them and untill now no-one has beshamed my trust.

So Luca I salute you and truely hope to meet you on a battlefield to let you show me how WOL according to you works. Greetings and for now Happy Hunting to you all!

* looks at Luca *

What's wrong with Chaotic Good???

Best alignment there is, well, except maybe CN, but that's rather odd...


Kyrion

"I think that starting with betraiing alliances makes the alliances as an institution in WOL completely worthless."

How can ONE person do this? It is all based on a personal opinion. Just because a few people betray alliances does not make alliances worthless. If anything it teaches people to be skepticle of alliances, which is better than simply creating an alliance and putting too much trust into it as this is dangerous when you find your allys breaking alliances to attack you when you're weak.

"why make alliances for just one game... I only make alliances with friends..."

I've never said that making temporary alliances is useless. As this is compltly wrong. Temporary alliances help you in many ways. But so can breaking alliances you may have formed, for exsample, when your ally is not very active but you didn't realise this untill after forming an alliance, in this case it would be best to break teh alliances and make better use for teh castle and land.

"I guess if you tell somebody he/she is your friend he/she will just have to trust you.... right?"

Erm, no?

Out of this argument of ours I've decided I've not really put my ideas forward very well, maybe I'll type some eeeeeeeevil essay up or something.

Btw - Kyrion - I always go LN. Chatoic Good suck - they never take teh easy path if it means even teh slightest bit of evilness.

Luca

LN??? Bah, that's for a bunch of sheep following all those laws, hah! They just get in the way of doing all the good stuff that needs doin'

smitting evil, that's what pays the bills, or taxes or tolls, levies, tithes, tarriffs, assays all that sorta stuff...

well, this is all completly off-topic


Kyrion

Lol. ^^

It's the best way to go man, turning evil or good on the whim to match your needs. Eg posing as good to wipe out some orcs for monetary gain or then evil to steal candy from children when you need the HP.

Luca

personally I like NutralEvil...

I see how lucia thinks and finally it is time some one shows to the rest of the, high and mighty, community that in a war game some agreements are made to be broken while others are made to be kept. The only rules that everone should play by are keep an eye on your neibors and don't put your self into a position where more than one player could take advantage of you.

Luca Blight = Heartless mercenary

Neautral Evil... um, that's the one where you get to do anything that's in your own self interest isn't it? How, well, evil


Kyrion

In all honesty I don't think I could summarise all of my points together as well as savetuba just did, kudos mate.

Luca

And yes I consider myself a Neautral Evil type of character, with the addition that I take into account my friends wishes.

Luca

Well!

Im a little upset this topic was taken over by one single Tactic.
Im sure everyone knows how to take a Castle by Basckstabbing. Its the simple way, and its also easily stoped.

So lets see here. what do we have so far after three pages of post...

Rushing... I said that way first. Its the one about the beeline in my first post.

Stocking up and hitting in force.... Its the one I said I prefer in my first post.

Towers and Archery.... Also mentioned by me..

Lying and Backstadding... Thank you luca Blight for your addition.

Well if thats the lot of it, Id like to thank all the players for posting there tactic, and hope that all the new players can use this Valuable information in there progress here at WAR ON LINE.

Have a nice freakin day!!!

sounds like the last input wasn't what the honorable geneyous wanted, but backstabing and ganging will always happen and explaining it as a valid tactic makes it easier to accept for those of you who are new.

Here here!

Bazard

hey did i meantion.........you can rush!!!!

What about pre-empitive strikes? Usualy it is custom amongst the goodys to send a message arranging formal wars and battles.

Personaly I like to sneak up, staying out of range of enemy units and outposts, then swooping in, taking out those outposts and dispatching the stacks of Scouts they may have patroling, then from there rush on as fast as possible.

What do you all think to this tactic?

Bazard

Well, speaking personally I'd tend to either have someone I trust (read Non-Bazard-like)next to me or have outposts so far out that there's enough gap for me to have ample time to get a defense organised.

Obviously this isn't as early as I think whoever started this (too much effort to look...) was thinking. At the erly stages it makes sense to have your army near your castle, unless you are in a corner, where there aren't so many backstabbers *looks at Bazard* around.


Kyrion

Entirely fair. It's polite, but not necessary to give warning of an attack - especially if you're the weaker side.

As an aside, America sent a telegram to the Japanese government in 1905 congratulating them on their clever strategy of surprise pre-emptive attack against Russia. I don't know if they sent one in 1941 too though.

Of course they did... only it was a few years later in the form of one 'Fat Boy'... then another...just in case the first one got lost in the mail.

Lol.

Bazard