can somebody explain to me why anybody would attack another player while he's already losing a 1 vs 1 fight?

i thought about it several times but i just can't find out why anybody would do that :S

to make u look like a gangbanger?

I think the assumption is that other players all have the same values as you do. Some of the players here don't seem to think of it as an issue. That is until they realize later to live by the golden rule. And I do not mean the one that says "He who has all the gold...rules!"

Well, depending on the situation I could see it being a good move in standard or skirmish campaigns...

For example, say you've basically lost the fight, and you're at the point where you either can't or don't want to deploy any more troops (because if you do you'll lose more experience than you'd gain), but still have some troops around.

Now you see a nice juicy stack or two of comms or some other troop you can kill for easy experience. Why not attack it no matter who's it is? It's probably better experience than waiting for the guy's army you were defending against to get to them. And you've basically lost already anyway (no more troop production). You're basically just trying to get the most experience out of your remaining troops.

I could see this as a viable strategy in circumstances similar to this.

Card

Sounds like a tactic to give another player an excuse to grab a slice of the pie.
I haven't ever used the tactic but in a few games where I was getting "ganged" or saw my opponents committing "fouls" like "bug exploiting", it might be a good spite option (i.e. NOT that I'm saying that spite is the motive in this instance).

TR

"Having lost all hope, one would lash out destructively in frustration and anger" says the hole in the wall to the fist.

Another very interesting tactic that im seeing in the 40+ games is for a player to claim to be your friend, set a small stack next to your small stacks (5 pop observers), then when someone attacks them, they attack you in the same turn so it looks like a planned and co-ordinated gangbang against them. Soon enought the whole game wants you dead for being a supposed banger.

(I love 10 vs 2)

I would try that but it sure seems like a risky tactic to me. On the other hand it is workign in one game im in since its now 3v1. But i dont mind since im ranked 1st because of it!

anyone else seen this tactic?

thus come down to the diplomatic ability of players

i have never really seen this and even if i did,i won`t really care,i`ll message the other guy and ask what happened and if 2 players' words aren`t enough to be more convincing than 1 player`s words....i`ll...errr..i`ll...kill stcrispin
lolz

heh heh, thats the answer to all life's problems, just kick st crispin's a$$!

These crazys now have a huge wall of troops (about 4000 pop stong) matching in a line about 15 units wide and 3 units deep in UNISON!

i dont see how they move since they are all mingled together. the ZOC should be causeing them trouble but maybe they have patterned it right to make it work. thats alot of co-ordination!

its abor 4-1 odds or more in theor favor and they are cOming at me. I need more balistas!

well it worked for you in our game everyone thinks im the banger, even though i been defending the whole time .
not a good way to play but you have to i guess.

I believe in fighting your own battles. The only time I'll join another character is if 2 players are already attacking them.The gangbang thing just doesn't seem fair to me.It's your fight to win or loose take it like a man.

Last Edited : Sunday, 11 September 2005 - 21:44

I thought this thread might be about me, since I'm in a game Hankyspanky was in, and I took a quarry off someone I battled earlier even though I'm fighting someone else, just like the person I took the quarry from.

I was just being opportunistic

Then I realised this thread was dumpsterdiving :eek:

Would 2 weaker opponents attacking a stronger person be deemed as unfair or cheap. just wondering

depends on the advantage if the 2 players have 1 castle and the other player has had the 2nd castle for at least 5 turns then it is...

Yes but sometimes you don't know exactly how many castles your opponent has or how long he has had them. But you know he is good/strong by the game rankings. I don't really agree with gangbanging but on same note people should try and form alliances and call for help if it happens to them. The Allies ganged up on Germany...you ever hear of them complaining that the Allies were being cheap or unfair lol

Last Edited : Friday, 23 June 2006 - 19:21

Whenever a player takes over a castle, it's announced to the entire game.

The only situation where keeping track would be hard would be in 40 player games...but it'd be in your best interest to try and keep track! There's a logbook.

Alright cool I will keep track. I don't intend on ganging up on someone but if the situation should arise someday I don't want to be looked at as cheap. What are people's opinions on defending with 2 or more? Say your ally is hard pressed and needs help and it is in your interests that he stays.

I have many inactives in my 40 player game, will it tell me if someone takes over their inactive castle?

Only if you get there before it is a slab, I believe. If there are still enemy troops you killed and take over the castle, it should say it in the news.

So taking an empty slab wouldn't be reported in news? All games I have played in (not many haha) have had at least half of people drop out leaving empty slabs. Might be important to know in the future

Last Edited : Monday, 2 October 2006 - 22:41