Forums
| Page 1 | |
|---|---|
Michael, January 2010, edited | |
Hi, Our alliance recently just got declared on and we immediately surrendered (for the second time :P). However, after the surrender, their tribes could still raze/op me. Now, 6hrs after the surrender, they *still* can raze and op me. I thought that there was a moment of cease fire after a war. Has the rules changed because if it has, I don't see much point in surrendering since that results in losing market goods *and* alliance members (if they decide to continue after the war ended) | |
Wolfbrother, January 2010 | |
|
After a war ends, you cannot be declared war upon for several hours but you can still be attacked.
|
|
Sweets, January 2010 | ![]() |
|
The guide states:
Quote Alliances that have been in war are protected by the Orkfian gods against new war declarations, and cannot be declared against for 6 hours. Also they cannot declare on others for 12 hours. and: Quote Alliances that surrender are protected by the Orkfian gods against new enemy war declarations for 48 hours, rather than 6. Ending the war (by surrendering or truce) ends the war gains enjoyed by the opposing alliance: Quote * Spells and Operations: +5% damage * All attacks: +20% fame * Raid: +20% citizens killed * Standard Attack: +20% gains * Blasphemy Crusade: +50% more damage * Blasphemy Crusade: 1 fame for each building It's a matter of weighing which is more endurable - surrendering and suffering the market/fame losses or maintaining war status and enduring the the added war bonuses. |
|
Michael, January 2010 | |
|
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. The last time I played (2yrs ago), I remember the game prevented you from opping an alliance which you just warred with (or at least I think that was the case)
|
|
Acwder, January 2010 | |
|
I was actually equally suprised as you Michael, I by misstake sent a dm on one of your tribes after the war and suprisingly it went through, Im still more used to classic where a blockage is in place that stops oping 4 hours after a war ends but there is apparently no blocking in play anymore, thus the reason we killed that DE that was in full wm not even running markets
|
|
Morbid, January 2010 | |
|
sometimes it's just “honor” to stop all aggression after the alliance surrendered/was defeated..(unless if there's a tribe who's close to death)
|
|
EMber, January 2010, edited | |
|
Yea usually it's more beneficial to leave the defeated alli alone (since they were ofc defeated) and move on to another threat. Honor is only minutely a factor :) Since there is none in AatW, the game is coded against it :P Since in orkfia you can sneak up and kill tribes in 1 minute at tick :P We are a ninja game.
|
|
Acwder, January 2010 | |
|
well a defeated alli is a defeated alli but an alli that surrenders after the first kill isnt really defeated but was still a threat for us, especially with a tribe in all out warmode.
To put it simple, running 0 thief def and 0 markets combined with being in full mage build = death^^ |
|
EMber, January 2010 | |
|
In my experience, alliances who have to surrender off the bat was never much of a threat anyway ;)
|
|
Acwder, January 2010 | |
|
or just taking a strategic descision, I remember a situation in Classic where an alli declared on another the very last day of the age, the other alli surrendered right away thus blocking any ops until the age ended protecting their 1-1-1^^
|
|
EMber, January 2010, edited | |
|
I was waiting for you to say that Acwder, how easily manipulated and transparent :P
But perhaps in the case you stated that would be a strategic decision, but in AatW it's just an unvalidated reason for weakness :) And now by typing this, you've made me die in WoW. You suck -_- |
|
CBeast, January 2010 | |
|
Lol, we didn't even plan to declare a war on 36- we wanted to killl 2-3 of their tribes to lower how much of a threat they were. When we realized how massively underdeffed they were we decided to war. The fact that they surrendered doesn't mean they were no longer a threat, so we still needed to accomplish our primary goal, and that required killing one more tribe
|
|
EMber, January 2010 | |
|
36 a threat? Speaks volumes about your alli Cbeast :P
|
|
Morbid, January 2010 | |
|
#36 a threat??
they only changed names,but the bears are constatntly hibernating(i think).. they are just cute,cuddly,furry li'l bears.. |
|
EMber, January 2010 | |
|
Exactly :) Lovidy dovidy
|
|
Wolfbrother, January 2010 | |
|
Cute, cuddly, furry, li'l bears who just killed a tribe in one tick a few hours ago.
|
|
Malystryx, January 2010 | |
|
yea man fooled by the exterior.
|
|
mazja, January 2010 | |
|
lmao
|
|
Bolle, January 2010 | |
|
I am sorely tempted to create an alliance and have an unofficial NAP with #17 and then wait how long it takes before I'm caught on violating the CoC... since I never send ANY pm at all. In fact, I don't see any field where I'd differ from the other alliances currently in game.
|
|
Halcyon, January 2010 | |
|
what's the difference between strategizing and NAP. very little.
|
|
Sasuke Uchiha, January 2010 | |
|
the best i can give, thats what i want too,
1. u can only leave ur target with min ciz,200, but can NOT kill ur enemy. 2. the only 1 way to kill ur enemy is by WAR. so, its easy to say, u can raid, dm, arson or anything but u can not make ur target has less ciz than 200 or to kill them that mean after surrender too. beside, we have no trophy for that kill. peace |
|
EMber, January 2010 | |
|
Quote I am sorely tempted to create an alliance and have an unofficial NAP with #17 and then wait how long it takes before I'm caught on violating the CoC... since I never send ANY pm at all. In fact, I don't see any field where I'd differ from the other alliances currently in game. I see your point, the problem is NAP's are impossible to prove unless the alliances are extremely idiotic. But with that said, where did that come from Bolle? o_o |
|
Bolle, January 2010 | |
|
Freudian depths....
|
|
CBeast, February 2010 | |
|
Quote 36 a threat? Speaks volumes about your alli Cbeast :P Maybe it does speak volumes, but it's clearly a valid threat :( |
|
EMber, February 2010 | |
|
Poor CBeast :)
|
|
Adam, February 2010, edited | |
|
*prods EM repeatedly with a pointeh stick*
There's my spam for today ^.^ |
|
| Page 1 | |
