<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 25 of 25   
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 5/31/2015 16:33:34

Daniel McIntosh
Level 46
Report
I have seen many players who shamelessly break their word, breaking alliances, or just being outright jerks to get their way. I have also seen players who will stand up for an ally who is doomed, even if it means their undoing. I personally feel that either position is detrimental for strategy, especially in diplo games.

If you go back on your word before endgame, or before a player is beyond saving, you make enemies, and weaken yourself. I have been the player who could be saved, but was turned on by an ally in my time of need, and sometimes, the original aggressor will stop attacking you, so you can do some real damage to your ex-ally before dying, or even work with you, if you bring this up. However, if you're beyond saving, I don't believe it is right to expect an ally to go down with you.

Why should, or shouldn't, we Honour our word?


further questions:
  • Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
  • Should we stop attacking to allow those who have been wronged to get back?
  • If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
  • When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you)
  • Should you give them warning?


Edited 6/1/2015 22:50:01
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 5/31/2015 16:51:21

Daniel McIntosh
Level 46
Report
^ care to elaborate?
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 5/31/2015 16:56:50

(retired)
Level 58
Report
if he elaborates he may send you dirty lolis pictures, is that really what you want?
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 5/31/2015 17:06:21


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
Honour
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 5/31/2015 17:11:03


Oljo
Level 55
Report
keep your word until your ally is beyond rescue, but if you know you will not be victorius in the end, keep on honouring it til the end
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 5/31/2015 17:19:43


knyte 
Level 58
Report
I mean, you literally changed your username to "Lolicon love <3" and posted somewhat-censored loli hentai on both the Clan Forum and the General Forum... that does do things to your reputation.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 5/31/2015 17:23:10


Benjamin628 
Level 59
Report
And you're probably blacklisted by half of Warlight.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 5/31/2015 17:26:33

Elroi{IL}
Level 57
Report
I actually think that there are those who want to honor that they want a motive to live, kind of to exhaust pf yourself.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/1/2015 02:38:13

Daniel McIntosh
Level 46
Report
[added further questions]
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/1/2015 04:19:52

iamtaller
Level 52
Report
Personally, I try to be "honorable" as much as I can. Now, if honoring your alliance would mean that you would die too, it would just be cowardice to back down from a challenge of beating a bigger enemy, and perhaps trying to recruit people to your cause. This, of course, doesn't matter if your ally is going to die in a turn or two anyways.

If you think you can beat your enemy, giving you ally one land, then letting them take their old land back is good.
Not quite sure what this means, but yes.
I personally wouldn't; but I think this is a fine thing to do.
When there is only two of you.
Of course.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/1/2015 04:53:23


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 51
Report
It's honor, the majority of people on warlight are American therefore it's honor
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/1/2015 05:09:07


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
Actually, the folk majority on Warlight are not American, therefore it's honour.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/1/2015 08:49:13


Poseidó̱nas
Level 57
Report
America sucks and just because you bloody yanks change the spelling of a word for god knows what reason does not mean we have to go along with it!!

You are not honour bound to help or save someone that you are in an alliance with i rather like to think of alliances as a i won't attack you if you don't attack me thing.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/1/2015 15:24:29


Scotty 
Level 56
Report
Warlight has some people what will honor their word and some that won't.
...isn't that a more realistic war game...

But eventually, those that do not honor their word eventually get somewhat of a rep or blacklisted or whatever.

About two weeks ago, I knew a player who would break his word so I planned for it. Oops, he got crushed. Then he cried about it in the public chat. Predictable.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/1/2015 16:00:46


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 51
Report
Well I'll word it better, the guy who made Warlight is American, the country with the largest amount of "warlighters" is America, and Britain is a vassal of America so we're going to use the damn American spelling. Any questions?
Edit: Scotty could we see the game in question?

Edited 6/1/2015 16:01:40
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/1/2015 21:30:48


OnlyThePie
Level 53
Report
Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
No. This just sticks a knife in the hard work of the players who defeated you. Unless you're leaving for non-loss purposes, leaving massive tracts of land, in which case you should divide it up fairly to all bordering players.

Should we allow those who have been wronged to get back?
Not unless the person breaking the rules does not repent.

If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
Yes. They have to be ready.

When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you)
When there's literally just the two of you left, or the only other player is an even closer ally.

Should you give them warning?
Definetly.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 00:11:31


Alesiar
Level 49
Report
I should say that I'm talking exclusively about Diplo's here.

Before I answer these questions I would like to preface that I have NEVER betrayed an ally in any Diplo game I play. I don't play Diplos to win, I play them to have fun, RP, and then VTE. The only way to lose an ally is if the ally attacks me or another ally unjustly or does something else sufficiently douchebaggy.

Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
Not necessarily, but I often do this to preserve the balance of power on a map.

Should we stop attacking to allow those who have been wronged to get back?
Depends, and I think the situation you described is very specific. Usually I will not attack someone without some level of justification in Diplos. In many cases, I have attacked a nation, and then found that they are being eliminated off the map, and then I stopped attacking them, and became friends, gave them some land, etc.

If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
NO. Not without some kind of justification.
WHY SHOULD PEOPLE ALLY WITH YOU EVER IN THE FUTURE? You could just stab them in the back like last time!
I dont want people to constantly watch their back with me.

This isn't about honor - it's about logic and compassion.

When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you)
I don't. We usually VTE.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 00:41:08


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 51
Report
But what if you are Germany, it's WW2 and your "ally" is the Soviet Union? And you just finished off France, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Greece?

