| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Daufer 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332 |
 Posted: 26 May 2012 at 00:23 |
 Sisren wrote:
scottfitz wrote:
My position is simply that no town shall be moved or settled so close to an mCrow town as to potentially compete for any useable sovereignty squares. Since a distance of 3-4 is the typical maximum practical range for sov, 7 or 8 squares distance is the minimum safe distance for a new neighbor, which means if you want to move within 10 squares of one of our towns, you had best ask first.
In other words, I completely agree with Belargyle on this point.
|
Scott, is this only for people moving towards mCrow? Or would mCrow also respect this with regards to other alliances?
|
It would be nice if everyone would abide by this standard, since I recently noticed an occupying army on a nice pot 8 squares from an alliance town and a message from a non-local player from a Crow alliance (not mCrow) saying "Hi, I'm going to be your new neighbor as soon as my settlers are done, hope we can be friends". I wasn't thrilled but wasn't in a position to say "oh no you aren't!" either.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 01:09 |
Daufer wrote:
Sisren wrote:
scottfitz wrote:
My position is simply that no town shall be moved or settled so close to an mCrow town as to potentially compete for any useable sovereignty squares. Since a distance of 3-4 is the typical maximum practical range for sov, 7 or 8 squares distance is the minimum safe distance for a new neighbor, which means if you want to move within 10 squares of one of our towns, you had best ask first.
In other words, I completely agree with Belargyle on this point.
|
Scott, is this only for people moving towards mCrow? Or would mCrow also respect this with regards to other alliances?
|
It would be nice if everyone would abide by this standard, since I recently noticed an occupying army on a nice pot 8 squares from an alliance town and a message from a non-local player from a Crow alliance (not mCrow) saying "Hi, I'm going to be your new neighbor as soon as my settlers are done, hope we can be friends". I wasn't thrilled but wasn't in a position to say "oh no you aren't!" either. |
Was there a potential sovereignty conflict? Did you bring said conflict to the attention of the alliance leadership?
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 03:36 |
Rill wrote:
|
It would be nice if everyone would abide by this standard, since I recently noticed an occupying army on a nice pot 8 squares from an alliance town and a message from a non-local player from a Crow alliance (not mCrow) saying "Hi, I'm going to be your new neighbor as soon as my settlers are done, hope we can be friends". I wasn't thrilled but wasn't in a position to say "oh no you aren't!" either.[/QUOTE]
Was there a potential sovereignty conflict? Did you bring said conflict to the attention of the alliance leadership?
[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there is a potential for conflict over sovereignty if either city ever wants to claim a square more than four spaces away. And since the response to my initial contact to their leadership was "eight squares is plenty of space for both cities and we expect you to be accommodating" I didn't see much use in arguing. But that is beside the point. The point is larger and stronger alliances making a claim of "If you want to settle within 10 squares of us you better ask first" on the one hand and "maybe, on a case by case basis" when asked if the same rule applies to them impinging on someone else's space.
I would much rather have been "asked" if someone could plant their fifth city on our doorstep as opposed to "hey, that's a nice building location, I call dibs". Of course had we refused permission they are in a position to say too bad, I don't see a problem so we're moving there anyway, and that is very much the impression that I got from my brief conversation.
I don't fault Dlord for their position. They have a dense, well-defined core area without a huge number of outlyers, and it is only reasonable that they don't want strangers crowding in on them. I would not object to any major alliance that, having already settled in a tight area, told others not to get too close without permission. But a lot of minor alliances have done the same thing, and it would be in keeping with the illusion we maintain here if the great powers extended the small fry the same courtesies they demand for themselves.
Bah. Enough from me. I'll shut up now before I offend someone big and bad.
|
|
Basil
New Poster
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: BritishColumbia
Status: Offline
Points: 12 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 04:34 |
Daufer wrote:
DLords is the sixth biggest alliance, confed with the biggest and the eighth biggest. If they say a certain area around their cities is unilaterally theirs, then it is. It is a guideline if you can't enforce your will... a rule if you can. Lots of people are going to cry about this. Is anyone going to put them to the test? No? Didn't think so.
A thousand newbs in a hundred tiny alliances with less combined population than one veteran player has are not going to challenge the status quo. If you have a problem with territorial claims by the military powers then unify, grow strong, and in the words of the inimitable Kumomoto "harden the f up". Otherwise learn to be really, really polite.
|
So you think smaller players should be obsequious and sycophantic to the big bad alliances that want to make their own rules? Fine, if that's your cup of tea. I disagree. I obviously can't do much about it militarily (yet), if a hostile, unilateral policy is put in place, but that doesn't mean I have to sit quietly and not voice an objection to it and explain why I think it's a bad idea.
