Is it legal for someone to donate all of his provinces and armies to some other player drastically changing the flow of the game?

  • its not called such a foolish thing.i lead a game as of now and the guy who was in 2nd place realized he cant catch me and threw a tantrum and donated all of his possesions to a smaller player that was in his sphere of influence ,basically creating a player almost as powerful as me thorugh no merit of his own .

    This screams of collusion and it should be illegal

  • if you read TOS and Rules you are obliged to follow fair play and not get any unfair advantage


    getting provinces, resources and mechanized troops for free while using remaining forces of your friend against common enemy is for sure against any fair play and gives unfair advantage completely not related to gameplay, Gms ,activity or skills. It is all about who have more friends on map. Not saying that using friends to weaken common enemy while taking everything for free from frriends is in my opinion exact description of Wolfpacking , but in supremacy you need to prove that that was intention of the eaten friend to be sacrifice lamb for another friend. And this is hard.


    in my book unfair advantage, no matter if it was acknowledged before or after game has started, is still unfair advantage and should be treated as a such. That means - removed from supremacy.

  • Called unfair or what every you want. But is done in supremacy and not against any rules. If because real life you can't continue and give your lands up is not against any rule. If joined us food then is Wolfpack indeed but I played till 1 point time something unexpected happen and can't more give every is not unfair.

  • if you read TOS and Rules you are obliged to follow fair play and not get any unfair advantage


    getting provinces, resources and mechanized troops for free while using remaining forces of your friend against common enemy is for sure against any fair play and gives unfair advantage completely not related to gameplay, Gms ,activity or skills. It is all about who have more friends on map. Not saying that using friends to weaken common enemy while taking everything for free from frriends is in my opinion exact description of Wolfpacking , but in supremacy you need to prove that that was intention of the eaten friend to be sacrifice lamb for another friend. And this is hard.


    in my book unfair advantage, no matter if it was acknowledged before or after game has started, is still unfair advantage and should be treated as a such. That means - removed from supremacy.

    The guy was 111 regions big and donated 60 to regions to an 80 regions guy and the rest to a 30 region player.in addition to that other player that spied him told me that he was donating huge armies and huge amounts of resources in the days prior to this, probably because if he gave them the regions first the resources would have been lost.


    He gave up and decided to show me the middle finger one last time

    I think there is enough evidence to prove the fair play rules breach

  • The guy was 111 regions big and donated 60 to regions to an 80 regions guy and the rest to a 30 region player.in addition to that other player that spied him told me that he was donating huge armies and huge amounts of resources in the days prior to this, probably because if he gave them the regions first the resources would have been lost.


    He gave up and decided to show me the middle finger one last time

    I think there is enough evidence to prove the fair play rules breach

    That's where you're wrong. It's called Unconditional surrender, and he wanted to give others a Chance to win. In this case, the Sides can go both ways.

  • That's where you're wrong. It's called Unconditional surrender, and he wanted to give others a Chance to win. In this case, the Sides can go both ways.

    Are you mental?that is not how this game should be,it is not fair play , unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. In modern times, unconditional surrenders most often include guarantees provided by international law. Announcing that only unconditional surrender is acceptable puts psychological pressure on a weaker adversary, but may also prolong hostilities

    This doesnt apply to him.He was far far stronger then those 2 beneficiaries.He did not want to have the hassle of conquering his allies and then rage quit.

    The term you are looking for is unlawful enrichment on the beneficiaries' side

  • call it how you want

    you need to learn how to fight bigger guys and win

    I was sometimes fighting wolfpacks of 10- 15 people and they were not wolfpack because there was no evidence they joined game together

    this is how I learned to win and got my military score


    sooner you will create strategy for a bigger guys- the better for you

  • I am the biggest player in that scenario now,which is why it irks me that someone undeserving received enough charity to almost catch up to me.

    i also have messages from them admitting the whole thing.can they be disqualified ? that is my question

  • Hello,


    no, they won't be disqualified. The wolfpacking rule exists to handle the problem that some people are joining together a map only to support an other player to win.

    If one player in a later stage of the game decides to surrender this isn't a violation of the rules.

  • It's called Unconditional surrender,

    In order to call this you have to be on war. Unconditional Surrender is when you surrender to YOUR enemy, not when you give your split your country among your allies!


