Playing the Game with a Code of Chivalry

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • I think this is a great topic as well; and i have a game scenario that relates to it currently. I joined a game and have a coalition; but an experienced player ( of some sergeant level) joined on day 3. They are not in our coalition but has been a great ally, communicates well and true to our agreements, include ROW.

      However 3 days ago he went AI and he hasn't been back. He controls a strategic country in regards to my borders; and I can't trust an AI. Well.. haha. can't really trust alot of human players either. but IN THEORY... an human will feel guilt ... or some thing like that.. if they stab you in the back.

      Anyway... not to devolve into an AI feeling guilt wormhole, should I abide by my agreement or take his land without remorse.
    • I just encountered something similar, but my situation was with a coalition member. He went awol, AI takes over, and we need to expand in his direction. So, we sent him a message, waited 24hrs, still no response.. so we took his homelands.

      If your worried about hurting the feelings of what sounds like a cool player and valuable ally, message them if you can... but in the big picture its their fault for not staying active for multiple days. Aaaannndd its still just a game ;)
      but, that's just my 2 cents' worth
    • H0LMES wrote:

      I think this is a great topic as well; and i have a game scenario that relates to it currently. I joined a game and have a coalition; but an experienced player ( of some sergeant level) joined on day 3. They are not in our coalition but has been a great ally, communicates well and true to our agreements, include ROW.

      However 3 days ago he went AI and he hasn't been back. He controls a strategic country in regards to my borders; and I can't trust an AI. Well.. haha. can't really trust alot of human players either. but IN THEORY... an human will feel guilt ... or some thing like that.. if they stab you in the back.

      Anyway... not to devolve into an AI feeling guilt wormhole, should I abide by my agreement or take his land without remorse.
      I usually give them 24 - 48 hours after abandonment before I move to take their stuff - assuming I have the available troops to do it and there is anything desirable to take. So if you waited 3 days past the 3 days it takes for abandonment to kick in, in my view, that is more than fair.

      Just look at it from the flip side. Lets say your computer dies, your tablet takes a header into the ocean and your cell phone commits suicide all on the same day, and you are just unable to secure any replacements (and reset all your passwords cuz you can't remember them) for a full 5 days. When you *finally* get back into your maps, would you be mad to find some or all of your cities taken over, by friend or foe? I know I wouldn't. Heck, I'd be happy if they were taken over by an ally.
    • I don't think that it was ever considered as "morally unacceptable" to recycle an inactive ally. To the contrary, i think a lot of people would side against someone that would complain about it : "You should've warned, informed, or made arrangements".
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      I don't think that it was ever considered as "morally unacceptable" to recycle an inactive ally. To the contrary, i think a lot of people would side against someone that would complain about it : "You should've warned, informed, or made arrangements".
      ^This
      especially when considering that an inactive ally can be a huge threat to you in terms of the opportunity it provides the enemy :D
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Germanico wrote:

      Hi @JoeSlackman - indeed a worthy posting. Thing is that players are all different. It's kinda like around the boardgame or RPG table: Some play valiantly while others revel in devious plots and backstabbing.
      Both are allowed in our game and to a degree endorsed: we want to allow players to live out their way of playing the game. If your's is honorable it sounds you may be interested in some of the Roleplaying aspects of the game - for which there are groups and dedicated games.
      Generally there are different approaches to this also depending on the origin of the players: Where in one of my past online games a few years back American players tended to ask for "rules of conduct" in combat, Russian players answered with a laconic "This is war - everything goes".

      So there you go: I believe there is place for both, just like in real life some nations adhere to a code while others clearly don't.
      I am an American, I view this game of war. Those who rely on "code of Chivalry" dont last long in CON. I see players use "spy actions" out of spite.
    • "I am an American, I view this game of war. Those who rely on "code of Chivalry" dont last long in CON. I see players use "spy actions" out of spite."


      I don't really see the relationship between a code of chivalry and spy actions :D.

      If we are talking of a code of chivalry that would say "Airplanes are a weapon of the Devil because they fly where God said only birds were allowed", then yes, i agree it's stupid and people wouldn't last.

      But i have a few "morale rules" that are not formally a code of chivalry, yet that served me well in terms of network for the 10 last years :

      1°) When fighting someone younger or less experienced than you, always extend a hand and try to educate him about the game, even if it means you will have a harder time to beat him. If he is too arrogant to accept the help, at least crushing him will set an example for the others.

      2°) When fighting a very valiant foe, if he asks to surrender, accept to spare his remaining troops to not aggravate his K/D, before eating him.

      3°) When fighting a valiant foe, congratulate him for valiance, be it through defeat of victory. If he remained cordial, also invite him to speak on discord, and keep contact.

      4°) Always demonstrate your value as an ally by anticipating needs. Example : A good ally doesn't need to get asked for SAMs to protect troops ---> He sees a threat to the ally, raises his shield, and deflect the arrows.

      5°) Never complain. Always explain grudges in factual terms, and their consequences.

