How We Play The Game

A funny thing happened the other day. I decided to siege a city who had no alliance and had been abandoned. I thought it’d be interesting to relearn how to siege and rewarding if I could coordinate with other alliance members. I had a veteran friend from back in the day help me clear out the city and then enthusiastically sent out my sieging army.

When they landed I waited for them to set up their siege and then suddenly they were destroyed and I had incoming armies on my own towns to contend with. I’d obviously made a mistake and wasn’t sure what I hadn’t considered. I reached out in GC and was met with some bravado and ridicule from those responsible whilst others cracked open the popcorn.

The ‘cost’ of my misstep was 2 assassinations on my cities and 4 attacks.

I am small and in a small alliance.

All of this happened with no communication.

I have learnt that TCol have a land claim on Mal Motsha and that the account, whilst of no alliance, used to be in an alliance that they claim as theirs. I have been told to ‘relax’. And I am relaxed. TCol can play the game as they see fit. They can be expansionist, aggressive and bullying – that is, after all, some of what they say on their page. They can throw their weight around in GC. That’s the nature of the game.

There are some rules though.... so having multiple accounts in your alliance is a no, no as they have discovered.

They can also turn a blind eye to sieges on abandoned cities in their ‘claimed’ territory when the people sieging are large and in large alliances.

What interests me is that I have been advised by some Vets to say nothing. People feel nothing will change and I will only make it worse for myself.

So – here are my thoughts. People can play as they wish.... and so can I. I stand against bullies and keyboard warriors who hide behind their screens and threaten others.

I think the behaviour here is over the top, reactionary and bullying.

I also think there are issues in turning a blind eye. As I say, TCol can play how they want, as long as it’s within the rules of the game, but there are consequences. New players and returning players may well think, and I have thought, I’m not sure I want to be part of this. I’m not sure I can be bothered. This isn’t a lot of fun.

So it’s up to the community what they want - different play styles make the server interesting and an over dominance of any one can lead to sterility. That said in this scenario I would have preferred communication and discussion not immediate military action. I do think that this particular way of playing is bad for the server full stop – it will deter most new players and give them a poor initial experience.... and if you want a growing community.... that will be undermined.

As I said in the post you can choose to play the game however you see fit. It's a choice for all of us. My post was about 'how' we play the game and the potential ramifications of that. I haven't played the game nor been active on forums for well over 10 years. I have a new account and a lot has changed... I didn't have a clue who you guys were. So, to all intents and purposes I am a new player. You have every right to assert your behaviour and say you were well within your rights to do what you did. And I have every right to disagree with you - which I do. I think an in game message explaining your concerns would have undoubtedly resulted in us recalling our armies and leaving you to it. As it was you decided to destroy the siege and send armies and assassins at me. I think that was an over the top reaction and unnecessary.

Having been a trader in a military alliance in more than 1 war, the traders definitely get picked on to help with the battle statistics and because they ARE easy targets. However, no trader who knows his stuff will ever lose a city with any gold or goods in it EVEN if its under siege.

Edited by Dungshoveleux - 02 Dec 2024 at 09:46