31 replies to this topic

[Matheus]

Alejandro.
Giving it back to the owner which is besides still in war with you is not forbidden.
If you take some lands and you give it to neutral to the war, this is forbidden. What is un clear with it ?

[alejandro]

yes it's when you declare separate wars on players who are allies so they cannot manage the war together. Normally you have to let them time to join or not the war and if they don't do it and if they possessions embarass you (no access to enemy lands for example) you are allowed after a formal ultimatum to declare another war.

[alejandro]

for matheus who thinks that is the only one allowed to cheat, i remind him that a neutral city doesn't belong to noone.

[Khana]

sorry for that but i want to clear that .... mean if i declare war on one person and 2 days latter if his friends not join against me and even not answer me on my RoP who i ask .i can declare war and this one is not Cheat ...im right or wrong.becouse some kindergarden people crying about that....cheers and thks for answers

[Matheus]

for matheus who thinks that is the only one allowed to cheat, i remind him that a neutral city doesn't belong to noone.

 

That make me laugh.

A neutral lands belongs to the DE FACTO owner. If I take one in a war and the peace is signed, I do not have to give it back, I'm OK with it.

You took some neutral lands to an allied in my war against you.

I took it back.

I gave it back to him.

You can still take it back one more time. What's wrong with that ? You think that because of you took it one time, it belongs to you and you can give it to whoever you want ? That's not the rule. You should try to play with the rules, and not trying to find how I could cheat. I already worked and fighted all I can against cheaters.

[Batonnoir]

When you declare a war, you need to send a formal ultimatum to the allied houses you are "targetting". They need to answer in 36 hours, after that you can declare separate wars.

 

No such ultimatum has ever been sent. Even a kindergarden child can write the letters of U-L-T-I-M-A-T-U-M

[alejandro]

schemings of the day in the italian front :

- Taglia a neutral family take garnison in a city of one of my ennemy. The magic magician of the rules the jokey matheus would surely take a rabbit of his hat to explain that. You bet.

-sorry i forgot this one change of owner on a city to prevent movement from an ene my with the city of campobasso.

 

It's sure now that's is no referee at all on this game.

[Matheus]

Im not controling Taglia and I didnt know that he had a unit inside Napoli. Nevertheless, it is not forbidden by the rules (gamaliel told it many times) because of this army is no blocking you.

Campobasso has been taken by ravenne which is IN WAR against you in my side and nobody gave him that land. He took it in the war with his army.

Your unproved and unjustified accusations are boring and they are also the main reason why there is no referee. They have no time to juge your unknowledge of rules. I can admit that you have some questions, but you should ask before to say Im a cheater. Everybody could give you a reply.

[Khana]

Blackbread 36h or 124h or beter is one month realtime... we can play all month to wait... i ask RoP if not be given i think is normal to expect to have war .... and this bullshit with writen ultimatum is just roleplay...sound good but not have nothing diplomatic with game.. if need to have ultimatum they put in treaty.is that clear ...for me is very clear.....

[Matheus]

Blackbread 36h or 124h or beter is one month realtime... we can play all month to wait... i ask RoP if not be given i think is normal to expect to have war .... and this bullshit with writen ultimatum is just roleplay...sound good but not have nothing diplomatic with game.. if need to have ultimatum they put in treaty.is that clear ...for me is very clear.....

 

The ultimatum rule is to correct the game play which is still in improvment.

We are in an alpha version which needs to be updated and then, some rules of fair play has been set to make the game fair. Of course, there is also a difference between rules of fair play and real fair play but you need in all the situation refere to the list of forbidden action (which are allowed by the game play but considered as unfair).

So in a war, for a fair one, there should be one only one war including all defenders and all attackants. It could be sometime hard because of several bounds preventing for any family to join a side, but if you declare a war, you cannot declare on the same time to his allied before to have at least asked for them to join the first one. If you cannot prove tou asked them to, then the war is not legal and has to be cancelled.

[Khana]

thks now is clear... but any way... fair unfair in war is little stupid norm..... is fair to use merc if you claim to be a strong ruler... this ia just a quetion for a bed time...thks again and succes in game .cheers

[Tisoon]

It simply needs to make a difference between the House you play and the player. Referees don't care if the House uses unfair techniques (betrayal, joie a war when the "enemy" armies just arrived on a tile, another House hires all the mercenaries even if he doesn't need them ...). This we don't care (players as referees).
But some actions are possible, but completely unfair considering the player point of view. Prevent wars going systematically in vacay mode, declare a war and sign right after to prevent one player to declare me a war in the next five years, gve lands at a neutral player during a war, block a naval way being neutral in a war etc...).