| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Brids17 
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 |
 Posted: 19 May 2012 at 19:44 |
 nightfury wrote:
You like to ask questions and then expect answers, but you guys(crows) never make your position clear. let me ask a question to you. What is the position of crows in this matter? can I settle next to crow city without asking permission? what is the permissible distance?
I request DLORD and H? not to answer any of Brids Q's till he answer Crows position
he just asks and never makes things clear please ignore till he answers.
|
Last I checked, I was a Rook of mCrow, not Rook of all the Crow alliances. If you want to know what Crow or nCrow or CrowW or Calcr or HUGcr thinks of the 10 square rule, you're going to need to ask them. Just like H? and T? are separate alliance, the Crow alliances are too. Furthermore, my stance of the 10 square rule and ScottFitz and Raritor's stance on the 10 square rule are different, so even that depends on who you're asking. If you're asking if mCrow as a whole has come to a decision on it, we haven't. At least not officially.
My personal feelings? I'm undecided. I do think 3-5 squares is too close but to suggest you'll wipe out any armies or cities there is a little extreme. At least without any discussion about it. (not saying that's Dlods position on it, that's why I'm asking...) 10 squares though? I don't know. That's a lot of space and I don't think it's entirely reasonable to have to ask because your intended spot is 9 squares away. Plus a lot of mCrow cities are in Norweld and Meilla, you'd have to ask 50 people if you could move there, it's just not a rule that I think should be all consuming.
In regards to your question, I would say you should honor your alliances rule and respect other peoples 10 square space thingy, even if they don't have that rule. Otherwise it would be pretty hypocritical of you. But personally speaking, as long as you're not grabbing sov in the immediate area of peoples cities, at least in crowded spaces, I wouldn't expect a message.
|
 |
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 19:51 |
Brids17 wrote:
It's a little ridiculous getting messages from upset players because someone settled 9.8 squares away from them. |
Just for fun a list of the seven
"interesting" distances:
- x: 10 9 8 7 6 4 0
- y: 0 4 6 7 8 9 10
- sq: 10.0 9.8 10.0 9.9 10.0 9.8 10.0
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 20:15 |
|
This seems to get lost in the conversation, so I'll just quickly point out that a 10 square space between two cities must accommodate the range of sovereignty reach desired by
both cities. Thus, a 10-square minimum between cities only reserves an average 5-square radius for personal sovereignty claims.
This is a very small buffer zone over what cities use for great practical gain today, and still does not account for the fact that not all setups are interested in the nearest squares above other considerations. Production centers in particular would want, after the 8 adjacent squares, the 12 nearby squares with the best production bonus for the targeted resources or unit types.
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 20:41 |
nightfury wrote:
You like to ask questions and then expect answers, but you guys(crows) never make your position clear. let me ask a question to you. What is the position of crows in this matter? can I settle next to crow city without asking permission? what is the permissible distance?
I request DLORD and H? not to answer any of Brids Q's till he answer Crows position
he just asks and never makes things clear please ignore till he answers.
|
I posted my understanding of nCrow's position earlier in the thread, and I think I can speak for Ryelle and say that HUGcr shares the same general opinion. Each Crow alliance is independent and therefore there is no single Crow position, but I don't think that one can complain that Crows have not contributed substantively to this discussion. We are of course small alliances and have only 700 cities between us, so perhaps it is easy to overlook my comments.
With regard to HM's point about 10 squares allowing 5 squares for each city, this is true. However, most cities will not want to claim 5 squares or will want to claim them selectively. Thus my own personal practice when people want to move 5-10 squares away is to inquire about their future sovereignty plans and perhaps even come to a specific agreement.
One player who wants a military city and another player who wants a production city could settle 3 squares away from each other and be perfectly happy, depending on the layout of the sovereignty bonuses. This would probably be the exception rather than the rule at 3 squares distance, but would become quite common at 5-6 squares distance, particularly considering that such cities could presumably claim 10 squares in the direction the other city isn't. So it depends on what other cities are already in the area and what those players' plans are. That's why these "rules" should be put into practice flexibly with an effort to accommodate the greatest good for the most people -- which is something I generally see happening in Illy today.
Edited by Rill - 19 May 2012 at 20:44
|
|
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:03 |
HonoredMule wrote:
a 10-square minimum between cities only reserves an average 5-square radius for personal sovereignty claims. |
If I'd claim sov over all squares with a distance up to 5 squares I'd end up with 80 sov squares at a cost from 100 to 500 gold and 10 to 50 research points per hour and square.
