Do not use the Dominate/Disband cheat to gain extra experience. If you possess a hero (or leader) with the Dominate ability, you may not use that hero (or leader) to Dominate, Disband and then slay units for the purpose of gaining experience points. It is understood that some enemy units may be Dominated during Fast Combat, and these units may be Disbanded and slain.

That rule is not necessary in AoW2, because units in AoW2 will disappear when you disband them...

Kris

You could substitute it with "Do Not Use the Zombie Resurgence Exploit to Level Up Your Heroes"

[This message has been edited by Jomungur (edited 06-20-2002 @ 11:20 AM).]

Thanks Kris and Jomungur. Could someone please clarify this Zombie Resurgence Exploit in a little more detail for me? Too many things to do, and I'm not really up to speed on AOW2 yet!

Nojd can clarify it

This will help a bit i think.

Suppose I'am allied to Berend.

Can I declare War on him and attack him the next turn? Or do you first have to go to a peace-status (1 turn) and then war-status (1 turn). So basically after 2 turns?

Quoted from Swolte:

No.

Quoted from Swolte:

Yes.

Thx, that makes sense. No misunderstandings there

Ehm...
what's a restart message? (kalf, who didn't play a PBEM yet but is approaching fast

thanks a lot

The idea with restart messages is that people shouldn't cheat in PBEM games by replaying a turn that didn't go as well as the player expected. So, if someone loads the same turn again, the game notices this and creates a message to all players that this person has restarted his game. This restart message is available in the event log window. You also get this message if you play your turn on a different computer than the one used on the previous turn.

There could be legitimate reasons for restarts (the game or Windows crashed, or you're travelling and therefor playing on different computers). If you do create a restart message, please inform the other players what caused it with a post in the turn log thread.

Ciao Nojd,
thanks for you answer, maybe you can clarify a point: I heard that a game restart later in the game can cause the system to block you for suspect cheating. Since I'll switch often from home to office and back, I'll get often restarts, is it really dangerous?

Thanks a lot,
Kalf

No block, no danger, only a restart message. Explain the reason for it, and everyone should be happy.

Clarification please: If I am at Peace with someone(not allied), at what point can I initiate attack after I have broken that Peace? Is it the next turn or do I have to wait two turns?

Thanks in advance.

If you break the peace today, you may attack tomorrow.

If you break the peace today, your new enemy may attack you immediately (i.e. during your "night").

I have a question for the mods to ponder.

I am in a game where a player I was at peace with sent me a message that he was declaring war on me, observed the one turn delay in attacking but didn't actually formalize the declaration on the 'horn' screen.

The probem was that my new enemy had a spider in my rear area and I wished to eliminate it. I ended up having to formalize the declaration in order to attack. This had the effect of reducing my reputation level which effects ones ability to attract hero's and negotiate with neutrals. Maybe my opponent forgot to formalize his declaration but, if not, would this be improper?

PS This is not a game breaker for me in this current game but should be ruled on for future games and players to have as a guide.

IMO the house rules for for breaking alliances and declaring war/attacking refer to the official status on the "horn screen".

Diplomatic negotiations done secretly via private messages are informal and have no value in court.

Thanks for the answer to my last question.

My opponent wrote me the message within the game and on our log that he was going to war with me but, according to him, forgot in the excitement of his turn to formalize it by going to the horn screen and actually hit 'declare war'.

In a future situation like this, would the beligerent have to hold off on attacking for another turn?

He thought he might want to use this as a strategy in future games, to state his intention of attacking his opponent but not actually hitting the 'declare war' button until the next turn when he is allowed, by house rules, to do so. This forces the opponent to hit 'declare war' if he wants to make the legal preemptive attack.

One other question.

Is there an accepted standard for a player to forfeit?

I am in very long running 4 player game, INLAND SEA (RightousF/revealos/Fubarno/izaquyos) where we have opened up a mini debate on the subject.

Revealos forfeited at turn 24 when no one else had yet been eliminated and he thought going on was pointless. I differed in opinion and found a sub, wanderingoutlaw, that has greatly turned things around. We are now at Day 61 and there have been some interesting power shifts. Wanderingoutlaw is now quite powerful and has the potential to win (no allied victory).

