Conquest Etiquette - Commonly Accepted Rules of Conquest

[Dovolente]

May I suggest letting everyone take their first turn before making territory deals or trying to make alliances?

The game I played, someone got annoyed with me before I took my first turn, because I wouldn't agree to giving up X territory for Y territory. With fog on, I hadn't even seen the map or my starting positions yet.

I haven't played again because struck me as so very stupid.

[F8 Binds...]

I'm not sure that this thread really will enlighten anyone, in my experience it seems that most of the players that play more of the add-ons (particular those such as Conquest) don't tend to be registered on the forums.

Even with this list of "proper etiquette" for conquest players, there are always going to be those that break the "rules".

I can see the merit of flagging a person's poor reputation for the sake of one's own survival in-game, but I find flagging a person's name to exclude them from further games quite silly. Backstabbing and treachery will always have their rewards, and often it's the most efficient way to eliminate or weaken a more powerful opponent.

To expect complete loyalty out of every treaty you make is not only unrealistic, but poor strategy... Obviously if your neighbor, regardless of treaties, is massing troops on your borders, it only makes sense that he is preparing to attack you, unless he is making sure he isn't overrun by you if the treaty terminates.

[Mabuse]

There are other reasons I don't play conquest

tbh, i couldnt care less
my point is that conquest is a fun game, despite what the people make out of it.

i had once a game (using a smurf nick of course) where 4 people immediatly allied and fought the remaining 2 (including me). still i was able to damage one of the other players, and this player (who attacked me, and only me (which didnt made any sense from a tactical or strategical point of view), so i attacked him and only him) and this guy complained in the chat that i was "suiciding" on him. so i got told by the GAME HOST (!!!) that i should "stop suiciding on playerX". i just thought: WTF. DO THEY REALLY WANT TO TELL WHO I AM ALLOWED TO ATTACK OR NOT. (btw, it seemed the guys knew each other)
then the game host send his units ( i already ws fighting 2 guys who ganged on my (= dead (not suicide )) across the whole map to kill/fight me.

belive me, in the "conquest world" there are no doubt players that i would never ever play with (again). since their way to play is kinda violating the spirit of the game.

but i also had very fun conquest games of course.



but i also want to inform that this is in no way an "official thread" or the "way how conquest should be played"

in fact everything what you can do is allowed.


you know, RISK isnt called RISK becasue you get a guarantee in any way
its called risk, because .. whatever yu do, you should keep in mind that there wil be only ONE winner.

[Mabuse]

ok, here my comment about the Things mentioned in the entrypost:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Naping
Map Labeling

well, this game contains diplomacy, so naping is ok
also map labeling is ok

Punishment

well, there should be no punishment, but the guy who breaks naps, can be sure that his behavoir is reminded (and thus this player wil be most likely no option to nap with in future).

Trading
If the trade is accepted i will label next to the town on the top right usually something along the lines of: traded Red next to the village that i gave to red and next to the one he traded to me i will right: traded Green.

Loosing a Trade

i hate trades tbh.
you can make agreements hwere to engage and where not maybe (some kind of naps) but leaving cities and give other regions boni TOO QUICKLY and for cheap is lame. basically this shouldnt be allowed (in risk its no possible). since i hate trades i never play STANDARD game mode, since then the lame trading begins. and silly noobs give away important villages fro free, popular people get te power too quickly because some noobs think its cool to trade spain for italy with that guy "who seem to know everyone and seem to be a good player" for example.

also i hate that "let my (leftover from the last trade) infantry pass at XYZ". WTF, who cares for that [censored] infantry. just let it stand on the village and let the other guy KILL it. dont trade and leave villages. its lame.

if you dont wnat to engage in a country then simply dont buy units there.

but for that reason i would never ever play STANDARD mode anyways.
no standard - no trading - its that simple

People Leave and are Replaced
If you had a nap with Green and Green leaves and is replaced by Joe Blow it is generally accepted that he will assume the former nap agreement, but he doesnt have to. He may see himself as a new addition to the game and not bound by former agreements. These people are called "[censored] Bags" but they do exist.

if you get into a game you are free to do whatever you want. if someone calls you a [censored] for that, then he is the [censored]

[Evongelo]

Hello,
I haven't been on this topic in a year and it's nice to see people are on here adding to it. I see where I made some mistakes and I also want to reinforce what Mabuse said: that this is not official in anyway. I wrote what I wrote in the spirit of those who played conquest at the time and who I played with on a frequent basis. If there is anything I wrote that was wrong then or has changed since then by all means add it to this topic. And thank you to those who already have done so.

