StarGateWars Forums

This is a question to anyone who has ever been in alliance who has declared war or had it declared upon them.

If (A) alliance declares war on (B) alliance, should (A) put up defenses? Or should (B)? Or both? Normally, I would say both so you could enjoy some fun..but I want to know what the community thinks.

Post your opinions!

A = definitely
B = yes and no

B= yes - if the war was pre agreed, like some are where they post an announcement of it and both sides are prepping for war. Then yes both sides should definitely put up a defense.

B= no (not necessarily) because B may not be in a position to enter a war at that time, and because A decides to war them (unannounced) doesn't mean that B should build defenses if they are not in a position for it.

JMO.

Reminds me of Owned. vs NE

Both should build def's... its a game... enjoy it dammit!

both of course thats the name of the game

but there really should be an update making you take some other kind of damage if you dont have any defenses

This.

Clarkey wrote:A = definitely
B = yes and no

B= yes - if the war was pre agreed, like some are where they post an announcement of it and both sides are prepping for war. Then yes both sides should definitely put up a defense.

B= no (not necessarily) because B may not be in a position to enter a war at that time, and because A decides to war them (unannounced) doesn't mean that B should build defenses if they are not in a position for it.

JMO.

I agree it depends on the situation,

If alliance A makes a surprise attack on alliance B when alliance B already has a def, then I would usually expect alliance A to put up a def, and would not expect alliance B to put a 2nd def up after the surprise atack

In a pre-arranged war, usually both sides should build a def

BUT there are always exceptions, like if one of the alliances is already in another war with alliance C, take FS as an example, if we were alliance A making a surprise attack on alliance B, there would be no point in us building defs for alliance B because the defs would be taken by alliance C ( DDE in our case ) before alliance B got to play.


What we need is for the war setting like bloodrealm to work so 2 alliances can have wars without interference, for set periods of time, and with clear winners/losers

MEZZANINE wrote:What we need is for the war setting like bloodrealm to work so 2 alliances can have wars without interference, for set periods of time, and with clear winners/losers

And make it cost them dearly for not fighting, otherwise people will just .. abuse the system?

Soundwave wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:What we need is for the war setting like bloodrealm to work so 2 alliances can have wars without interference, for set periods of time, and with clear winners/losers

And make it cost them dearly for not fighting, otherwise people will just .. abuse the system?

One of the reasons I suggested the alliance bank be used for a 'Prize Fight' war setting

if the alliance B wasnt prepared or not equal wit allaince A then B will find a way to damage A.

A or B, doesnt meter. If you ant to declare war, declare it and use rules wich you want. If you are B an someone declares war on you, do wat you want.

War has not and never had rules. What we call in RL rules is just paper wich must be than discused in Haag after every one conflict.

But because this is only game, and we are not realy killing someone, we dont have to make rules.

Simple, natural rule is: Jason made game how it is and its up to every one player how he will fight the wars.

of course, its anoying to fight against 0 defences, its something what is happening now in GC, whole section is floated by one allaince de3clring war on anothers and having almost no stats, yeah Noobert, good question. Simple answer, dont bother with enemy, care self and do the best for self if the best for someone is to build defence and be massed, its his chose. if someone likes to keep small defence and just mass, its another choice... but still... if its a war ganme, why so many ppl are siting on big defences and never get massed? There are many ppl with stats, so declare war on those. nah, tahn we have to discus if it is a good reason to war just cuse massing.

Every one discusion openes another one, so i think, its pointles to disucs thinks like this. If someone dont like that kind or another kind of war, he can simple leave it...

no
nobody should be obligated to build a def if the other have
because u can't expect for some small people to act like the great ones
and this is game is meaned to be = for all
all updates was to help the smaller guys to come from back and to be able to face the big ones
and the new comers to be able at one point to face the old guys ingame
we can cry how much we can and to provoke enemy to be = with us
but is impossible that because is alot smaller and alot less powerfull

Im in agreement with alot of above.
If there is a mutually agreed war then it would be nice to have both sides with something massable.

If side A declares war on B, but B didnt want it, then i so B should do what they feel is right, because they had no choice. I wouldnt do what side A wants, in fact i would do complete opposite. lol

A = yes
B = not necessarily

Mikgamer wrote:

~Josh~ wrote:Reminds me of Owned. vs NE

Both should build def's... its a game... enjoy it dammit!

viewtopic.php?f=101&t=149507

Owned.

You realise that link directs to this thread, right? Was that your intention? And, if it was.. would you please explain? I think the reference is humorous, but I cannot be sure yet.

Depends.

If I liked the alliance I was warring with, and our conflict was of the laidback and good-natured kind, then I'd do whatever I could to make it fun.

If I didn't like the alliance, and it was a potential war of attrition with genuine hatred involved, then I'd make it as difficult and boring for them as possible.