Warlord Honor

[The Lady Shael]

How do you guys feel about captures/sacks? Some players don't mind them as long as their not excessive, but other players see it as an act of war.

Also, how many poisons/murders would you tolerate before you would considering declaring war?

[Neobaron]

It's part of the game.

Like anything, if it's used in moderation, I don't think anyone has a right to complain.

But if someone does an excessive number of one, then there is just cause to respond in kind.

Also to clarify something;

I see sacks/caps as being the indy toolset, while murders/poisons as being the leader toolset. They do the same things - deprive the enemy of their resource of choice. That the leader toolset is broken/OP is no reason to take it any more serious than sacks/caps.

[Gen. Volkov]

Unless the sacks are excessive, not usually cause for war. Poisons/murders I always take seriously.

[Kilkenne]

In agreement with Neobaron, removing sacks or even really changing them would take a pretty powerful tool out of the indy chest. I understand that people that play leaders have in the past enjoyed total dominion where the generation of wealth and net is concerned, but to say that people that play troops shouldn't enjoy the benefits as well is pretty weak. The fact that it is grounds for war also is utterly absurd, because it's no different than murdering or poisoning one's troops. It's a pretty ridiculous double-standard that we have in this game. It's basically saying "If you don't use the same strategy as us, it's unfair for you to play" even though an indy can't win anyhow due to eventual net restriction.

[Firetooth]

I agree. I think sacks should be (I have a feeling they may already be, actually) less effective for leaders.

I do not think that sacks are cause for retal unless excessive, but I had to forbid my clan from using them because of the trouble we received. (it was only indies using sacks)

[Shadow]

only indy CAN use sack. Leader players can do it, but they get less than a tenth of what an indy does.

[Holby]

The fact that it is grounds for war also is utterly absurd, because it's no different than murdering or poisoning one's troops. It's a pretty ridiculous double-standard that we have in this game. It's basically saying "If you don't use the same strategy as us, it's unfair for you to play" even though an indy can't win anyhow due to eventual net restriction.

I don't think there's any disagreement that murdering/poisoning is worse than sacking. I don't think you can compare the two at all. I am at war the moment another player attempts to murder or poison from me. They only exist to be destructive, not to benefit the attacker.

Sack, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. It helps the indyer, and gives leader players an incentive to mount a defense. Having said that, I don't like them much, and if I feel I'm being targeted, I will try to prevent it. It's mostly a problem if I'm getting overattacked for sack gains, not for the land itself.

Captures are fine.

[wolf bite]

Taking land is needed to run turns. People off line can't use it when they are not running turns, so why not share land.
This does not harm the player. But it seems that any act to lower the other player is not for self gain, but to lower the other player.

Even taking an indy player down to 100 land does not really harm them. But taking a leader too low does. However we hold the line at not taking a Indy player too low.

Murders and poison are the tools of Leader fighters. But using them is a cause for war. So nothing can be done to lower an indy player which is not classified as starting a war.

The problem I am trying to point out that Sack is the indy's tool to leach off the Leader player. But the leader player is not going to steal from the Indy because they don't have cash, they have armies. So it is one sided. If you can't run your indy strat without needing to Sack leader players, then learn how to do it right!

If I am plying Leader and someone sacks me to lower my resources, I feel a few murders are fair back. After all, I am just killing off armies being fed with my food.


Wolf Bite

[Dark Claws]

The way I see it, if you sack someone not playing leaders, you deserve the free stuff. But sacks aren't stealing that much money and food, although it is annoying. And if the leader player is ticked off from the army, they can use the money they have to buy some soldiers, murder and kill the opposing army, and sack back the land in the process. I frequently use sacks to pay for my army. No one really gets that angry about it, unless you constantly sack them. I sack people who can afford to be sacked, which I think is a pretty good ideal.

[Durza]

Regardless these actions all boil down to timing.
If you just took a large land hit, And then get sacked/murdered/poisoned (and vice versa), then you response should be to a level appropriate to the actions that affected you in whichever method you play

[Pippin]

i think it all comes down to wether you care or not what people think of you, if you go round doing it to solely annoy people then your not respected. but if you do it to your own advantage or to openly hurt another player, i think that deserves some respect as your not being sly or devious about it.