| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Angrim 
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 |
 Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 07:14 |
 Brandmeister wrote:
Since the thread has gotten a little jumbled, I just want to be clear. Angrim, are you talking about parking an army on a square WITHOUT having an exodus in motion?
|
yes, certainly, in several situations, the most common being when permissions are being gathered for settlement from those within 10 squares. because that process can be drawn out, we sometimes start it in advance of a settler/exodus being ready so that the position can be secured ahead of time. alliance members may also put down markers for others, particularly where we have been looking for some time for an opportunity to move a distant ally closer, the opportunity presents itself and the ally is not immediately available.
|
 |
Aristeas
Greenhorn
Joined: 01 Feb 2013
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 77 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 10:47 |
While seeing the good pragmatic reasons and benefits for this practice, I think there are at least 2 problems with it:
1. The "sign" of having an army mark a square is not really without ambiguity. In most cases parked armies are used to secure rare resources. Quite clear for minerals/herbs, but it´s also done for animal parts, and if they are harvested, you can have an army standing in the middle of nowhere without intending to sign the interrest for planting a town there...
And as was said before, not all are/were aware of this, I can imagine especially newbies aren´t, and at least I haven´t read ( or forgotten it^^) of this practice in the newbie guides, so if we really want to make it more practicable it should be promulgated more clearly, especially for the new players in their guides. I think I know the incident Angrim is referring to. I looked at the site of the new players city (after he had planted it), saw the army, and was wondering, what it was doing there. It just made *pling* in my brain as the player said that a new town popped up really near to him, that was the moment, when I though of the army as marking a space for Exodus...
2. It could lead to quite unclear situations, especially if not both sides use armies to mark squares. Player A can see the spot first, send his settler, then Player B sees the square a short while later, sends the army to mark it. That could lead to a situation where B could say he has the "right" to the square because his fast army arrieved before the slow settler, though Player A saw the place first and acted directly (and if it was his 2nd town he maybe even wasn´t in the posessions of any troops whatsoever to be able to mark it in advance). But that may be quite hard to proof (well, would at least require to make some math with movement-speeds)...
So I hope those instances (of course
not implying above mentioned one was such a case!) will be dealed with in a more pragmatic way than the much clearer instances regarding the 10-square-rules of already existing cities etc. (doesn´t imply the big ones necessarily have to give in, as their claims and aims are of course legitimate too, but they can make it easier for the smaller ones involved than in instances where the 10 square rule was clearly broken).
With a certain tred to territorialization of alliances, especially after the war, those instances might arise more often now, so a clearer promulgation and a certain mildness in dealing with them might make it a lot easier for all involved in my humble opinion...
A thread to collect "hot" areas that are "claimed" or intended to be claimed by alliances may be helpful too and may avoind instances where players directly jump into recently appeared gaps that are within such an territory...
|
|
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 15:05 |
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about, the practice of sending an army to mark the location of city being exodused, settled or in the case of a city that is inactive or abandoned, claiming the rights to that city, has been in use for a long time. Marking armies are used by most of the alliances in this game as a courtesy and yes, a warning that a city is in motion or going to be taken.
The alternative was two cities showing up in nearby or on the same location (causing the second to bounce), diplomatic conflicts and all matter of problems or in the case of marking cities, two alliances sending siege armies to the same city. It's an easy solution to avoid conflict.
This pracitce works, as Director of a large alliance, we have fewer diplomatic incidents because we mark the location or the city AND we communicate.
The key is communication. If you are moving into a new neighborhood, contact your future neighbors, inform they of your plans, the city site and your intention to honor their alliances sov/gathering rules. Sending a marking army without communication, especially if you are moving near a military alliance, may cause concern, contacting them gives them a heads up that you have no ill will and you want to join the neighborhood. You'd be surprised how many players will be welcomed to their new area and in some cases, receive help from those players that currently reside in the region.
Of course, common sense prevails, if you are planning to move into the middle of an alliance hub, you may find they do not want you to move there.
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 16:29 |
Starry..
the distinction trying to be made is placing a 'marker' army for a 'future' settlement (and one that is not currently in motion or potentially going to be any time soon).
So it is more like:
I place a 'marker' army on tile X, but will not be moving anything in that direction for weeks or (as I have met one gentlemen) in 2 months.
With regard to eCrow though, and in all fairness, their marker armies are a bit.. hmm.. different than what others do with them. For them, if they have a marker army down, they lay claim to all surrounding tiles, up to 5 squares. Effectively giving their 'marker armies' the same rights that is 'typically' understood for an actual town. Now understand this too.. if they have an army on a mine or herb patch or whatever.. that constitutes also a marker army and thus their rule of having control and ownership of the surrounding 5 tiles is in effect as well.
Now the above should not reflect the sum total of their view and policies, only a quick overview of one aspect that took me by surprise, and even in the quick overview.. I do not speak for them as even I could get it a bit out of whack, so I will let them speak to their policy - if they so wish to continue it.
To me, again me, this is problematic on many levels.. but I will step off. It was an interesting diplomatic mess that made me aware of this policy.. and eCrow was kind enough to walk me through their views. While I don't agree with some of them, we tried to work it out.. and from what I know.. I think the issue settled itself... at least I haven't heard anymore on it.
