Player's League - Sign up for October

I could have sworn I signed up, unless my post didn't go through

mod to judged this case against F marion

Honor rules’ are rules that are not necessarily enforced by the PL organizers, however with extreme offenses

((we reserve the right to punish players for violations such as multiple hidden alliances))) or extreme cases of NAP abuse

end of rules

Quote from the words south usa

Well sir, we agreed to a Mutual Defense Pact with the Canadian Prime Minister NashBean back before the world peace ended,” said the Secretary of State

end of quote

i post last day

when u tell some one that i moving troops against him so u are not my ally u are my closest enemy

u have 24 to die

i said "my ally" will be my closest enemy so its not breaking NAP with usa as he say cuz its to canada

end of quote from my post yesterday

i post the chat between me and usa and it clear that there is NAP between us not between the caloition

every body can see this NAP down in this post

the last but not the lastest

i would say that i know no body care about that breaking for NAPS and hidden alliance between canada and USA but i just want to tell every body that ""if honor rules that silly""

((JUST DELETE IT WE ARE NOT KIDDS ))

https://gyazo.com/ec8af2bbdaeb44950b5a31ef46256036

https://gyazo.com/2ac75a86f948a472a40e5ee29a6a478f

The above post is misleading.

No "ruling mod" has been identified.

The alleged case has not been presented.

No rebuttal of any "evidence" has happened yet.

No judgements have been made.

At this point, the accuser is attempting to sway any and all public opinion his way.

He has left out a few key facts. Like the invasion force off the coast, the long history of attempting to talk his coalition into attacking (ignoring a NAP) or his posting of a declaration that a unnamed NAP was over more than 24 hours before the proper declaration of war and pre-emptive attack on the invasion force.

Personally, I see a player who thought he would be clever with a anonymous post in the paper and a sneaky sea invasion. His plan got discovered, his invasion force got sunk and now he is whining to anyone who will listen.

If he has a case, he does not need to try it in a public venue.

Put up the case to the mod, shut up while the decision is being made and live up to the result whether you like it or not.

This is a game, not a cheese factory. Take your whine elsewhere.

do u think if i was realy want to attack u were a life now ? i wiped canada in 6 hours ( i gived him 24hours after cancling nap not like u just attacked cuz u know no panealty for ur break ) " that is bad rule in PL "so donot talk useless things an even if i was going to attack u the newspeper said that u breaked the NAP stop defend ur self u made hidden alliance u breaked the NAP and attacked my troops near my lands not in ur land stop empty words and wait the mods to say there words

note: donot let me make more screen shots on what u said in chat u canot even make good lie?!

Here we go again. Just as the Mods have previously said. These arguments have got to end. If you have a legitimate case present it to the mods and let them sort it out stop the comments in the news. We do not want to hear it.

The mods have enough work to do just taking the time to set these tournaments up. The NAP rules are pretty clear and there is not much wiggle room to break them illegally. If you set a limit and a withdrawal clause stick to it. If you set up a NAP without a limit and or a withdrawal clause you pretty much deserve to have it broken. If your part of a coalition that set up a NAP that was agreed to by majority stick to it.

F. Marion wrote:

This is a game, not a cheese factory. Take your whine elsewhere.

Bluephantom956 wrote:

I could have sworn I signed up, unless my post didn't go through

@MEDO1990

@F. Marion

Coalitions are not allowed to work together. However, we never defined "working together", so it's very hard for us to judge fairly in these cases as some will state that "they didn't know" etc. and people will get upset if we rule in one case but not in others and so on. What I see as "working together" is a combination of at least one or two or more of the following:

Making military plans (discuss where to attack, suggest common beneficial strategies etc)

Sending screenshots of positions (this is equal to sharing maps)

Trading frontline provinces to circumvent NAPs/make invasion easy for another coalition or player outside coalition.

Wolfpacking (in PL sense agreeing with another coalition to target a specific other coalition or player).

Giving RoW or SM outside coalition.

Now there could probably be written multiple other situations, but the above covers a lot of what has happened earlier.

