First Round Invasions: Illegal, or merely Impolite?

Questions
1. Does the entry of Player [Edited by Columna Durruti](Player Name) of Coalition (Coalition Name)[End Edit] onto my home country on turn 1 constitute an Invasion?

2. If so, what are the consequences of an invasion, for the invading player?

[Edited by Columna Durruti] Removed Pic [End Edit]

Background

New player, only playing since 10 Dec 2013.
Not since I was lvl 2 have I seen an invasion (then, I was the invader, and I was told what an invasion was and the 'rule' against it).
The questions relate to a game played 'today' (about 1/2h before post) a public game hosted by YuGevara on a 'regular' world map.

On Turn One Player [Edited by Columna Durruti] Player Name of Coalition Coalition Name[End Edit] entered my home country. He was playing USA, Great Lakes. I was playing USA, Northeast.

Invasion and Wallfucking are legal but unethical.
Check this out on wallfucking: https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9129

Skrevet av Columna Durruti, 02.01.2014 at 20:09

Invasion and Wallfucking are legal but unethical.
Check this out on wallfucking: https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9129

1. I see in the post you reference that first round invasions are 'legal but socially discouraged' (my generalization).
2. You are a moderator.
3. I recognize that "The Rules" https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=1843 do not explicitly forbid first round invasions and wallfncking.
4. When you speak of the legality of first-round invasion, is this because Moderators have the in-game authority to declare something legal or illegal, and/or are you opining as an experienced-and-obviously-community-oriented player, and/or concluding legality based on the principle of "That which is not illegal is legal"?

(as an aside, thank you for your service to AW)

I think in this case it is fine, he has not interfered with your ability to wall any cities on your home territory. Really this comes into effect more on smaller maps where cities are in close proximity, and is designed to allow a game to develop.

It is not against any rules to do this and no action can or will be taken against it by moderators, certain things in the game are just good etiquette.

Skrevet av b0nker2, 02.01.2014 at 20:50

I think in this case it is fine, he has not interfered with your ability to wall any cities on your home territory. Really this comes into effect more on smaller maps where cities are in close proximity, and is designed to allow a game to develop.

It is not against any rules to do this and no action can or will be taken against it by moderators, certain things in the game are just good etiquette.

So, if I understand you correctly, in your opinion, not only was the action legal, it was does not even merit social consequence: In other words, this invasion was less 'despicable' than lying/breaking a treaty?

And as to my questions: You agree it was an invasion, but there are no sanctions for doing so?

Edit: I do agree, he did not 'wallfnck', though whether this was by intent or incompetence I do not know.

Why do players complain about others using strategy?

Sitat:

Sitat:

So, if I understand you correctly, in your opinion, not only was the action legal, it was does not even merit social consequence: In other words, this invasion was less 'despicable' than lying/breaking a treaty?

And as to my questions: You agree it was an invasion, but there are no sanctions for doing so?

Edit: I do agree, he did not 'wallfnck', though whether this was by intent or incompetence I do not know.

Well there should be no sanctions as it is not breaking any rules, only etiquette as I mentioned before.

I don't see this particular case as being that bad as clearly there is no real intention to wallfck you here, and 2 men barely within your territory does not really make a credible invasion in my eyes. If however he put a unit right next to your cities then yes I would call it 'despicable' behaviour at least in terms of what is accepted as good etiquette. Even breaking treaties is not that bad imo although I try to refrain from doing so myself.

Edit: just another point for your consideration, is also not good etiquette to name players in forums for perceived misdemeanour's, generally no good comes of it. On that note: FUCK YOU DEATH!

B0nker2 just made the point. Nothing to ad, but to say that no sanctions can and will not be taken against unethical behavior that do not really attempt against aw rules. Thnx to b0nker2, an exemplary player; full respect, always! (¡siempre!)

A quick breakdown:

We both joined a 50k world map; Non-scenario.

After not being able to figure out how to choose a country, you decided upon US: Northeast after I had chose Great Lakes. From there, you made nothing but planes (SM) and moved everything to DC. I on the other hand, spread out - including to DC. Those few defensive troops? They're within a wall. Spare troops that couldn't quite make it to DC, but still could move back to their start point without being in harms way. I fail to see how this posed a problem to you.

You then reacted by:
1. Whining to everyone in-game that I had invaded you on the first turn and thus was making illegal moves. Nobody cared.
2. Nerd raging all up in my private messages. I had no idea what you were ranting about. Good on you.
3. Seemingly taking on a threatening tone; spouting this and that about seeing what all you could possibly do so my astonishingly abhorrent actions would face some serious consequences. All this, while you waved around with such gusto, such pride, none other than the incredible screenshot you had produced. You may as well have it printed out and taped to your mother's fridge.
4. Inquiring about my rank in my coalition; who the leader is, etc. I assume you were leaning towards somehow trying to convince them to punish me, or providing them with as much of a laugh at your expense as you have given me.
5. Warning me that you'll expose me on the forums. !?
6. Messaging my inbox with notification of your forum post. Lovely.

Given your preparation time and time between messages, you totaled about three hours on your tirade. If I'm not mistaken, you left at turn 7. They were three minute turns.

Since you named me in a second thread and invited the discussion of the social implications of this event; don't mind if I do.

This is internet serious business in it's finest. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and you certainly have yourself one for the ages, there. Congratulations, and please, cherish these moments. Take in all that is the aforementioned wall; perhaps you can study it's architecture reminiscent of only the finest wonders and let it inspire you toward great things.. Yeah...

As sportsmanship seems to hold no sway on you, allow me to impose. Perhaps you can piece together a bridge connecting your inabilities to grasp the simple skills needed to get over this and your tendency towards what appears to be malice directed at imaginary problems. When you boil it down, it's just a game, and your behavior is just tantamount to ridicule. Perhaps it would be in your interest to find another past-time. Surely that's something you could pull off in three hours.