Then there is RightousFroggy who brought up the question of forfeiting. He never gave up even though he didn't have much chance at winning, was continually threatened, yet still managed to pull off some sneeky and well thought out attacks that kept him in the game and very tough for his opponents until day 61.

In my mind one shouldn't surrender when there are more than one other opponent involved as this may give unfair advantage to one of those remaining and is also sort of disrespectful to the remaining players who have invested time into the game.

If it is down to the last two opponents and one feels the situation is hopeless than a surrender or forfeiture of the win seems acceptable.

Some may think it is not as fun to play on in a game where the outcome is impossibly against you, but I will try with all my skill to make that defeat as hard as possible for my opponent and at the same time hope to learn more about the game through my loss. (Steps off the soapbox)

Well, here's another question:

In my River Arne game, Ellendra just cast Call Hero - and guess what? She called a lvl 20 Drac Hero!!!

River Arne is a pretty tough map, lots of strong indies running around, making your days really miserable. One player has already been eliminated by said indies. Nobody seems to be really strong at this point. Once Ellendra saves up the money to buy the Drac, things will go a lot better for her, I bet!

My question now: In a designed map, where high level Heroes have been placed, should it be prohibited to use Call Hero, because you can pull one of those Heroes and really tilt the playing field? Get yourself a strong Hero, and weaken a designed strong defense somewhere in one Spell?

Quoted from Fubarno:

If he forgets to declare war, he's not allowed to attack. He'll just have to postpone his plans one day. The opponent is not "forced" to declare war, he can simply enjoy peace for another day.

I noticed a bug that's related to this. I really don't know what to do with the rules in this case.

Quoted from Bug Forum:

Quoted from Fubarno:

I share Fubarno's opinion. The decent thing to do is to keep playing as long as you have any kind of influence in the game. It's not nice towards the other players to just lay down your weapons since that completely would shift the balance in the game. And, if you're in such a bad shape in the game that you're thinking about surrender, then your turns should be fairly quick to play. Play the game for your PBEM friends' sake even if you can't win!

I'll add ZombieEater's Call Hero ban suggestion to the Optional House Rules.

What about this situation:

Do you have to make "open" diplomacy?

The situation is this: Two players move in succession in the turn order. Since they want to keep their relationship secret, they use the following procedure to exchange intel, spells and what else: The one moving first offers peace/alliance, spells and whatelse, while number two accepts this, writes a message describing or takes screenshots of interesting areas, then before ending his turn he declares war again. Any other players will assume the two are opponents.
Drawback is that player 2´s rep will suffer.
Thoughts?

In the diplomatic screen you can see the make peace and declare war action, so you know that the two players are making some strange moves.

Flitter, the diplo screen only show the current status. In my example the current status before and after the two "secret" allies moves is war.

There is a screen where all famous deeds are logged. (wizard info). Declaring wars and making alliances can be seen there.

Ah yes! Thanks for the info, that should resolve this...

Quote:

also, this is outdated for aow2... an incarnate can not leave its host willingly. disbanding the unit the incarnate is in will disband the incarnate, also.

is it 'legal' to use dispel magic on units of a wizard you are at peace or allied with (without their permission)?

what about casting an area affect spell that affects their units, such as poison plants, or divine storm?

what if you cast such spell into an area, not knowing that the 'friendly' wizard has a concealed unit there?

my guess is that in the spirit of the rules I would say that it depends upon the intention of the wizard, but I guess Cay is the final word.

The first scenario you mentioned seems there would be the intent to hurt your ally rather than help him and sounds a little backstabbing.

The second scenario though does depend if it put both he and you at an advantage (like using posion plants on both your ally and your enemies to cripple the power of your enemy so you can both triumph, even though he gets hurt too).

On the last scenario, I would say that if your intention was not to hurt your ally, it would be fine. However, anyway there are fair ways of finding if your ally has concealed units there... even at peace.

I agree with what Tekk Zero has written. Each of those situations has a different intent, and will have different implications on the game. Seems to me that this would be a messy area to try to address with rules. Common sense and discretion should be enough to sort things out in any given situation. Other opinions?