We promise that in the next season we will have written more clear rules and we will attempt to cover situations such as above or similar as long as it's within proof / knowledge for us, because we cannot act on hearsay and right now that is what I am treating your situation @MEDO1990 because I don't see any proof of anything in what you wrote. Just a msg about NAP. Where is the infraction / proof of wrongdoing? You just presented a fact and nothing else.

Also please submit any questions in PM form as this thread is NOT a place for this discussion.

@wildL SPQR

i can give u proof about what i said

but its not my problem "this match ended for me this month i can still alive but i canot reach top 3 after this bad behavior from those 2 players

i care about the next games we must make some thing

maybe make a panealty on breaking NAPS and secret teams

or we can delete those rules ( why there is rules if u can break it )and play it like any other games with out golding

nothing to care about just playing with out gold is great for me maybe for every body

Be aware all that we, as mods, cant (and wont) foresee everything regarding 'bending the rules'. For that reason the 'general' rulings are sometimes a bit abstract. Sure we can think of most things (as the mods are all experienced players), and could even write them all down. Heck, I love writing (my long posts could give anyone a guess ), but as organisers we ultimately have to decide where to cut back on walls of text for the sake of clarity when it comes to rules.

But who would a long long LONG list of do's and don'ts? We had that in the past, and people werent happy because there were too many rules. Add to that, that many rules kill player creativity. Now we simplified things, and now people are complaining about unclearness. In short, it will never be pitch perfect for everyone. At some point, and this is me personally saying this, enough is enough. We take the time, effort and sometimes patience to set these things up. We monitor the game and analyse what is happening, and whether said activities are harmful or not for the PL as an institution.

This is basically what Wild was mentioning by giving some examples. Be confident that we talk on skype regularly about how to improve the PL. And we want some things to be done next season, not during the current one. Suggestions are always welcome and heartily considered - if the majority of (regular) players seem to want something, there is a good chance we will implement it.

Lastly, most CoW players are adult(ish), we expect some common sense in regard to how the game should be played, and how not to. Sure we are all just anonymous nerds who like wargames like CoW, but I hope (and expect) that people treat this like you were doing a boardgame with friends at home. In short: Be a good sport.

PS: throw in some comma's and dots in your posts, its easier for the reader.

"Sure we are all just anonymous nerds who like wargames like CoW, but I hope (and expect) that people treat this like you were doing a boardgame with friends at home. In short: Be a good sport."

This, I think, is the driving factor.

When Player 1A of coalition A discusses a plan of action with Player 3B of coalition B, it likely is on the edges of the list of rules described above. I feel that attempting to prohibit this is a no-win situation since it is quite difficult to even know if it happened. I also suspect that many players engage in exactly this behavior, to some extent or another.

What might be best is if the rules focus on what can be directly measured.

1) No Gold.

2) Limited number of players per coalition.

3) Inappropriate articles in the newspaper. (meta game versus game)

If the organizers want to regulate NAPs or any other form of inter player interaction, there needs to be a method to measure that interaction. Perhaps a NAP or other agreement is not "enforceable" unless it is published in the Herald.

I do find it interesting that in a war game with a large number of players who all can talk to each other in effectively private conversations, we are attempting to limit and control the diplomatic aspects of the game. Real nations make and break treaties. The German - Soviet partition of Poland and NAP following it did not last anywhere near what it was supposed to by treaty. There was no "24 hour notice" just a build up of forces on the border. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did not meet the "24 hour notice" requirement. If the game is attempting to be set in the time period of these conflicts, preventing these kinds of interactions, using a poorly defined metric is just setting up the community for harsh words and hurt feelings and the mods for hours of painful discussions.

At the board game level with the buddies, many a game of Risk, Diplomacy and similar games included the final battle between the largest remaining players. In the crowd I ran with, this was an expected part of the game and no one felt the need to make personal attacks on others outside the game. The next morning we all put on our big boy pants and went back to the base and continued to fight for freedom, democracy and the right to drink beer and flirt with girls. No one wanted to be a sore loser. There was always the next game.