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 04:41 |
Basil wrote:
Daufer wrote:
If you have a problem with territorial claims by the military powers then unify, grow strong, and in the words of the inimitable Kumomoto "harden the f up". Otherwise learn to be really, really polite. |
So you think smaller players should be obsequious and sycophantic to the big bad alliances that want to make their own rules? Fine, if that's your cup of tea. I disagree. I obviously can't do much about it militarily (yet), if a hostile, unilateral policy is put in place, but that doesn't mean I have to sit quietly and not voice an objection to it and explain why I think it's a bad idea.
|
Point taken. Please think about the fact that these alliances are making fair 10 square rules and not being arbitrary dictators. Because it is within their power to do so.
|
|
Basil
New Poster
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: BritishColumbia
Status: Offline
Points: 12 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 05:12 |
Kumomoto wrote:
Basil wrote:
Daufer wrote:
If you have a problem with territorial claims by the military powers then unify, grow strong, and in the words of the inimitable Kumomoto "harden the f up". Otherwise learn to be really, really polite. |
So you think smaller players should be obsequious and sycophantic to the big bad alliances that want to make their own rules? Fine, if that's your cup of tea. I disagree. I obviously can't do much about it militarily (yet), if a hostile, unilateral policy is put in place, but that doesn't mean I have to sit quietly and not voice an objection to it and explain why I think it's a bad idea.
|
Point taken. Please think about the fact that these alliances are making fair 10 square rules and not being arbitrary dictators. Because it is within their power to do so.
|
In some cases, it may well be a fair policy. The Dlords have a fairly contained region, and keeping it that way is reasonable. In most cases I've seen though, a 10 square line in the sand is unnecessary and wasteful.
Also, putting, "...not being arbitrary dictators." and, "Because it is within their power to do so." in the same context results in an oxymoron. Just FYI.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 06:06 |
Daufer, I can say that I have been in a position on numerous occasions when players have moved or wish to move within 10 squares of a player in one of my alliance. My practice conforms to a large degree to that described by DLords. If it is more than 5-6 squares away, I look at the area to assess the likelihood of sovereignty conflicts. Most frequently there are no particularly interesting sovereignty squares in the area greater than 3-4 squares away from my player's city. In that case, in consultation with the nCrow player involved, I graciously accede to the request of the player who wishes to settle.
In general, I expect other alliances to treat my players with similar courtesy. This doesn't always happen. This leaves me with a difficult quandary. On the one hand, I don't want to be the dumbass (pardon my language) who insists on an arbitrary 10 squares -- just because in some instances I can, being in a position of relative power -- when someone wishes to settle near me. On the other hand, it seems that others are perfectly happy to do so.
In general, I tend to come down on the side of trying to treat others as I would want to be treated, that is respectfully but without a lot of toleration for arbitrary insistence on meaningless prerogatives. At the same time, I recognize that what seems meaningless to me may be in fact highly meaningful to someone else, who may be viewing the situation not from a utilitarian or pragmatic perspective but more from one of "rights" and/or "freedoms."
In many of these situations I can see the validity the opinions of both sides. I struggle with the fact that if I don't advocate on behalf of my alliance mates, I don't see a lot of other people standing in line volunteering to do so.
I'm interested in how other alliance leaders resolve this difficulty for themselves and their alliance mates.
|
|
Basil
New Poster
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: BritishColumbia
Status: Offline
Points: 12 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 07:28 |
Five squares out is beyond practical sov claims in almost all instances. Four squares is farther than most sov claims can be considered worthwhile. I'm too small a fry (and too respectful and diplomatic), to test the territorial claims of bigger players, but I guarantee that anyone trying to enforce a ten square limit will soon find that that expectation leads to conflict.
Rill, you have 7 towns already, and good standing in a large alliance. You aren't concerned about finding space for your next three cities. But I assure you that space is running out for settlers if maintaining any kind of geographical cohesion is a consideration. Ten squares is far more than the great majority of cities need to take maximum advantage of their locality. In my opinion, an eight square declaration would be far more understandable and defensible. The very few sov conflicts that might arise from that could easily be settled peacefully (or not), by competing for the spots in question.
Either way, as I've been told by a few posters here, my opinion doesn't count because I don't have the size and military muscle to back it up. But if the GMs want conflict then excessive, unilaterally declared territorial limits will absolutely lead to war.
|
|
Basil
New Poster
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: BritishColumbia
Status: Offline
Points: 12 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 07:32 |
Correction: not war - it'll lead to a few hegemonic regions, where new players will be forced to submit to one of very few huge alliances/confederations.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 08:02 |
|
Basil, to be completely clear, you are completely correct that I'm not overly worried about where I'm going to put my next 3 cities. I do have almost 200 other players in my alliances, more than half of whom have 4 cities or fewer. So I assure you, finding places for people to put cities is a daily if not hourly concern for me. I agree that we need to share space. The main question is, how do I persuade others to be willing to share without being coercive or exerting undue pressure?
|
|
Tweet
A statement from the Dwarven Lords...