      6°) If you are against a valiant foe that you don't require to kill to win, spare him, or even give him a place in your coalition if it's possible.

      7°) When encountering a betrayal, kill the betrayer even if it's not your pure strategical interest, as a token of goodwill "from one good human to another", and add the people as contact for the future. A map is just a map. The community is long term.

      8°) Always discuss with alliance members about the state of their alliance, and chit chat about how things goes in their nation : People have friends, Alliances have friends too, and the ones that are culturally close to you will be either valiant foes, or valiant allies, but never strangers.

      9°) Avoid doing alliances just for the sake of survival. Your sword is the only ally you need, even in a 1 vs 5. Allies should be your equals at least in mind, and equals in might if possible.

      10°) Try to be an individual example for the recruits that accompany you.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      "I am an American, I view this game of war. Those who rely on "code of Chivalry" dont last long in CON. I see players use "spy actions" out of spite."


      I don't really see the relationship between a code of chivalry and spy actions :D.

      If we are talking of a code of chivalry that would say "Airplanes are a weapon of the Devil because they fly where God said only birds were allowed", then yes, i agree it's stupid and people wouldn't last.

      But i have a few "morale rules" that are not formally a code of chivalry, yet that served me well in terms of network for the 10 last years :

      1°) When fighting someone younger or less experienced than you, always extend a hand and try to educate him about the game, even if it means you will have a harder time to beat him. If he is too arrogant to accept the help, at least crushing him will set an example for the others.

      2°) When fighting a very valiant foe, if he asks to surrender, accept to spare his remaining troops to not aggravate his K/D, before eating him.

      3°) When fighting a valiant foe, congratulate him for valiance, be it through defeat of victory. If he remained cordial, also invite him to speak on discord, and keep contact.

      4°) Always demonstrate your value as an ally by anticipating needs. Example : A good ally doesn't need to get asked for SAMs to protect troops ---> He sees a threat to the ally, raises his shield, and deflect the arrows.

      5°) Never complain. Always explain grudges in factual terms, and their consequences.

      6°) If you are against a valiant foe that you don't require to kill to win, spare him, or even give him a place in your coalition if it's possible.

      7°) When encountering a betrayal, kill the betrayer even if it's not your pure strategical interest, as a token of goodwill "from one good human to another", and add the people as contact for the future. A map is just a map. The community is long term.

      8°) Always discuss with alliance members about the state of their alliance, and chit chat about how things goes in their nation : People have friends, Alliances have friends too, and the ones that are culturally close to you will be either valiant foes, or valiant allies, but never strangers.

      9°) Avoid doing alliances just for the sake of survival. Your sword is the only ally you need, even in a 1 vs 5. Allies should be your equals at least in mind, and equals in might if possible.

      10°) Try to be an individual example for the recruits that accompany you.
      This is one of the longest things I ever read in this forum but it was really nice so I didn't get bored while reading this .
    • yankees992012 wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      Hi @JoeSlackman - indeed a worthy posting. Thing is that players are all different. It's kinda like around the boardgame or RPG table: Some play valiantly while others revel in devious plots and backstabbing.
      Both are allowed in our game and to a degree endorsed: we want to allow players to live out their way of playing the game. If your's is honorable it sounds you may be interested in some of the Roleplaying aspects of the game - for which there are groups and dedicated games.
      Generally there are different approaches to this also depending on the origin of the players: Where in one of my past online games a few years back American players tended to ask for "rules of conduct" in combat, Russian players answered with a laconic "This is war - everything goes".

      So there you go: I believe there is place for both, just like in real life some nations adhere to a code while others clearly don't.
      I am an American, I view this game of war. Those who rely on "code of Chivalry" dont last long in CON. I see players use "spy actions" out of spite.
      I am an American too, and I do play with a code of chivalry. I'll let my stats speak for me.
    • Opulon wrote:

      "I am an American, I view this game of war. Those who rely on "code of Chivalry" dont last long in CON. I see players use "spy actions" out of spite."


      I don't really see the relationship between a code of chivalry and spy actions :D.

      If we are talking of a code of chivalry that would say "Airplanes are a weapon of the Devil because they fly where God said only birds were allowed", then yes, i agree it's stupid and people wouldn't last.

      But i have a few "morale rules" that are not formally a code of chivalry, yet that served me well in terms of network for the 10 last years :

      1°) When fighting someone younger or less experienced than you, always extend a hand and try to educate him about the game, even if it means you will have a harder time ....


      A delight to read your insights Opulon, as always
    • DOA70 wrote:

      I am an American too, and I do play with a code of chivalry. I'll let my stats speak for me.
      DUDE! Since you mentioned them, I looked at your stats, whoa, ... You are Murderously efficient against AI opponents!
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • You both have K/D against AI that demonstrate you know how they operate and how to efficiently expand on them
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Yeah, but I get lazy and sloppy against them resulting in my having almost 300 more units killed by them. Plus for some reason, I have been horrible against AI with aircraft, particularly heavies.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      DOA70 wrote:

      I am an American too, and I do play with a code of chivalry. I'll let my stats speak for me.
      DUDE! Since you mentioned them, I looked at your stats, whoa, ... You are Murderously efficient against AI opponents!
      Thank you!