I would suggest that the mods might want to make sure the rules are clearly defined and, equally important, have bright, measurable boundaries. Four countries in a coalition and gold usage are very clear transgressions. Shared maps using the game mechanic, very enforceable. Screen shots, not so much and honestly, a screen shot is only worth the word of the guy who claims he did not run it through PhotoShop first. Prohibitions on using game mechanics to swap provinces and similar can be measured however it starts to touch on preventing the players from actions that were historical. For example, before the US entered WWII there was a deal with the UK that involved a bunch of old destroyers and usage of bases. This sounds like it would be "prohibited" in the rules list above. Find a level of enforcement that does not require long drawn out discussions.

I apologize if my approach to "good sportsmanship" is rougher around the edges than what the community feels is appropriate. Personally, I figured anyone who actively approaches and colludes with individual(s) outside his coalition to turn around and attack another member of his coalition should be prepared for the double cross to be a double - double cross. Sharp things cut both ways. As the individual approached, I have to evaluate the immediate trustworthiness of the person proposing the deal and then whether I want to be a player in a country next to someone who was so willing to throw his coalition under the bus. The short answer for me was, I don't want a double crosser as a neighbor or ally. The corollary is never date someone who is cheating on their spouse, you will be next. That the double crosser proceeded to "anonymously" cancel an NAP, yet fail to name the NAP or participants was simple classic cartoon justice. Wile E. Coyote could not have set himself up better to catch an anvil while putting down bird seed.

TL;DR

Keep the rules to things that can be measured and enforced inside the game mechanic. It is a war game with a diplomacy component. Adults can play and live the next day, whether they win or lose.

On a personal note, I will finish out the current game with full intent to win. That is only fair to all the players on the map. I will then take a sabbatical from the PL format for several months. This is driven by RL and was planned before this game ever started. Upon my return, if I return, I hope that the rules will have reached a format that is clear to all, easily enforceable and does not require the mods to spend hours of personal time dealing with complaints.

Respectfully,

F. Marion

PS Thank you Moderators for the time and effort you are putting in. I know (personal experience) how much time and effort this kind of thing can take. It is a thankless, soul eating task that is almost never recognized by the community that is being served. I appreciate your efforts and hope a solution is developed that is easy for you to implement with minimal time cost away from your playing pleasure.

These games are filled with bad behavior and questionable antics. I have never played games filled with so much backstabbing, broken promises, and self preservation tatics. 80 percent of these games consist of smokey backrooms where leaders plot and contrive ways to screw others. Make a deal here, make a deal there who cares because I can violate good terms whenever the opportunity arises.

It really is a shame because I know there are many of you that are good players and really want this thing to work, but I wont be playing anymore as i feel I need to shower after every game from the slime that has washed over me.

Still love call of war but will stick to randoms and Frontline games.

But we've tried the simple approach. And now we've tried one with a little more explanation, and hopefully we won't see anymore coalition NAP violations.

I agree with you F marion, that we should only make set rules that are enforceable and measurable and that's exactly what we've done right now! Maybe not the simplest rules, but simplicity can lead to misunderstandings and impossible situations where we cannot rule in favor of anyone. The honor rules are just.... there... use them or don't ?

People seem to be torn, some want the NAPs to be enforced, some say it's stupid to enforce as there is no honor in war and history proves that they never work and whatever... I say that NAPs are a vital part of the game, they are built on trust between players and they do not try to resemble anything historic as these games are not RPs.

However when NAPs are violated to an extreme degree, in every game, it tends to be indifferent cause eventually you know someone will break it because there is no consequence and thus NAPs become obsolete. The past 3 games NAPs I've held has been broken so it won't be long before I start to break them myself....

Now we've said that we will enforce the coalition NAP as that is something that is actually possible to measure! Share maps is more tricky, they have to use the RoW for us to see it, but what if they just use it to share intel? Then we will have to use spies to find out.