That should be somewhere near 30,000 gold and 3,000 RP per hour (?). A library level 20 yields 1013 RP/h, so this plan would require more than one chancery level 20 and/or lots of books from less ambitious cities.
|
|
Taelin
Wordsmith
Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 108 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:03 |
May I ask for clarification regarding the applicability of Dwarven Lords territorial claim to existing cities?
Are you saying that someone who has a city within 10 squares of a Dlord city is now obliged to negotiate its continued presence even if no mention has been made of any difficulty with proximity hitherto?
or have I misunderstood?
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:43 |
dunnoob wrote:
HonoredMule wrote:
a 10-square minimum between cities only reserves an average 5-square radius for personal sovereignty claims. |
If I'd claim sov over all squares with a distance up to 5 squares I'd end up with 80 sov squares at a cost from 100 to 500 gold and 10 to 50 research points per hour and square.
That should be somewhere near 30,000 gold and 3,000 RP per hour (?). A library level 20 yields 1013 RP/h, so this plan would require more than one chancery level 20 and/or lots of books from less ambitious cities.
|
Who said anything about claiming
all the squares? If you have to resort to hyperbole to counterpoint, well...
Every account gets at most 10 cities and that's it. After that it's all about how well we craft those cities. Only a short-sighted person wouldn't be concerned about losing the freedom to hold
whichever nearby sovereign squares are most valuable to the city's long-term specialization
or short-term needs--both of which can change at any time.
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:51 |
Taelin wrote:
May I ask for clarification regarding the applicability of Dwarven Lords territorial claim to existing cities?
Are you saying that someone who has a city within 10 squares of a Dlord city is now obliged to negotiate its continued presence even if no mention has been made of any difficulty with proximity hitherto?
or have I misunderstood?
|
Great question. The answer is 'no'. This is a 'hereafter' document. All towns currently in proximity have already reached or worked out agreements in the main. But I would state it would be a good idea to have a written copy of an agreement (mail) between the two of you (or however many) to make sure all things work well for each others benefit.
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:55 |
Rill wrote:
nightfury wrote:
You like to ask questions and then expect answers, but you guys(crows) never make your position clear. let me ask a question to you. What is the position of crows in this matter? can I settle next to crow city without asking permission? what is the permissible distance?
I request DLORD and H? not to answer any of Brids Q's till he answer Crows position
he just asks and never makes things clear please ignore till he answers.
|
I posted my understanding of nCrow's position earlier in the thread, and I think I can speak for Ryelle and say that HUGcr shares the same general opinion. Each Crow alliance is independent and therefore there is no single Crow position, but I don't think that one can complain that Crows have not contributed substantively to this discussion. We are of course small alliances and have only 700 cities between us, so perhaps it is easy to overlook my comments.
With regard to HM's point about 10 squares allowing 5 squares for each city, this is true. However, most cities will not want to claim 5 squares or will want to claim them selectively. Thus my own personal practice when people want to move 5-10 squares away is to inquire about their future sovereignty plans and perhaps even come to a specific agreement.
One player who wants a military city and another player who wants a production city could settle 3 squares away from each other and be perfectly happy, depending on the layout of the sovereignty bonuses. This would probably be the exception rather than the rule at 3 squares distance, but would become quite common at 5-6 squares distance, particularly considering that such cities could presumably claim 10 squares in the direction the other city isn't. So it depends on what other cities are already in the area and what those players' plans are. That's why these "rules" should be put into practice flexibly with an effort to accommodate the greatest good for the most people -- which is something I generally see happening in Illy today.
|
All the above are good points and is why it is good to have these things in writing so others can at 'least' have a reference point in disputes, or a place to look at to know their position on certain actions.
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:59 |
Brids17 wrote:
Brids17 wrote:
belargyle wrote:
The squares 6-10 are open to negotiations but no action, implementation, nor shall any troops may be upon Dlord territory without ‘prior’ authorization. Any such action, settlement, or armies claiming / counter-claiming will be removed immediately and with extreme prejudice. |
What exactly do you mean by "immediately and with extreme prejudice"? Because to me, that sounds exactly like "without any notice" which I would hope is not the case. Also, if someone settles lets say, 9.X squares away (as in, counting tenths of squares) is that going to be an issue? It's a little ridiculous getting messages from upset players because someone settled 9.8 squares away from them.
|
Not sure if you missed this (it was the last post after all) but I would like a response to it...
|
I did answer the question but it was to Rill. Here is what I posted:
"... The language of 'immediate removal' should be understood regarding the context of post in which I state we desire communication. This will precede any action, however if I need to make this more clear in the post, I can."
|
|
Tweet
A statement from the Dwarven Lords...