Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - A statement from the Dwarven Lords...
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Topic ClosedA statement from the Dwarven Lords...
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 17181920>
Author
   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:31
Claiming a swarth of unclaimed land and protecting tthe land you have claimed from occupying armies are two very different things in my mind, but hey maybe that's just a personnal opinion.
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 May 2012 at 16:29
Originally posted by Babbens Babbens wrote:

Is that it?
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/coming-soon-sovereignty-brace-for-impact_topic765.html

Quote
WHAT OTHER EFFECTS ARE THERE FOR PLANTING A HOSTILE OR NEUTRAL ARMY ON A SOVEREIGN SQUARE?
We're also glad you asked.

Whilst a Hostile or Neutral Army is in Occupation of a Sovereign Square:
  • The Sovereign Square holder will immediately cease to gain any Sovereign Structure Benefits from that square

  • The Hostile or Neutral Army will siphon off the resources (being generated by a Resource Sovereign Structure) or the resources being pumped in (in the case of a Production Sovereign Structure) - see the post below for more details on Sovereign Structures.

    The Army will fill to its carrying capacity, after which the additional resources are simply lost.
So, planting an occupying hostile army on someone else's Sovereign Square is not only a method of siphoning substantial resources from the owning City, it can also be used to halt or reverse Sovereign claims.

This description is inaccurate.  Nothing actually happens by an army merely Occupying a Sov sq.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 May 2012 at 19:33
If the DLords had intended to protect their sovereignty squares, they could have said "don't park armies on our sovereignty squares."  They did not do this for at least two reasons:

1)  People don't generally park armies on other people's sovereignty squares unless they have some reason to do so -- either to protect those squares from attack, to counterclaim sov or to siege or blockade a city.  Those actions would either be done with consent of the owner of the sovereignty square or be acts of war, and I'm pretty sure we haven't descended to the level of needing to make forum posts that state we have a policy encouraging people to defend us and against people attacking us.

2)  As noted by several people, this description is wrong, and there are no effects from someone else simply occupying a sovereignty square.

Perhaps this discussion needs to go in a thread titled "Sovereignty Issues Unrelated to DLords"
Back to Top
PirateKing View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2011
Location: ~South Seas~
Status: Offline
Points: 225 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 May 2012 at 02:45
Planting an army on another player's sov with the intention of claiming is quite costly.  Dev's, can we please have a "graffiti" skill that would simply trash and mar their land instead? 
Aarrr! Thar be no better friend than making friends with a pirate!
~SouthSeasPirates~
Back to Top
Granlik View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 280 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 13:50

I have now spent over half an hour diligently plodding through this thread from page one. The arguments on both sides are well thought out, constructive and thought provoking. I can see clearly why there is so much interest in the subject.

 

What I would like to see however are some examples of cities with a sovereignty reach of eight or more squares from its base square. Such a city would be a megacity in my eyes.

 

I am NOT interested in conglomerations of joined up sovereignty  areas comprising of several cities of which can be seen around Elgea.

 

Examples please……

 
Back to Top
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 14:16
Trolling or not, you 've readead all the pages but you miss the point.
5 range (your) + 5 range (his) = 10 range, wanting to claim a square at 5 range is not something too special with new buildings, the claim state that you should ask before settling from 5 to 10 squares between the two cities, to avoid fights for the sovs.
Nothing special, the game avoid moving cities in this range too...
Back to Top
Avion View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2012
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 111 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 16:30
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Perhaps this discussion needs to go in a thread titled "Sovereignty Issues Unrelated to DLords"


I vote for that - the original discussion seems at a dead end.

Here's what I would ask in that new thread:

A neighbour of mine has claimed sovereignty over a square that has a resource spawner.  Does this give him any extra advantage?  As well, he had troops stationed there so that no outside caravans could visit (I was told my caravans would be destroyed if I tried to harvest there).  I was going to ask him to move his troops but they eventually left before I got up the nerve.  I suppose he has a right to park troops on his own sovereignty squares but what if they have spawners?

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?
Back to Top
Sloter View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 16:56
Maybe he used troops to claim higher lvl of sov or some other reason other then protecting res spawn point.
Back to Top
Subatoi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 17:07
Originally posted by Avion Avion wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Perhaps this discussion needs to go in a thread titled "Sovereignty Issues Unrelated to DLords"


I vote for that - the original discussion seems at a dead end.

Sov issues pertain to land claims, you can claim sov to ensure that some sqs are for alliance only, drop sov when member wants to land city etc.

there is no need for a new thread.
Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 19:56
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

5 range (your) + 5 range (his) = 10 range, wanting to claim a square at 5 range is not something too special
Only a very special square at range 5 would justify to claim it for economical reasons.  There are only twelve squares in distance 5 from a given city, and each of these twelve squares corresponds to one square in distance 10, where settling a new city could result in one arguably "disputed" square in range 5 from both cities.  OTOH the old city would be able to claim this square for whatever reasons including extreme prejudice before the new city without a dubious general ten square land claim.
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

to avoid fights for the sovs
The old city should be also able to win any fights on this one potentially special square, especially if it is backed by a powerful alliance such as DLord.
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

Nothing special, the game avoid moving cities in this range too...
In fact it does not avoid to place new settlements in any distance from old cities.  

Only teleporting cities into a wide ten square radius around existing cities is impossible, because nobody wants a huge city to pop up near to their growing settlements.  That rule is also used for a less threatening exodus (arriving at pop below 2K as a sitting duck for 5 days.)  

Putting it mildly, so far all given economical arguments for a general ten square land claim were unconvincing.  If you want to justify this claim at all, above a simple "my 10K stalwarts say so" statement, how about "my alliance might wish to move to or to settle in this range", or "pathfinding could allow to get tolls from folks using a favourable route in this range"? 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 17181920>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.