@MEDO1990 Im not going to rule in some favor of someone who says a NAP was broken, or whatever it is you claim.. impossible for me to take your word for it. So submit your proofs of wrongdoing to me in PM format, BUT DO NOT DO DISCUSS IT ANYMORE HERE.. I hope I don't have to say it again?? (not trying to insult here, but please do not discuss these things here in public forum again.)

K.Rokossovki is a very bad NAP breaker just so u know, he asked for NAP and send private message:

Sending you this letter of General Secretary K.Rokossovski from the 10/4/2016

Original message:

----

Just to make sure:

- we have a coalition-wide NAP signed yesterday, and running for nine more days;

- I never post anonymously in the newspaper; when I post I use my own name.

Please confirm!

NAP signed day 3 for 10 days it should end by day 13/14, but when he knew all our troops are fighting other front he just attacked.

And i was told breaking NAP is normal by admin cant do anything about, ok good to know for future.

And also to know the player named Vontakoda is not to be trusted as well, he just join ur coalition start charging with u to make u attack but he never attacks and when u win the war he start crying to take cities and if they invade u and ur coalition partner he doesnt help as well, selfish player.

wildL SPQR wrote:

...

People seem to be torn, some want the NAPs to be enforced, some say it's stupid to enforce as there is no honor in war and history proves that they never work and whatever... I say that NAPs are a vital part of the game, they are built on trust between players and they do not try to resemble anything historic as these games are not RPs.

However when NAPs are violated to an extreme degree, in every game, it tends to be indifferent cause eventually you know someone will break it because there is no consequence and thus NAPs become obsolete. The past 3 games NAPs I've held has been broken so it won't be long before I start to break them myself....

Now we've said that we will enforce the coalition NAP as that is something that is actually possible to measure!

...

Perhaps some of the confusion is to even publish a "honor rule" NAP.

I can see the logic behind the 24 hour rule in the break up of a coalition. There is shared intelligence, intermingling of troops and a fair amount of group assets. It can be as ugly as that first break up with the girlfriend you moved in with. 24 hours, enforced at a game level, can also be argued as representing the time and effort it would take to convince your population to treat yesterday's best buddy as an evil scourge that must be removed from the earth.

The non-coalition NAP is a different beast altogether. There is no RoW. There is no in game tool to share maps or intel. Simply put, it is a personal relationship between players. Some folks are more trustworthy than others. They will develop a reputation over time. Attempting to assess how "extreme" a NAP violation is and taking moderator based action will be filled with risk of being a huge moderator time sink and filled with accusations of favoritism.

I would suggest the rules keep the 24 hour coalition break-up NAP rule. That is pretty hard and fast.

I would also suggest the rules state clearly that any agreement outside of a coalition is not enforceable. Further, I would suggest the rules state clearly that newspaper posts need to be written about countries, not players. This reduces the personal attacks and recriminations that seem to pervade the latter days of the newspaper.

I also suggest the PL point system be revised to give a point for every VP held to all players who are still in the game at the end of 25 days. No 1, 2, 3 places. Everyone has incentive to stay alive. Everyone has incentive to grow. Everyone has incentive to cut the best deals they can, up to the last hour of day 25. The biggest player on the board should not be relaxed until the buzzer sounds.

And yes, keep the max 3 person to a coalition rule. It creates a lovely dynamic that fosters tension inside the coalition. The delicate balancing act of keeping a coalition together, a collection of agreements with somewhat friendly neighbors, building a supreme economy and then marking forth to rule the world is what this game can potentially be. All in the space of a month. That is a blast.

It is all crabs in a bucket.

v/r

F. Marion

I would suggest the best improvement would be to remove the extra bonus point for having a capital at the end of the game. Ironic because I have both offered a spare province when I am winning, and asked for a spare refuge province when losing. But that spare single VP makes players incentives to form larger than 3. They might not win, but they at least get a point for surviving. So weaker players might be more likely to make deals for two coalitions or more to cooperate against the spirit of the honor rules. If they get no point, the incentive to do this is eliminated.