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 17:47 |
belargyle wrote:
With regard to eCrow though, and in all fairness, their marker armies are a bit.. hmm.. different than what others do with them. For them, if they have a marker army down, they lay claim to all surrounding tiles, up to 5 squares. Effectively giving their 'marker armies' the same rights that is 'typically' understood for an actual town.
|
i do not believe this to be different at all from what is normally understood by others who use markers. if a town is to be planted there, it will by necessity require whatever clear area is regarded by the alliance as sufficient for its growth and prospering.
belargyle wrote:
Now understand this too.. if they have an army on a mine or herb patch or whatever.. that constitutes also a marker army and thus their rule of having control and ownership of the surrounding 5 tiles is in effect as well.
|
this is not quite right. eCrow does have a policy regarding resource garrisons (which we do not typically refer to as markers but which we have tried to explain in some cases using parallels). i am not shy about discussing that separate policy, but it really has nothing at all to do with the thread. it is native to eCrow, of relatively recent derivation, and is an attempt to find a civilised approach to the harvesting of t2 resources that splits the difference between two opposing philosophies popular among the crows. discussing it here will only muddy the general discussion.
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:04 |
Aristeas wrote:
1. The "sign" of having an army mark a square is not really without ambiguity. In most cases parked armies are used to secure rare resources. Quite clear for minerals/herbs, but it´s also done for animal parts, and if they are harvested, you can have an army standing in the middle of nowhere without intending to sign the interrest for planting a town there...
|
so the example that concerns you is that there happen to be animals on the square i am interested in settling, and that my army kills them and camps atop the remains, which will disappear in 36h...but in the meantime you view the army which i consider a marker, see the skins and decide that the area 2 squares away (for example) is clear to settle? if only the cases where markers have been ignored were so arcane.
Aristeas wrote:
And as was said before, not all are/were aware of this, I can imagine especially newbies aren´t, and at least I haven´t read ( or forgotten it^^) of this practice in the newbie guides, so if we really want to make it more practicable it should be promulgated more clearly, especially for the new players in their guides.
|
agreed, which is why our site now has an explanation of the practice. as i have said, at one time it was well known and well understood. t2 resources have certainly made the map more cluttered, and the large number of vets who have left over the last several months may have caused a break in illy's oral history.
Aristeas wrote:
It could lead to quite unclear situations, especially if not both sides use armies to mark squares. Player A can see the spot first, send his settler, then Player B sees the square a short while later, sends the army to mark it. That could lead to a situation where B could say he has the "right" to the square because his fast army arrieved before the slow settler, though Player A saw the place first and acted directly (and if it was his 2nd town he maybe even wasn´t in the posessions of any troops whatsoever to be able to mark it in advance). But that may be quite hard to proof (well, would at least require to make some math with movement-speeds)...
|
to begin, if both sides use markers, then Player A sends a marker first and there is no issue. i have been in several discussions where two contenders arrive in nearly the same place and alliance leaders must work out whose arrival was first. they are, from memory, always sorted far more amicably than if both players had sent settlers.
Aristeas wrote:
So I hope those instances (of course
not implying above mentioned one was such a case!) will be dealed with in a more pragmatic way than the much clearer instances regarding the 10-square-rules of already existing cities etc. (doesn´t imply the big ones necessarily have to give in, as their claims and aims are of course legitimate too, but they can make it easier for the smaller ones involved than in instances where the 10 square rule was clearly broken).
|
even the 10-square rule is applied quite flexibly by most alliances with which i am acquainted. the overriding concern about proximity is long-term growth. the more willing two players are to cooperate, the more closely they can coexist.
(edited for formatting)
Edited by Angrim - 16 Mar 2013 at 19:00
|
|
Arakamis
Greenhorn
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Location: Waterdeep
Status: Offline
Points: 97 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:10 |
|
I have an automatically generated excel file that lists best spots for possible city locations.. I'm hoping to make it a policy one day such that no one can settle/place any kind of army within 5 sq of all the locations listed in my excel.. :)))
Or maybe I should add all those to my profile upfront, does that count?
It all comes down to whether you defend your "marker claims" or not..
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:18 |
Exactly Arakamis, it does not matter if someone legislates something, or whether the community they are legislating over accepts it or not. What matters is if you have the resources to enforce such legislation, or if others have the resources to overcome your enforcement.
I expect this debate has begun simply because someone lacked the resources to overcome such enforcement. And as a result they are hoping that by bringing the issue to the forums they may gain new resources for them to counter any further enforcement.
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:18 |
But Angrim, in our previous discussions.. you stated they 'are' maker armies. To reduce our many exchanges into a summation sentence - Whether for a town or resources they serve the same purpose in practice, in establishing claims showing ownership, and therefore they claim all surrounding lands as well (again, for towns or resources). Just for giggles - In the above post you even call the resource garrison a 'marker' army :P
So they are the same thing in practice and not necessarily a separate subject at all. The principle is separate but the practice is the same and that is why I spoke to it.
The OP is asking about Marker armies, and this is one aspect to which 'markers' are used and thus can be discussed.
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 |
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:24 |
Darkwords wrote:
Exactly Arakamis, it does not matter if someone legislates something, or whether the community they are legislating over accepts it or not. What matters is if you have the resources to enforce such legislation, or if others have the resources to overcome your enforcement.
I expect this debate has begun simply because someone lacked the resources to overcome such enforcement. And as a result they are hoping that by bringing the issue to the forums they may gain new resources for them to counter any further enforcement.
|
On this I disagree. While it 'can' take such a turn, I believe discussing it and letting others know what your policies are, hearing from them.. these allow alliance to make better and more informed decisions on adapting, continuing, or modifying they policies.
While I might not necessarily agree with eCrow policy, being as it IS their policy, and now that I know of it, we will try to work with it and abide by it as best is able, and the same can be said for them.
We all have little quirks in our policies that some don't like, don't feel is right.. but hey, as an alliance we have (they) have chosen what we would like to see. Peace can come from 3 avenues: acquiescense, negotiations, aggression, most choose the latter 2, and few will remain who hold to the last.
Edited by belargyle - 16 Mar 2013 at 19:44
|
|
Tweet
A new exodus marking "rule"?