After all, I don't make the Conquest mod. That's Mabuse's and other's department. I just want to help expand the community, get a bit of a common ground on how to play, and help new players. Thank you for contributing, and please keep it up. And thank you to those who make more Conquest maps and mods and continue to update the game, it's the best MP scenario on Wesnoth.

[Evongelo]

I don't know anything about Conquest, but here are some typographic corrections you may apply in your post for easier reading/understanding:

• Ediquate -> Etiquette (also in the title)
• Nap: at least once write out "Non aggression pact".
• Use empty lines between the sections, and/or highlight the "titles" with ...[/b ].

(You can edit your first post.)

thank you, it has now been edited

[SlowThinker]

I very agree with pauxlo:

One should make clear before starting the game what the rules are.
If all the players agree, they would have this rules. If they agree on "no rules beyond those programmed in", then let it be.

[PapaSmurfReloaded]

Stuff like this is one of the reason why I don't play conquest and never will.

dont hate the game ... hate the players

[Caphriel]

Congratulations. You quoted, out of context, a post from almost a year ago and added nothing to the discussion.

[Sapient]

[Gwledig]

If you have a 3TW NAP and declare it over, your opponent has 3 turns to prepare, e.g.

2twNAP red-blue, red declares over on his turn 2, blue's turn is next, so he gets 2 (still to be taken as second player), 3, and war allowable on 4, he had 2 turns to prepare.

3twNAP blue-red, blue declares over on his turn 5, red's next turn is on turn 6 (he's already taken turn 5 as player 1), so he gets turn 6, 7, 8 to prepare and war allowable on 9.

I've heard a lot of urban myths about NAPs, but the above examples hold true on most conquest games. if you have a TW you get those turns to prepare, period. If person breaking nap insists he can attack ON the last preparation turn then they are just trying to break the nap early. I also hear from time to time that it is unfair that an opponent doesn't get "initiative" i.e why should an early player like red or blue get to attack first when nap is over just because they are earlier in the list? Well all parties agreed the nap in the first place and knew this would happen when it ended, there's no surprises with NAPs you know exactly when you are going to fight.

[Mabuse]

If you have a 3TW NAP and declare it over, your opponent has 3 turns to prepare, e.g.

2twNAP red-blue, red declares over on his turn 2, blue's turn is next, so he gets 2 (still to be taken as second player), 3, and war allowable on 4, he had 2 turns to prepare.

3twNAP blue-red, blue declares over on his turn 5, red's next turn is on turn 6 (he's already taken turn 5 as player 1), so he gets turn 6, 7, 8 to prepare and war allowable on 9.

btw, this doesnt make full sense to me, tbh.
i can see where you come from, but in the 1st example the "half" turn in which red declared the nap is over counts as a preparation turn for blue (turn 2)

and in the second example, if you would make this straightforward, then blue could attack on turn 8, since red could still prepare on turn 8. so red had three turn to prepare.

so you better stay straightforward or simply disallow those foggy definitions.
in my logic red has broken NAP in your first example

in any case, gweldigs examples are inconsistent.




in my VERY EASY logic:
-------------------------

2twNAP red-blue, red declares over on his turn 2, rounds 3+4 are preparation phase, war on turn 5
3twNAP blue-red, blue declares over on his turn 5, rounds 6,7,8 preparation phase, war on turn 9

its pretty simple. no need to count "half" turns.

if red wants to attack on 2nd turn after ending nap, he better makes a 1tw nap.

of course this is kinda the worst solution, since the first placed player has alwas initiative, regardless who ended the nap. however, its also the most easy solution. this is the KISS-Version.
All other Versions which take half-turns into account are UNKISS.
I dont mind to be unkiss when it is needed

[SlowThinker]

2twNAP red-blue, red declares over on his turn 2, blue's turn is next, so he gets 2 (still to be taken as second player), 3, and war allowable on 4, he had 2 turns to prepare.