      It's a quirk in the way my brain works. I am always seeking the most efficient way to do something, whether it's paying the bills, washing the dishes, driving to work, or, playing a video game. And since this game rewards efficiency - it's a match made in heaven. :saint:

      As for heavies ... I've never come up against AI using heavies. How does that happen? (I'd likely struggle against them too since I don't come up against them much, period)
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      DOA70 wrote:

      I am an American too, and I do play with a code of chivalry. I'll let my stats speak for me.
      DUDE! Since you mentioned them, I looked at your stats, whoa, ... You are Murderously efficient against AI opponents!
      I started playing few games. In the game, If I cant win then I would either resign gracefully or join up stronger coalition. As for the stats, as you see I am still a beginner and haven't played long enough. At the beginning of the game, usually I attack AI to get resources I needed. From there, join up strong coalition to share the win. The first 2 days at the beginning of the game is critical. Players either quit or keep on playing after 2 days. I also keep track of CON news of which player couped, from there take their lands. That's how I gain to much powerful empire. I admit that I did some back stabbing in the game in order to survive to the end of the game. I still view " spy actions" one of the worse part of the game. It where you may or may not know who doing the spy. Once I knew who did it, usually the offending country would be shown no mercy from me. Towards to the mid-end game, Nukes are one of my favorite weapon used in war. I noticed that once you strike the player with nukes, the player can never fully recover the losses from being nuked. One thing that stands out, hardly anyone really used anti-air type of units at the beginning of the game, strike fighters also another favorite unit I used to wipe the floor of my opponents.
    • Your analysis is on point about the anti-air. Very few people include it in their build, and i can relate how regularly our martial trainers need to lash rookies about this critical deficiency.


      "I don't do anti-air because i don't see plane"
      "Oh. Are those planes ?"
      "Ok, time to make Anti-A"
      Dead
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • I am playing in a game right now, where if I leave I would get a solo win, my first one ever. Naturally, I was very excited to do so, and I told my coalition mates about my intentions.
      Now, one of my coalition mates had helped me bombard missiles to the last major country not in our coalition, whittling down his forces. I don't think he was very happy with not receiving a large portion of his territory, but he did not say so. When he heard that I wanted to leave the coalition and get a solo win, he was very angry, and stated that he would declare war and destroy me (which is precisely what he is preparing for now).
      Now I understand his anger, but would you agree that I don't deserve a solo win? Was what I did honourable? Should I pass up a chance for getting a solo win because it isn't totally solo-ed? (And do you think he could have just said it nicely.)
      Currently on (potentially permanent) hiatus

      Instead of choosing wings to fly, we chose hands to hold with each other.

      Yet the sky still fascinates us, is it such a crime to keep on dreaming?
    • 737373elj wrote:

      I am playing in a game right now, where if I leave I would get a solo win, my first one ever. Naturally, I was very excited to do so, and I told my coalition mates about my intentions.
      Now, one of my coalition mates had helped me bombard missiles to the last major country not in our coalition, whittling down his forces. I don't think he was very happy with not receiving a large portion of his territory, but he did not say so. When he heard that I wanted to leave the coalition and get a solo win, he was very angry, and stated that he would declare war and destroy me (which is precisely what he is preparing for now).
      Now I understand his anger, but would you agree that I don't deserve a solo win? Was what I did honourable? Should I pass up a chance for getting a solo win because it isn't totally solo-ed? (And do you think he could have just said it nicely.)
      I have had people doing this to me . Me too , get angry . What I do is find that guy in another game and kill him (usually I do that twice) .In your case , If someone has helped you like that , in my opinion , you should not destroy HIM . (he may have said that in a nice way but probably he was a bit too angry)
    • My approach on that is simple.

      Solo Win is just an entry in a database.
      It could be written "broken pinatas", it would have the same value for me.

      On supremacy, when you win, you get medals, and i took the habit to say i was too old to crave for .jpg pictures on a online game.

      I tend to have an inability to understand "glory-seekers" through "win rate" of public games. And while i understand it for elo ranking, i still am not interested in it.

      "it's just an integer in a database." can't get out of my head.


      So, my only advice is : "Was the guy so useless in the map, and does he deserves no credit, to the point you consider legitimate that even after his help, it's still "only you, and is an integer in a database more worth it than keeping him as a good contact ?"

      I do not have an absolute answer to this, it's up to you, and where you put the standards for yourself.

      For me it's easy, i see no value in the "you have won" screen, but i wouldn't begrugde you for considering it has a large value.

      I mean, we consider gold as valuable, and to consider it more valuable than oil or steel is madness, from a practical standpoint.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.