Since there has been an issue just recently and while an investigation is going on, I thought to share administration policy on WARS.


Administration accepts the BASHING RULE first and foremost.
The bashing rule can only be lifted when an OFFICIAL war is in place.

A war is official only when the WAR rules are met. War Rules (which administration will consult) are mentioned here:
http://www.zorgempire.net/forums/viewto ... =11&t=2588

As far as administration is concerned, the war rules are only of interest to us when deciding BASHING Rule violations (not the score for us).

These war rules were first created by Slash if I remember well and ever since they have been maintained by Zorg Empire moderators. This is one of their privileges to say. Note, I mention maintenance not decisions. Decisions should come through the healthy majority participants in every rule change suggestion.

As far as logic goes, if a war starts with 10 rules, then these are the rules that will apply till the end of the war. If an amendment comes during a war, this obviously must not be applied at the ongoing wars.

With these in mind, you may post here whatever you deem necessary.

Note to mods: Do not moderate this topic. I will do this myself. Thank you.

How about when the war is declared, the one declaring the war states the rules he/she wishes to abide by. If the other alliance leader does not agree with the rules, then they could either compromise or decline the war. The rules should be openly stated on the forums prior to the war as well.

I think this could work only for compromised rules; where both alliances agree we can agree too. Where there is a different point of view, standard rules apply.

I think that we need to clarify what a mercenary actually is with regards to the game.

I would say that a mercenary is a player, employed by an alliance but working for that alliance whilst being outside of the alliance that has appointed them.

If a player joins an alliance, becomes a full member of that alliance then they are not a mercenary. They are just another member, the lifting of the bashing rules etc, all this would apply to them as it would any other member.

A mercenary is not like this. They may be independent or with another alliance.

Declarations of War.

There is this other point. An alliance declares war on another alliance. This alliance being targeted gets together, has a chat, then decides that they will "deny" this war. How ludicrous is that?

Excuse me Mr Hitler, you have invaded Poland, therefore we are going to declare war on you. Oh no says Mr Hitler, I am not having that, I deny this!

Okay, perhaps a poor choice of party's there, but the point is, we have in game the ability to wage war upon others. On top of the usual raiding, attacking etc. For somebody to declare and the opposing faction denying this, how ridiculous.

Perhaps, in this war/strategy game that is Zorg Empire, there can be perhaps a 24 hour period where hostilities can be entertained for a finite period before the cease of hostilities can be assumed in the form of a surrender?

I agree, this is not realistic, but neither is the "denial" of a war.


A war in game takes 24 hours from the point of declaration to the start of hostilities.
Can it not be the same in reverse, a party surrenders, for it to a complete halt then 24 hours must pass before the end of those hostilities? Much like it would in the real world, an agreed time passes before things cease?

24 hours seems like a good round figure, much like the declaration.

I agree that the term "denial" is idiotic if it relates to a wardec...

however...
are we imitating real life here, or trying to run a game, to be enjoyed by the majority?
If we're imitating real life, then accept the fact that the big guys can do whatever the hell they damn well please.
No one, unless they're bigger can stop them.
I wanna raid your account dry to the bone?
Fine, wardec and i go off on your a$$, nothing you can do about it!

So how is this solved in Zorg game world? By saying that you can only go to war under certain circumstances, agreed upon by both parties.
If you remove the option of refusing the proposed warrules, why have a wardec in the first place? Just lift the bashing rule for normal gameplay and you're done.
I don't believe that this is the answer...
Do I have another option, not at this point

Well first we need to understand that wars are usually declared when Alliance #1 picks on Alliance #2. Alliance #2 declares a war on alliance #1 to stand up for themselves. They state the rules they wish to be followed, and after the compromises and agreements, the war begins 24 hours later. It is very important that we keep balance of this game where it is. If alliances are not able to decline a war, then you might as well do away with the bashing rule.

Both Thunderheart and Wrath, good points, however, I did add that once a war begins, then a minimum time should follow before a ceasefire comes in to effect.

This would alleviate alliances effectively doing away with the bashing rule, it would only stand for 24 hours maximum.

I agree, to a point that some would try to take advantage of the situation. But this has always been the case. If an alliance surrenders, straight from the off, then all they have to do is keep their stuff safe, which they should be doing anyway, for that 24 hours until the cease of hostilities.. You are still able to attack 5 times any target in 24 hours, does it really happen that often, more than 5 times on one target even in a war situation?

It takes away the silliness, "denial" of wars.

hmmm...

so instead of agreeing on the fact that a war only ends , if one of the two surrenders publicly, we then have a default timelimit.

24 hrs (or whatever we can agree upon?) on, 24 off...at default...

okay so what prevents me to do it all over again a day later...and on and on...
I would prefer to see some sort of a repetitive cap on this...like no more than 3 wars against the same alliance within, what...a week...two weeks, a month??

also...
this eliminates a surrender after 5 mins into the war...instead of denying to accept the terms...you wait till war starts, and surrender 5 mins into it...both a denial and an immediate surrender kill the idea of the wardec in the game.
a default timecap would make that impossible, yet keeps it within a certain sanity level, where even the small guy can get a breather at some point (which okay, is unlike real life, but it supposed to be fun, playing a game, right?)

A CAP would be a good idea. Whatever the time period would have to be agreed upon. Personally, I would go for a fortnight to a month. That would be fair. But again, anything would have to be agreed.

You reiterate a previous point that you made. "but it supposed to be fun, playing a game, right?"

Of course it is, but it is also what it is, a Space based Science Fiction War/Strategy game. So, to keep it inline with what it is, some sort of realism (if you can call it that in fiction game) must be a concern.

There is a pride issue for most players and alliances when it comes to wars. I have seen in the forums that there seems to be a few alliances that seem to be prepared to throw in the towel straight from the outset. I would figure that these alliances are in the minority. But, with any war of attrition there are always going to be winners and losers. But, again, it is what it is, these things happen or there would not be the provision for it in game.

For most, the normal everyday state of play is okay, wars seem to be few and far between. All I am suggesting is that we try to aim for a level of realism, whilst keeping it fair.