Skrevet av Guest, 02.01.2014 at 21:31

Why do players complain about others using strategy?

its a thin statement to label wf'ing first turn a strategy, i guess its a strategy in the same vein as rejoining a game after being killed and using latejoin reins to fuck with your enemy. it breaks a certain game etiquette. theres a reason most tourneys and duels ban this "strategy"

most high rank players wont pull this kinda thing on each other out of respect so its not something you'll encounter a lot.

svens crime was minor imo in that he didnt wf, so his troop movements were harmless for the most part, at worse we could label him impolite lol

Skrevet av Permamuted, 03.01.2014 at 02:09

Skrevet av Guest, 02.01.2014 at 21:31

Why do players complain about others using strategy?

its a thin statement to label wf'ing first turn a strategy, i guess its a strategy in the same vein as rejoining a game after being killed and using latejoin reins to fuck with your enemy. it breaks a certain game etiquette. theres a reason most tourneys and duels ban this "strategy"

most high rank players wont pull this kinda thing on each other out of respect so its not something you'll encounter a lot.

svens crime was minor imo in that he didnt wf, so his troop movements were harmless for the most part, at worse we could label him impolite lol

There no time for "etiquette" on the battlefield. Did the Goths have etiquette when they sacked Rome? Or the Mongols when they invaded the rest of Eurasia, or maybe the Assyrians when they torched Canaan? War is a dirty game; Wallfucking, and all of that other "bullshit" she be allowed as long as the option for it is accepted. You people want a fair game, based on the most unfair act in history (War), so why not just make turn 1 BS like that an option, instead of having to bitch at new players who break code in this light, or players who do it in general? You can have your grand crib-matches with your 3v3 rules, and have no worries about breaking the code, and therefore, threads like this won't exist.

Skrevet av Guest, 03.01.2014 at 11:30

Skrevet av Permamuted, 03.01.2014 at 02:09

Skrevet av Guest, 02.01.2014 at 21:31

Why do players complain about others using strategy?

its a thin statement to label wf'ing first turn a strategy, i guess its a strategy in the same vein as rejoining a game after being killed and using latejoin reins to fuck with your enemy. it breaks a certain game etiquette. theres a reason most tourneys and duels ban this "strategy"

most high rank players wont pull this kinda thing on each other out of respect so its not something you'll encounter a lot.

svens crime was minor imo in that he didnt wf, so his troop movements were harmless for the most part, at worse we could label him impolite lol

There no time for "etiquette" on the battlefield. Did the Goths have etiquette when they sacked Rome? Or the Mongols when they invaded the rest of Eurasia, or maybe the Assyrians when they torched Canaan? War is a dirty game; Wallfucking, and all of that other "bullshit" she be allowed as long as the option for it is accepted. You people want a fair game, based on the most unfair act in history (War), so why not just make turn 1 BS like that an option, instead of having to bitch at new players who break code in this light, or players who do it in general? You can have your grand crib-matches with your 3v3 rules, and have no worries about breaking the code, and therefore, threads like this won't exist.

lol dude retain some perspective, this is a strategy game for fun, hardly comparable with actual rape pillage and plunder or general warfare. also ill remember that if i ever encounter you in a game, to wf you first turn. oh the fun games we'll have

Skrevet av SvenDwarf, 03.01.2014 at 01:14

A quick breakdown:

We both joined a 50k world map; Non-scenario.

After not being able to figure out how to choose a country, you decided upon US: Northeast after I had chose Great Lakes. From there, you made nothing but planes (SM) and moved everything to DC. I on the other hand, spread out - including to DC. Those few defensive troops? They're within a wall. Spare troops that couldn't quite make it to DC, but still could move back to their start point without being in harms way. I fail to see how this posed a problem to you.

You then reacted by:
1. Whining to everyone in-game that I had invaded you on the first turn and thus was making illegal moves. Nobody cared.
2. Nerd raging all up in my private messages. I had no idea what you were ranting about. Good on you.
3. Seemingly taking on a threatening tone; spouting this and that about seeing what all you could possibly do so my astonishingly abhorrent actions would face some serious consequences. All this, while you waved around with such gusto, such pride, none other than the incredible screenshot you had produced. You may as well have it printed out and taped to your mother's fridge.
4. Inquiring about my rank in my coalition; who the leader is, etc. I assume you were leaning towards somehow trying to convince them to punish me, or providing them with as much of a laugh at your expense as you have given me.
5. Warning me that you'll expose me on the forums. !?
6. Messaging my inbox with notification of your forum post. Lovely.

Given your preparation time and time between messages, you totaled about three hours on your tirade. If I'm not mistaken, you left at turn 7. They were three minute turns.

Since you named me in a second thread and invited the discussion of the social implications of this event; don't mind if I do.

This is internet serious business in it's finest. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and you certainly have yourself one for the ages, there. Congratulations, and please, cherish these moments. Take in all that is the aforementioned wall; perhaps you can study it's architecture reminiscent of only the finest wonders and let it inspire you toward great things.. Yeah...

As sportsmanship seems to hold no sway on you, allow me to impose. Perhaps you can piece together a bridge connecting your inabilities to grasp the simple skills needed to get over this and your tendency towards what appears to be malice directed at imaginary problems. When you boil it down, it's just a game, and your behavior is just tantamount to ridicule. Perhaps it would be in your interest to find another past-time. Surely that's something you could pull off in three hours.

Wow! I must say I'm both impressed and puzzled at your combination of good vocabulary and poor grammar...
Anyway, nice rant