In my humble opinion, playing with teammates is sometimes irritating if they play dumb and we lose cause of them. So I think it should be ok to have multi-accounts if they are in one team. We may move a little bit longer but if it's still in a moving time it should be fine.

Multi-account is not fair, in my opinion, in FFA's or in teamgames, when accounts are in different teams.

Actually I'm not sure if having multi-account is prohibited, but I guess it should be in cases mentioned in the sentenc above. I think that there might be a blockade for same IPs to join FFA, or team game in other teams, so if somebody would like to join, s/he would get communicate that there is somebody with same IP on the other team or game.

And if it's not fine with somebody, there might be an option in settings to prohibit multi-accounts on the game, even on one team, so everybody would be happy then.

And actually sometimes game, where every player have multi-account might be interesting as well, cause You play differently then and there might be for example tournaments for multi-account-players then as a new and different kind of games.

What do You think?

I found such a rule "You shall not operate more than one WarLight account in a way that gives you an advantage in a game, tournament or ladder." in here http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Rules

So it's a question if having multi-accounts on one team gives advantages or not? It should not make much difference if we or somebody else operate the account. If somebody just plays good, then he can have himself on the team instead of some random guy only. Does it break the rule or not then?

It's both an advantage and a disadvantage to play both players on a team - Sometimes the ease of coordinating with yourself will give you an edge, but sometimes your eyes will miss something that a teammate might have caught. In effect it's more of an advantage than a disadvantage, but that's due to the laziness of the opposing team in coordinating things and thus it's not cheating to do it IMO.

If you are tired of crappy partners, join a clan or get a group of people you enjoy playing with and can trust, then only team-up with them.

I'd suggest altering the 1v1 settings to increase the base amount of armies and the amount of starting picks, if you wish to play a teamgame all on your own. It'll be exactly the same without the account-hopping.

Dazed, there has only been one person I have felt comfortable regularly teaming with.. and not sure if a 2 person clan is worth making..

"It's better to have loved and lost . . ."

Having said that perrin, I'm sure you'll find someone new :-P

What happened to crafty btw or do you know?

And on topic, I disagree Francisco. Playing with 2 separate incomes is not the same as playing with the sum of those incomes.

@Seroslav: only allowing a single account per IP (in each game) would mean people living in the same house (siblings, student dorms) cannot play together in a game. I don't think such a limit should be created.

Technical note: that is due to the fact IPv4 addresses have been in short supply for a while now, leading to NAT-traversal, effectively giving each house its own IP address, instead of the way IP is supposed to work: one IP per network adapter. Once we move to IPv6, it would be semi-possible to put such a limit in place, however, you'd still get false-positives when people share a computer (not uncommon in the siblings case).

---

@Francisco Franco:
Ace Windu is correct. A few differences:

- Two players have to deploy their income to their own territories; with doubled base income and doubled starting locations you can deploy anywhere.
- If two players (on the same team) together control a bonus, they don't get any income from it; with one "doubled" player, he *would* get the income.
- Two players can get two cards per turn. (This *cannot* be corrected by simply doubling the number of cards as well, since in the two player case it's possible for one of the players to conquer a territory while the other did now, that cannot be "translated" to the "doubled" player case.)
- When playing with additional armies for number of controlled territories (and using something other than 1 army per 1 territory), the rounding will be slightly different.

Granted, that last one is a very minor issue, but the others are real differences.

You forget that two players have a first move each. While one has only one. That`s one of the most important points.

Yeah. 1v1s in which each starting territory had its own set of orders (ie, first move, second move, etc.) would make 1v1s more interesting (and more like actual warfare). The lack of simultaneous ally attacks makes 1v1s an inferior strategic game to team games in my opinion.

seroslav u could get people you know and trust on warlight play together an slaughter them noobs who leave and ruin your team

All very valid points, but I don't see any other option than to do that, if you only want to play with yourself in a team-game.

Divy up your armies and territories and pretend to be multiple people.

You said all very valid points, yet your answer shows you didnt understand them.
A 1on1 and a teamgame are completely diffent types of games, even if the teams are played by only 2 players.
There are several factors that are the most important for changing the overall strategy of teamgames.

The two most important are:
The previously mentioned move order.
For instance: Two players can play cat and mouse more succesfully with one player than only one. They all have the same chance of moving first, but since the solitary player can only intercept one, the other one has to succeed in moving before him.

Army cap.
Teamgames divide the map into army theatres. You can deploy only up the maximum army income of the certain player to a certain area. But the areas you are able to deploy equal the number of players. In a 1on1 game , your deployment is unlimited all over the map. That requires a totally different and in my opinion, more boring overall strategy.