Edited 6/2/2015 00:42:11
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 02:39:59

Daniel McIntosh
Level 46
Report
^ stfu, we're talking about warlight, not reality. :P

Edited 6/2/2015 02:40:19
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 03:31:52


Mortalus
Level 57
Report
Interesting opinions here.

I have never broken my word however I have made moves in error. I always try to rectify the situation and have even surrendered when it has been very detrimental to the other player.

Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
This should not be an expectation yet it is a possibility. I typically make the decision on a case-by-case basis.

Should we stop attacking to allow those who have been wronged to get back?
If we wronged them, perhaps. If another ally wronged them, no. If a player (including myself) chooses the wrong ally, they must live with the consequences as much as the player who chose the right allies.

If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
This requires context as eventually you must as per the next question. Fair warning is a matter of respect and I consider it mandatory.

When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you)
Each game is different. I am at the 'endgame' of one now where we predetermined that war will ensue between us when 1.) all other enemies are eliminated or surrendered, 2.) two turns of peace are to follow the first rule, 3.) and we war until the end. I have also played matches where we decide to 'vote to end' since it was a great partnership and we didn't feel the need to beat each other up.

Should you give them warning? Always. The length of warning may vary based on context.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 04:49:57


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
Honor is like paper money. It's worth the faith we put into it.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 05:14:12


Fangoros
Level 12
Report
Honor is important, but you are still in the game to win. We shouldn't confuse an ally with a friend. You have a working relationship with your ally, because it's mutually beneficial. Once your ally is no longer an asset, the allegiance is no longer to your benefit. At that point, feel free to break the allegiance according to whatever rules the game has in place, and if you are not a benefit to your ally, you should not be shocked if he/she turns on you. That's just part of the game. Rarely, have I needed to do this, but no alliance can last until the end. There can be only one.

Deception, misdirection, and even betrayal are important elements of this game. They make it exciting. I have done these things, but I will not do anything truly dishonorable. Examples of truly dishonorable acts are breaking unenforceable rules, strategic booting , and joining a 4-player FFA with 2 close friends or clan members. This dishonor ruins the game and creates only hollow victories. I do not care for victories I have not earned.

Note: This is my stance in the game, only. For real life allegiances, I think we should stand by our word. But in real life, we don't have to ultimately defeat everybody.

Edited 6/2/2015 05:17:28
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 05:26:32


Fangoros
Level 12
Report
As for the "honor" vs "honour" debate. Who cares? Language evolves and changes. There are differences in language by country (even those who share English) and differences by region. Someone from Baton Rouge uses a different version of English than someone from Boston or Los Angeles. What's important is that we understand each other. No need to quibble over the exact spelling. Let's just consider "honor" and "honour" to be synonymous.
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 13:19:53


Femaelstrom
Level 56
Report
It's actually spelled onnur. You can all go home now, folks.

Moving on, I'm going to admit that I do sometimes manipulate my allies in games, but I try to stay allied with them unless either they go rogue and do something I don't agree with, or if I have a very low chance of survival if I remain allied with them. When there are two people left in a diplo, it's essentially an FFA or a 1v1 at that point, so I try to attack whoever it is unless I'm much smaller. I just try to salvage a VTE if I have a low chance of beating them.

I know I'm not the most moral person on here, but strategy is strategy.

Honor is important, but you are still in the game to win. We shouldn't confuse an ally with a friend. You have a working relationship with your ally, because it's mutually beneficial. Once your ally is no longer an asset, the allegiance is no longer to your benefit. At that point, feel free to break the allegiance according to whatever rules the game has in place, and if you are not a benefit to your ally, you should not be shocked if he/she turns on you. That's just part of the game. Rarely, have I needed to do this, but no alliance can last until the end. There can be only one.

Deception, misdirection, and even betrayal are important elements of this game. They make it exciting. I have done these things, but I will not do anything truly dishonorable. Examples of truly dishonorable acts are breaking unenforceable rules, strategic booting , and joining a 4-player FFA with 2 close friends or clan members. This dishonor ruins the game and creates only hollow victories. I do not care for victories I have not earned.

Note: This is my stance in the game, only. For real life allegiances, I think we should stand by our word. But in real life, we don't have to ultimately defeat everybody.

I generally agree with this, although I admittedly have tactically booted a few times. And the rule of having to declare on your enemies before attacking them is unenforceable in the end, but other people should see it coming and attempt it as well.

Edited 6/2/2015 13:24:00
Honor, is it beneficial, or hurtful: 6/2/2015 14:11:52


Martyrose
Level 58
Report
Why should, or shouldn't, we Honour our word?
You shouldn't because it is a diplomacy game. I think that not honouring your word is somethimes part of that. Honouring your word instead of not honouring it is sometimes an better option though.

further questions:

Should we be expected to hand over our land to our allies in our dying moments?
Not expected to, but if you want to hand over your land to your allies when dying then you should do so the best you can. The person who is killing you does not have to respect your wishes in this case, in my opinion

Should we stop attacking to allow those who have been wronged to get back?
That depends, you/the attackers can come up with the terms of coming back in the game during the game itself.

If we give fair warning, is it acceptable to turn on an ally who is otherwise fine?
Turning on to an ally is fine as long as the personal message of the host doesn't say otherwise.

When do you turn on your partner as you approach endgame? (in other words, at what point do you say, there's basically only two of us, I now have to kill you
The best moment for you to attack your partner in your opinion, then you turn down on your partner. That can be at last 5 or last 2 or just anytime.

Should you give them warning?
If you want to, then go ahead, but you do not need to give them a warning. That can be a bit of a jerk move though.
Posts 1 - 25 of 25