Can someone explain why or in what scenarios "stalling" is now seen as anti fair play ?
The way it is written - "unfair stalling tactics" suggests there is also "fair stalling tactics" ?
It is described thus - "delay winning by accumulating troops to force their opponent to quit". Don't we naturally 'delay' winning by accumulating troops - I may think attacking an opponent with 6 troops when I have 9 troops is not a good move so wait (i.e. delay) until the next round (when I may have cards to trade) to then attack ?
I have no doubt there are good reasons to introduce a rule but it seems ill-defined so players could genuinely break rules without realising it ?
Also the idea that stalling, and no other reason, might be why players quit is laughable - I'm sure we have all encountered players who have quit when we we did not think they were out of any chance of winning. And what about those players that quit as soon as the auto placement is revealed ?
Anyway - I'm guessing I'm thinking of a possible scenario where I have "trapped" an opponent in Australia (although I would argue that is not always the best strategic move with only one way out but that's their choice) - let's say I have 20 troops and they have 10. To me they have a decision, when they get their next troop allocation, to attack my 20 troops with their 15 troops - if they decide not to (and therefore not gaining a card) and I then use my next allocation to attack another opponent and bring 10 troops back to Siam they again have a choice to attack my 30 troops with their 20 troops. Having worked hard to get into this strategic position and also fighting off opponents I'm struggling to see why this is unfair situation when they have backed themselves into a corner and decide not to attack and quit as a result ?
It seems that any pincer movement or situation where you mass troops against a smaller opponent but not attacking them immediately is stallling shoudl they choose to quit?
So clearly no-one, not even the developers, know what stalling means ? I have read elsewhere that the interpretation of stalling is someone delaying the game by running the clock down and placing troops at the last moment and not attacking anyone thereby hacking off the other players who, naturally, want to play the game and decide they don’t want to waste their time. However this is not “delaying winning” as described by the developers since there is no guarantee this ensures a win.
G
George Godbeer
said
over 3 years ago
I would like to add there I a game turn timer for a reason some people take longer than others yes this can be annoying when people do this but if you join a 120s turn time game then they can do that it’s up to them. If you don’t like it as already mentioned quit and join a 90s or 60s turn time game. Nobody forces them to join the game. It’s there own choice there they should have read the game setting displayed in the lobby.
s
sttdci
said
over 3 years ago
Hilarious - I just played a game where my computer opponent had been flagged by the system as stalling. This was a computer opponent from the start of the game - should I have reported them and got computer opponents banned ?
K
Kent tekulve
said
about 3 years ago
I think the rule is more talking about one player being down to a country or 2 with a couple armies left and the other player moves in for the kill with like 60 troops, but quits his turn to fortify.(sometimes multiple times) just to rub it in (often accompanied by laughing emojis).
sttdci
Can someone explain why or in what scenarios "stalling" is now seen as anti fair play ?
The way it is written - "unfair stalling tactics" suggests there is also "fair stalling tactics" ?
It is described thus - "delay winning by accumulating troops to force their opponent to quit". Don't we naturally 'delay' winning by accumulating troops - I may think attacking an opponent with 6 troops when I have 9 troops is not a good move so wait (i.e. delay) until the next round (when I may have cards to trade) to then attack ?
I have no doubt there are good reasons to introduce a rule but it seems ill-defined so players could genuinely break rules without realising it ?
Also the idea that stalling, and no other reason, might be why players quit is laughable - I'm sure we have all encountered players who have quit when we we did not think they were out of any chance of winning. And what about those players that quit as soon as the auto placement is revealed ?
Anyway - I'm guessing I'm thinking of a possible scenario where I have "trapped" an opponent in Australia (although I would argue that is not always the best strategic move with only one way out but that's their choice) - let's say I have 20 troops and they have 10. To me they have a decision, when they get their next troop allocation, to attack my 20 troops with their 15 troops - if they decide not to (and therefore not gaining a card) and I then use my next allocation to attack another opponent and bring 10 troops back to Siam they again have a choice to attack my 30 troops with their 20 troops. Having worked hard to get into this strategic position and also fighting off opponents I'm struggling to see why this is unfair situation when they have backed themselves into a corner and decide not to attack and quit as a result ?
It seems that any pincer movement or situation where you mass troops against a smaller opponent but not attacking them immediately is stallling shoudl they choose to quit?
I'm bemused so any help would be appreciated