The NAP thing I think can be simply fixed by stating flatly that players breaking a NAP having posted that NAP in the newspaper for all to see, automatically generate a causus belli with all other players on the map. That means all other agreements, NAPs, and coalition mates can immediately attack him if they wish. This makes it the players duty to punish NAP breakers, not moderators. Secret NAPs could still be made, but are not enforceble by anyone. It's posted in the newspaper, so a mod could simply read what is posted and declare the NAP is broken. That NAP breaker then easily ejected from any coalition they are in and becomes a target for everyone in the game, even his former coalition mates.

PS Just to be clear, crossing into a territory with land forces or an amphibious invasion or attacking a coalition mate would count as aggression, even if direct war was not declared yet. That would be breaking a NAP.

Casus belli

Thanks for all the good posts that came after mine.

@ Redd: The capital point system will be changed after this season - we felt we shouldnt change the point system midgame. It was meant as an incentive to stay active for as long as possible, but it now has the undesired 'refugee' result. The new changes will very likely eliminate the refugee part, but still keep the original idea alive.

Regarding NAPs and honor rules. As far as I am concerned, honor rules are just that - honor. Its an encouragement from us, the admins, to play the way in a certain (honorable) way. If you dont, thats fine, but be aware that you might find it difficult to find friends in future games. The coalition NAP rule is in place because we could think up quite a number of ways to abuse a coalition breakup (and history showed in the PL every abuse will eventually be found by 1 or more players) in a way that is detrimental to the game.

@ F Marion: As Wild mentioned, there is an aspect that is 'gameplay'. And though I like my historical accuracy, my first concern is gameplay, then accuracy. Heck, im not interested in a very accurate wargame - that would mean I am actually in a war (and Im quite pacifist).

I do agree with most of your first post - the rules should be measurable (the 'hard' rules), and the basic premise I wanted when I created the PL, were basically 2 things: no gold, and activeness. All the others are extra, as a result of how the meta evolved. NAPs (and heck, even coalitions) were a result of the meta, and had to be integrated in the ruleset.

Next season will see an overhaul of the rules, that is a promise. Some will be kept, others sharpened or erased, and I hope we dont need to add a new one.

Oh, I forgot to reply to the 'post a nap in the newspaper'. That should be optional. And given my stance on (regular) NAPs as a whole, the casus belli sounds excellent. If you really, really need some extra security, you can make as part of the agreement that the NAP is posted in the news.

So are you saying if the NAP is reported in the WH and broken that will be against the rules and will be enforced?

miech wrote:

Regarding NAPs and honor rules. As far as I am concerned, honor rules are just that - honor. Its an encouragement from us, the admins, to play the way in a certain (honorable) way. If you dont, thats fine, but be aware that you might find it difficult to find friends in future games.

miech wrote:

Oh, I forgot to reply to the 'post a nap in the newspaper'. That should be optional. And given my stance on (regular) NAPs as a whole, the casus belli sounds excellent. If you really, really need some extra security, you can make as part of the agreement that the NAP is posted in the news.

I say this because it almost always happens that NAP breakers have more diplomacy too. They will break one NAP and expect their other NAPs and diplomacy to be honorably held by the other players! I propose that if a player breaks a public NAP then all other players in the game have a casus belli even if they had a NAP. They could then chose to back out of their NAPs if they so desire. After seeing the NAP breaker break one NAP they should be able to back out without being viewed as dishonorable. All they would have to do is say, I back out of this NAP because the NAP breaker can't be trusted. or so&so was booted from our coalition because they broke a NAP. Post it and declare war.

To prevent abuse, all one needs is a single post by the mod saying "yes indeed a public NAP was broken. Have at em guys. All rules are off against this player, and this player only." Then we players can deal with the minority dishonorable players, instead of crying to the newspaper and crying to the mods. Please give us this right and pretty sure we will put an end to the constant dishonorable and disruptive play found in every game so far.

mycaddy wrote:

So are you saying if the NAP is reported in the WH and broken that will be against the rules and will be enforced?

When is the next sign up for November going to happen.