The Tribal Wars Wiki is a project run by the Tribal Wars community. If you have a problem with Tribal Wars, see Tribal Wars support or the Tribal Wars Forum.

From TribalWarsWiki

Very interesting read! Different from the generic Tribal Wars guide. --Booper 04:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Needs

An interesting post, and a welcome change from all those 'this is the way to build your village' guides. Thank you.

COMMENTS ON PART III: RHETORIC

• In addition to your ideas on "DEMONIZE THE ENEMY", I would like to recommend "GLORIFY YOUR CAUSE"; ensuring your allies rally around a "Just" or "Holy" cause (For example, a Crusade against the tribe's enemy, vengeance for the destruction and nobling of a comrade) would enhance the strength of the first method and make the rhetoric doubly powerful. --[[User:Zouk|Zouk] 14:50, 16 October 2009

COMMENTS ON PART IV: WILL

• While I find your guide interesting here, I feel that it is missing something; the ways one could employ to break his opponents' will. Hitting the players' morale so low that he gives up may well be crucial to victory, but there is little information on how to do that other than nobling or farming his village. --[[User:Zouk|Zouk] 01:21, 20 October 2009

Comments on content

As a first comment, much (most?) of this reads like weakly supported generalisations presented as authoritative. Some of it I've found to be false; even more sounds dubious at best.

Secondly, though, I must admit that the approach adopted here generally involves a way of playing games like this which I dislike. It treats other people who are playing the game as genuine enemies, rather than as enemies-in-the-game; when you demoralise an enemy in a game like this you're demoralising a real person, who's playing the game for the same reasons that you are — for pleasure. I don't get my kicks out of causing other people's unhappiness.

Games of this sort allow that sort of approach, and a more genuinely game-based approach; it's a pity that too many people play who are of the former type, so that the game becomes unpleasant for – and drives away – people of the latter type. I know that it's largely age related, but there are currrently no games that set aside servers/worlds for the more mature gameplayer. Pity, as I think that there's a niche to be exploited there. --Hereward 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sex

I've commented out the following passage, as it seems even more dubious than what's gone before, and is at least on the border of advising players to behave unpleasantly:

For example: the world I'm currently playing has a female player to my north. Those of you who know me are going to figure out who this is immediately. She began edging down my way and is about my size in points. After I assessed she was an actual female (not a g.i.r.l), I began using it to my advantage. Some friendly flirting never hurt anyone. Of course there's a couple of caveats here: I'm not sure who's doing the playing, me or her; and this could certainly cross the line into "weirdo" material if you aren't skilled. So, use this with care.

I don't know what other people think... --Hereward 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Hereward

You ask "what other people think." I submit that you read the thread in the TW forum to satisfy your query. In the meantime, I'd rather remove my guide from the Wiki than be at the mercy of one user's relentless red pen and silly comments about a highly subjective guide. And on that note, if you think players don't routinely employ these tactics you either haven't played much or are incredibly naïve.

Remove my guide. If you don't, I will wipe all traces of it myself. It will be moved to a more pleasant environment.

Forget it. My biggest beaf was removing my name from the guide. I'll add that and be done with it.

--Hablo3u 14:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I asked what other people in the Wiki thought - specifically about whether that passage should be included. What people generally think of the guide isn't relevant to that.
2. Anyone posting to a Wiki is warned that their work is open to editing, and told that if they object to that they should probably not bother. In this case, almost all my editing involkved an attempt to improve the English in general, and more specifically to bring it into line with the Wiki guidelines. The only change I made to actual content was the section that I brought here for discussion.
3. That many players emply these tactics is a fact. That I dislike it is a fact. That I dislike the idea that people are encouraged to use such tactics is a fact. Where exactly does the naïvety come in?
4. My understanding from all the Wikis with which I've been involved is that articles aren't signed. That's largely because Wikis are collaborative projects (and, as you've discovered, anything can be editied, so that putting your name to what might eventually change out of recognition is risky). --Hereward 09:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)