    Unfortunately, though, this (An official has already state this, but i am not taking their place) is not illegal, but the real question is "Is this Ethical?"

    I say Yes It is Ethical... It was a desperate move. A sacrifice. War has sacrifices. has Desperate moves, too.

    ANS yes! this is a hard situation for the winning party.

    It was a sudden move that caught you of guard, and guess what.. That was their intention. You have all the rights to be frustrated but keep it together and try to regroup, so you can say "I won no matter what!"

  • for me it is the same as joining 31 World Map with 10 Friends ...

    what is a joy of playing against 11 guys who have no idea how to play and the only thing they are able to do is to swarm you with endless number of infantry and mechs.


    In a later stages of game you can counter it with strategy,skills and mechs withotu using Gms, but in an earlier stages even GMs will not help ....

  • Hello,


    no, they won't be disqualified. The wolfpacking rule exists to handle the problem that some people are joining together a map only to support an other player to win.

    If one player in a later stage of the game decides to surrender this isn't a violation of the rules.

    mods should put a cap on province donation as they did with the troops donation,it may not be illegal according to present rules but it should be illegal because of common sense.

    Bytro this is how you make people drop this game

  • it will not change a thing


    you just put 1 inf in every town of your friend/ he gives you 1 inf in every town, 5 sec war and his whole country is yours...

    and then I am surprised to see players who have no idea how to play but they know how to swarm fighting and dying in millions like lemmings

  • it will not change a thing


    you just put 1 inf in every town of your friend/ he gives you 1 inf in every town, 5 sec war and his whole country is yours...

    and then I am surprised to see players who have no idea how to play but they know how to swarm fighting and dying in millions like lemmings

    at least it gives the chance to everyone to see that something is happening and they can swoop in and claim something because this whole 5 second war will take a lot longer taking travel time into consideration.

  • bah


    you put troops everywhere. it is faster to move troops on friendly territory. You deploy troops in 1-2 days, then war-peace in 5 sec and you have whole country of your friend

    then you conquer capitals somewhere to rise morale and you are done with 80% provinces


    I saw people eating their entire coalitions and rising from 250 to 1200 provinces on maps 500 and according to my nations team everything was ok.

  • If joined us food then is Wolfpack indeed but I played till 1 point time something unexpected happen and can't more give every is not unfair.

    if it was built up I agree then it's not against the rules some users also do this because personal life caught up on them and they don't want to fully abandon their allies. As the Wolfpakcing rules state, if you however join solely to aid somebody else and not for your own game play you're wolfpacking

  • This is a complicated matter its much like the topic of banning backstabing. I have played many a game and seen this happen. i have had allies message me to take over their lands when they were or were not at war. one time after we defeated an enemy my ally had not a lot of units left. he messaged me to take his lands because he felt that he was going to lose and would be a hindrance to our alliance pack. In his perspective it was a mercy kill.

    In another round a ally attacked a nation and his armies got destroyed. there he knew that he was finished and he didn't want to let his coalition members to also die. he requested that we invade him to prevent his enemies from taking his land. he also sent resources and units. the thing is this is seen in irl in past and in current life. ww2 and ancient period wars are big examples of this action. its an act of preservation and to prevent your enemies from gaining to much power and to protect your people. however his enemy called us backstabers so eh. but the mentality of it is for-filling a death wish and prevent your enemies getting stronger.


    now another situation you might seen is giving land and resources after allies taken over a enemy nation which there in lies a problem about your donation cap idea. its so hard to set what is and what isn't acceptable in a complicated matter where context is needed. 1 it could like backstabing, 2 mercy kill, 3 some kind of deal, 4 something else. the best option in your case you could report it for suspicious activities and see how things go from there. but as boris stated "If one player in a later stage of the game decides to surrender this isn't a violation of the rules."

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • TOS


    § 13 Further Duties and Obligations of Participants

    13.1 The Participant is aware that he uses the game together with many other Participants and communicates with different Participants when using the additional services. In order to achieve an enjoyable gaming experience, it is necessary to adhere to the rules of the game. The Participants accept the rules of the game and the ToS as binding. The Participants will follow Bytro Lab’s instructions which will be provided by the game supervisor. Additionally, the Participants will refrain from any conduct which may interfere with the operation of the game and/or the additional services and which may disturb an enjoyable gaming experience.