I would probably say that anything you did that caused HP damage to an allie or a peaceful wizard is illegal (unless it is by accident. ie; casting poison plants in an area, not knowing a peaceful unit was concealed there.).

I would also think that casting dispel magic on an allie was poor form (unless he had a negative enchantment he didnt want; somtimes people cast 'fury' on an enemy to lower hteir defense). That said, I wouldnt have a problem casting 'dispel magic' on 'friendly' troops, since they can be posistioning themselves for an assault against you so they can declare war. I think any 'fishy' manuevering like that deserves a dispel magic.

I am unsure if it should be ok to cast movement impeeding spells, like 'raise mountains' around a friendly or allied stack. While not causing physical damage, that spell can basically eliminate a full stack, so I would say that that use is illegal. if not cast around a stack, it would be fine. a spell like the new 'spider web' would also be fine, as it is only a 1 hex spell (I think it is at least...).

dont suppose we could get a ruling on this stuff asap?....

One question -- by definition, wouldn't the kind of behavior Greenmonster's describing only happen in a FFA game? In a WL team game, there's no rational reason (that I can think of) to go out of your way to cause an ally harm. The only time a player might want to do this would be when he plans a backstab, which would only occur in a FFA. And aren't free-for-all games just that, free for alls? If players want to ban such shady behavior, it strikes me that they're certainly free to, but should there be a board-wide rule covering this? It seems to me that the victim's recourse here is to reply in kind, to declare war on his former "ally" himself, etc.

That's my two cents .

[This message has been edited by JWorth (edited 07-25-2003 @ 06:41 PM).]

I am just trying to avoid the situation where 1 wizard does something like dispel the enchantments off of 'friendly' or 'allied' units in a non-team game, only to have the other wizard turn around and say 'that was illegal!'...

because that can only lead down bad roads...

('you HAVE to give up 'x' unit(s) because of this', 'you need to replay that turn (which happened before 5-7 other people played turns in between)', 'you cant replay a turn because its unfair', 'I'm never playing with you again!', etc...)

(ps - very good point, JWorth)

Ah, good point, Greenmonster. That would be a big drag.

Unless Cay makes a blanket ruling, I'll tell you what: if we're ever allies in a ffa and you hit me with a sneaky stab in the back, I promise to confine my reply to the battlefield .

[This message has been edited by JWorth (edited 07-25-2003 @ 08:25 PM).]

Greenmonster,

Been thinking about this a little more, and what about the following rule:

"If a player's ally takes unamiguously hostile action against him/her, not involving a declaration of war (such actions could include: dispelling that player's enchantments, casting spells which cause harm to the player's units, etc.), then for that player's turn immediately following the offensive action, the effects of the rules limiting declarations of war and attacks against that ally shall be suspended, and immediate reprisals shall be permitted.

Specifically, the following rules shall be suspended:

1) Do not attack on the same turn that you declare war. After declaring war against an opponent with whom you are at peace you must wait at least one turn before attacking them. This rule does not apply if there is no initial diplomatic status between the two opponents.

2) Do not declare war on the same turn that you break alliance. After breaking an alliance you must wait at least one turn before declaring war against your former ally."

A little wordy, maybe, but the idea is pretty simple. Make the in-game avenues of recourse easier, so that stabbed players will be less inclined to gripe outside the game.

What do you think?

-- JWorth

i like it, but first we need to see if casting dipel magic on friendly or allied troops is even legal...

any decision yet, Cay?

Hmmm, what is considered "unambiguous hostile action"? Consider these:

My reaper visits my ally's windmills and cities and trashes his crops.

I cast iceage, and my Tigran ally has a lot of cities and/or troops in my domain.

My ally has a stack next to a hostile indy city. I attack the city with my gladerunner, use my ally's troop to the last man in the siege, and then capture the city for myself. Oh, and then I teleport the artifacts from my ally's dead hero back to my capital after the siege. And maybe I cast resurrect hero too to claim the hero as my own.

My ally is sending troops back to defend his capital, and I block the road with my troops in a choke point, cutting him off.

I send gold and mana to his nearest enemy, or trade spells with his enemy.

