Tournament additional rules, Vote #3!

This is the 3rd vote for the next 1v1 tournament:
Some players use the a tactic that is better known as 'Wallfucking'. It works this way: In the first turn, You move 1 unit close to a neutral city that the enemy will probably take. When the enemy takes the city and walls it, the wall will be useless, because upir unit is too close to create a wall. From then, its able to turnblock the opponent in that city from turn 2. This tactic can really decide the game outcome from turn 1.

The question is simple: Should wallfucking be allowed in the first turn? Or is it a lame move? At this moment, there is no specific rule about this. Remember: This question is only about the first turn!

Comments below

Voted yes. Pre-emption of another players moves is a hallmark of skill. Whilst wallfucking a players home cities is totally wrong (and skilless by the definition I made earlier), predicting and countering the movement of others is fine. A player should not use the same forumulaic moves for each of his start and should be punished for being predictable. Not only this but if we're not allowing wallfucking then why allow turnblocking in turn 2?

Also Hugo I'm sure you're aware that there are ways to protect a stack without getting wallfucked.

The reason why i'm asking is that i noticed that there are a lot different opinions about this. For myself, i don't think i care if it is or isn't allowed and i can agree with agruments from both sides. Some say its a fair tactic, because you can prevent it by not playing predictable. Others say it is lame, because sometimes there is no other choice then to take a certain capital.

@Barrymore's question: The reason why i only ask this on first turn, is because the moves in the first turn are the most predictable one's. When i take 'Portugal' as my starting country, i don't really have more options then taking Spain. So my opponent can easely wallfuck me there. From the second turn, i can move different ways, so it should be allowed from then. Futhermore i think that its impossible to maintain this rule in all turns. For example: When i want to move a unit over land, but its accedently close to a city, that will be walled next turn. That will lead to endless discussions.

BTW: If we say it ISN'T allowed, then my second question will be: Should walling neutral cities be allowed?

Well Portugal and Volga are perhaps the only nations where your choice is so rigidly limited. Every nation has a choice to a certain extent. Also as you've noticed; try proving a wallfuck. I could send a token few units to a capital, wall it and wallfuck someone whilst making it look like an accident. The perfect crime. I've played Spain vs. France and we wallfucked each other with our north/south cities.

I note there's two votes against but no reasons give beyond 'it's lame'. Yes it's lame but turnblocking is lame and I'd like to see a high level player that doesn't do that. Please gives reasons for opposition.

Unless in a neutral country this should not be allowed.

No, it shouldnt be allowed the first turn.
Yes for all the other turns, because of the predictable move 1st turn.

It can be pretty annoying but does not have such a big impact on the outcome of game
so I do not see a valid reason for a restriction here.

Written by VRIL, 05.04.2012 at 12:11

It can be pretty annoying but does not have such a big impact on the outcome of game
so I do not see a valid reason for a restriction here.

You said it yourself; it has a big impact, and a pretty negative one. The inability to wallfuck derives from one player not having enough time to wallfuck or their strategy does not allow it. A Blitzkrieg player would have no problem wallfucking all around Europe with militia, for instance, but an Iron Fist player would have serious trouble wallfucking with any units.

And don't say "hurr they're noobs wrong strat". Wallfucking is for a privileged few that always have more money or can move units further and envelop enemy cities or even units. I think it's a bad idea to allow this.

Written by YOBA, 05.04.2012 at 15:35

Written by VRIL, 05.04.2012 at 12:11

It can be pretty annoying but does not have such a big impact on the outcome of game
so I do not see a valid reason for a restriction here.

You said it yourself; it has a big impact, and a pretty negative one. The inability to wallfuck derives from one player not having enough time to wallfuck or their strategy does not allow it. A Blitzkrieg player would have no problem wallfucking all around Europe with militia, for instance, but an Iron Fist player would have serious trouble wallfucking with any units.

And don't say "hurr they're noobs wrong strat". Wallfucking is for a privileged few that always have more money or can move units further and envelop enemy cities or even units. I think it's a bad idea to allow this.

I can wall fuck as GW using militia and starting broke as fuck. -_-

We should allow but not wall fuck the home country. Also i dont like seeing enemy units in my home terrortory maybe count that as a rule?

So not having a enemy unit near or insde a home terrortory?

That is already one of the rules. The discussion is whether you could wall fuck a neutral country that you know your opponent is going to take.

I think that this shouldnt be allowed couse then your oponent can block you over and over.

Written by Pera., 06.04.2012 at 07:15

I think that this shouldnt be allowed couse then your oponent can block you over and over.

you ca still wall neutrals, you just can't wall fuck neutrals

Barrymore has stated many fine points about this issue and I believe he is right.


If you are predictable you should(and will) be punished. I and many others understand that attacking first turn, placing units inside an opponents territory first turn, and wallfucking an opponents home country first turn, all take no skill and are outlawed in most games. This includes 1on1's, team games, and all the way up to CW's. However, neutral countries are to be taken and controlled by you. You cannot just simply allow someone ELSE to take them free of charge.

I don't post often, but when I do, it's pretty damn important.

Written by Barrymore, 04.04.2012 at 07:03

Voted yes. Pre-emption of another players moves is a hallmark of skill. Whilst wallfucking a players home cities is totally wrong (and skilless by the definition I made earlier), predicting and countering the movement of others is fine. A player should not use the same forumulaic moves for each of his start and should be punished for being predictable. Not only this but if we're not allowing wallfucking then why allow turnblocking in turn 2?

Also Hugo I'm sure you're aware that there are ways to protect a stack without getting wallfucked.

this^^ Barrymore seriously, your intelligence is OP

It should be allowed. If you dont wan't it to happen to you, you shouldn't be so predictable.

You sir are correct

Written by tophat, 09.04.2012 at 17:41

Written by Barrymore, 04.04.2012 at 07:03

Voted yes. Pre-emption of another players moves is a hallmark of skill. Whilst wallfucking a players home cities is totally wrong (and skilless by the definition I made earlier), predicting and countering the movement of others is fine. A player should not use the same forumulaic moves for each of his start and should be punished for being predictable. Not only this but if we're not allowing wallfucking then why allow turnblocking in turn 2?

Also Hugo I'm sure you're aware that there are ways to protect a stack without getting wallfucked.

this^^ Barrymore seriously, your intelligence is OP

:')