I agree. Blue got his 2 full turns to prepare.

3twNAP blue-red, blue declares over on his turn 5, red's next turn is on turn 6 (he's already taken turn 5 as player 1), so he gets turn 6, 7, 8 to prepare and war allowable on 9.

I disagree. Blue can attack on his turn 8, as red got his 3 turns to prepare (red turn 6, red turn 7, red turn 8 ).

I see no logic why the boundary between turn 8 and turn 9 should be considered.
The game itself is
... blue, green, red, blue, green, red, blue, green, red, blue, green, red ...
... nothing more. The boundary between green/red is included for the sake of time counting only.

[XyLoX1]

Gwledig wrote:
3twNAP blue-red, blue declares over on his turn 5, red's next turn is on turn 6 (he's already taken turn 5 as player 1), so he gets turn 6, 7, 8 to prepare and war allowable on 9.
I disagree. Blue can attack on his turn 8, as red got his 3 turns to prepare (red turn 6, red turn 7, red turn 8 ).

I see no logic why the boundary between turn 8 and turn 9 should be considered.
The game itself is
... blue, green, red, blue, green, red, blue, green, red, blue, green, red ...
... nothing more. The boundary between green/red is included for the sake of time counting only.

I totally agree with SlowThinker with this point, and we got this discussion Gwledig in a game if you remember ...
Cuz if we follow your logic Gwledig, host is always overpowered on ffa & specifically on nap, i mean host will always fight the first after break a nap which is a big advantage.

[Mabuse]

Ok, my thoughts on that.
Its good to take half-turns into account. this prevents the first placed player is always the first.
however:

the downfall is, IMO,
that the player who declares the NAP to be over is always allowed to attack first.

1.)
so its definately an advantage for a player to end a nap. in my logic of a fair game, the player who end the nap, should not have the initiative in the following battle. since often players end naps if they are in a superior positioon - why should they be legitimated by the game-mechanics to attack first ?
By definition, the player who ends the nap should not have the initiative.
And, as we will see it in point 2 below, he does not have the initiative.

2.)
Also and this is almost even more important, the turn in which the "breaker" declares NAP to be over, IS ALREADY a preparation turn for him. he knows he will end the nap, so he already prepares for it.
in all your examples the "breaker" has a half turn longer preparation phase, with the additional effect that he can alwas attack first.
the turn in which the NAP is declared over is also already a preparation round.


So finally:
--------------

2twNAP red-blue, red declares over on his turn 2, blue's turn is next, so he gets 2 (still to be taken as second player), 3, and war allowable on 4, he had 2 turns to prepare.

i disagree.
in this example red has 3 turns to prepare. 2,3,4. since red declares to end the nap on turn 2, this turn in which he ends the nap is by definition a preparation turn for red. or does ANYONE think red does not already prepare on this turn ?

war is by definition allowable on turn 3, on blues turn.
red ends nap, both players have 2 turns to prepare (both: turn 2,3), blue has initiative in battle.

3twNAP blue-red, blue declares over on his turn 5, red's next turn is on turn 6 (he's already taken turn 5 as player 1), so he gets turn 6, 7, 8 to prepare and war allowable on 9.

I disagree. Blue can attack on his turn 8, as red got his 3 turns to prepare (red turn 6, red turn 7, red turn 8 ).

I see no logic why the boundary between turn 8 and turn 9 should be considered.
The game itself is
... blue, green, red, blue, green, red, blue, green, red, blue, green, red ...
... nothing more. The boundary between green/red is included for the sake of time counting only.

i disagree with both.
blue ends nap on 5 (1 prep. turn for blue), then 6,7 preparation for both, war allowable for red on turn 8, since this is his last preparation turn
blue ended nap, both players had 3 turns to prepare (red: 6,7,8 - blue: 5,6,7), red has initiative.