I trade a magic relay to my ally's enemy, placing his capital in that enemy's domain.

My ally is making an obvious beeline to a resource pile, and I rush troops there and beat him by two hexes. (or even worse, one hex, and then use his troops to take the pile for myself).

I could go on forever. My idea is that FFA means just that -- Free For All. If you get a reputation as being a back stabber, then people won't let you into their games, so in essence good behavior should be moderated by peer pressure and not a lot of convoluted rules.

A loose set of guidelines would be nice for newbies to see, and it would give them a feel of what to expect and how to interact; basically a gentlemen's code of conduct. If it gets too complicated then we could scare new people off. If in the game you want to offer someone an alliance, then you can always attach terms to the alliance.

If you're playing co-op or alliance enabled then it just makes sense to help your ally out. If you're playing a true FFA where "there can be only one" is the goal, then I would expect that a well placed backstab would be part of game. Just like real life, the bottom line is to pick and choose your allies well.

I agree with you there Dayth. If I were to add one more rule it would be, as long as your are allied you must extend courtesy to your ally, rather than intentionally backstab him/her. That in itself I think would be enough. Intentions of an action that hurts your ally is far more important. If it was an honest mistake, then I don't see any need to do anything, but if it was intentional that should be prohibited.

However, I would make it an optional house rule, that can be agreed before a game by players. I remember a game that was setup in the original AoW that was intended for allies to be backstabbing just to add more fun. You never know if someone likes that stuff. As you said the rule should be a gentleman's agreement.

Actually, I'm inclined to agree as well -- my original "a free for all is just that" comment is really where I stand. The rule I suggested is an attempt to permit backstabbing, but simply make retaliation a bit easier for the aggrieved party. I'm starting to be convinced that any rule here would be impossible to administer.

If a free for all is a free for all, though, I don't really think that a house rule requiring courtesy towards allies is called for. The law of the jungle is probably the only one that's enforceable in these situations .

Maybe in future, victimized parties should just be pointed towards this discussion if they start to complain too loudly .

[This message has been edited by JWorth (edited 07-27-2003 @ 07:31 PM).]

this is an interesting discussion, even to one as myself, not into the pbem community, rather having played langames and sp as well as having made maps since the dawn of aow2. I must say i agree on the ffa deal, as i find diplomacy to be the most intricate part of free games - it is there wits will clash. In just that same free sense it feels like, from the discussion being held here and the comments on the maps of aow2heaven, that there is a sick focus on balance. I understand it might be important to people who must prove themselves, but in the long run I find unbalanced maps alot more interesting since they allow for much more multicoloured play.
For example a worldwar2 scenario cannot in any sense be balanced, still I would find it a most interesting scenario to play since even the smaller nations might play a role.

Balance is important in WL games, where points and rankings measure success. Everyone wants to start off on equal footing. It's not really something that I'd call "sick".

Balance is not as important in FFA, co-op, or simple friendly matches.

I play both kinds of games. If WL points are on the line, then I am very picky about the map and set up. If it is a non-WL game, I am much more open to playing a "weak" side for the challange, or an untested map.

With the manual combat fixed for PBEM by the patch it brings up a new advantage for 1 player in the game. The player whose turn is before the AI moves gets to choose between fast and manual combat with any AI initiated attacks because the AI takes its turn after the last player but before the turn actually gets sent. Any combat between the last player and the AI during the AI’s turn brings up a combat option screen. Not so for the other players in the turn order?

Unless I’m missing something here, like it’s just triggered by movable AI stacks for all players in the game, it may be a good etiquette for any player that is offered manual combat, once they are done with their turn and during the AI’s move, to pick fast combat so as not to have an advantage over the other players that have all their AI initiated combat settled by quick combat.

What is good etiquette concerning writing turn log posts? I am playing in a game and writing turn logs on a different web board, mostly because I find it fun to write them, and I hope that others enjoy reading them. Anyway, this one guy attacks me without warning, so I write something like "the foul Elves attacked us without warning". This guy gets all bent out of shape, accusing me of "cheating" and revealing stuff to other players that they wouldn't normally know. I am relatively new to PBEM, so how do the "pros" handle this? Did I commit some faux pas?