Cities Next to Tounament Squares |
Post Reply  |
Page 123 6> |
| Author | ||||
TomBombadil 
Greenhorn  Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Status: Offline Points: 78 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(1)
 Quote Reply  Topic: Cities Next to Tounament SquaresPosted: 08 Jun 2016 at 00:52 |
|||
|
Firstly, I'm not talking about cities that just happen to be settled in the vicinity of a tournament square or cities that have been founded to be permanently settled in the area.
I'm talking about cities, packed with hundred of thousand of troops, exodused directly next to a tournament square when the tournament begins.
This gives this city's alliance a major advantage by allowing said city to clear the tourney square within minutes with its built up troops, and then occupying the square with only a token force. Losing virtually no troops on defence and killing any occupying troops within minutes, rinse and repeat, disallowing anyone else to gather any meaningful time holding the tournament square. This strategy I am not against and would in fact advise everyone of using...
However...
due to the good old 10-square rule no other alliance will be able to use the same tactic unless it is in a CONFED. All other competing cities would have to be placed further out, due to a restriction of the game rules and not the tournament rules. As such I consider it unsportsmanlike and unfair to do since you are preventing others from using the same strategy/advantage by making use of the game rules.
Should such a city be subject to destruction, by a single party that takes offence or even by all other competing alliances ganging up on it? Should the destruction of said city be considered fair? unfair? I-have-mixed-feelings-about-this-but-I'll-see-what-the-server's-status-quo-is-fair?
Note, however, that cities placed a tiny bit further away do not give the same unfair advantage to a single competitor, i.e. cities placed 5 or more squares away from a tournament square.
They still give a massive advantage, but s
ince they do not prevent another competitor from moving another city to an equal distance from the same tourney square, it does not prevent another competitor from gaining the same advantage you have.
Secondly, this poll is not meant to discuss any specific diplomatic incident caused by the sieging of cities next to tournament squares, but to discuss the issue in general and prevent further such incidents.
PS: Before anyone says it, yes, I have killed some scouting armies next to tournament squares. Why should your scouts sent directly at the tournament square be allowed to die but the ones next to it not? Surely they are both participants in the tournament and there for the same purpose? I understand that you don't like seeing your troops dying, but right next to them you are sending thousand of their brothers and sisters straight to their deaths.
Edited by TomBombadil - 08 Jun 2016 at 01:12 |
||||
 |
||||
| Benedetti
Greenhorn  Joined: 08 Feb 2016 Status: Offline Points: 47 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 02:13 |
|||
|
5 squares out is ok, but 4 squares is not? A couple of cities combined can block the area out just as effectively, so 1 city is ok (per player? Per alliance?) but more then 1 is not? So the first 4 alliances moving on a square are in luck, the rest are SoL? Moving a city during the tournament is not ok, but having it there before the tournament is? 1 week? 2 weeks? How long before the tournament should it be there?
I do think that this tactic of having/moving a city close to a tournament square is showing a eh... vulnerability in the current tournament set up. King of the hill simply is not the same when people have a city on that hill. However, i do not think attacking people will be the answer to this. Where exactly will it end? You kill scouting armies because they are in your view (and not without reason) part of the tournament. I might be tempted to siege some cities because i think that sending troops to a tournament square makes them a valid target. They are participating in the tournament, and the game allows it, so surely it's ok? Once we start killing/razing outside the tournament square, I doubt there will be a clear concensus on where this killing/razing should stop. Said diplomatic incident you dont want to discuss currently has a StA city under siege, with perfectly logical reason. *That* is where this will end, if we do not stay on the tournament squares. Oh, and before the warmongers in this game say it: no, there is nothing wrong with a tournament ending with a server war. Just as long as people know what they're signing up for at the start :D Edited by Benedetti - 08 Jun 2016 at 02:15 |
||||
|
||||
| Kazuli
New Poster   Joined: 05 Apr 2016 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 02:20 |
|||
|
The concept of pre-emptive strike as a defensive strategy has been well used in history.
Can you:
- attack units that are scouting the tourney square but not on it
- attack cities that have exodus'd to a location specifically to give them advantages associated with the tourney square
- attack any city that is producing and sending troops to the tourney square
- attack / raze any city that is closer than yours to a tourney square
- initiate total war against any alliance that dares to send any troops to your tourney square
Once you open up attacks / actions beyond those on the tourney square, it becomes a slippery slope on where you draw the line.
Personally, I am ok with attacking any assets that have been placed specifically to provide an advantage in taking and holding a tourney square, as long as those assets were moved during the tourney and the player is actively participating in the tourney (by having their alliance attack and/or occupy the tourney square).
|
||||
|
||||
| palmz
Greenhorn  Joined: 05 Jul 2015 Location: BL Status: Offline Points: 58 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 06:34 |
|||
|
I feel just putting a city next to a tournament square is a valid strategy and so is dealing with it! However I feel both go against the good nature of competing in these tournaments. If that a good spot for your city so be it. (without the square being there) But I would like to say those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, once a line is crossed it is hard to re-draw it and say this is the new line. |
||||
|
||||
| TomBombadil
Greenhorn Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Status: Offline Points: 78 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 09:16 |
|||
More question like this please!
Some tournament squares are also smack in the middle of alliances clusters and land claims, but that doesn't stop anyone else from building their own alliance cluster around a tournament square or claiming the land around it. If you are dedicated enough to build a thousand cities around a tournament site perhaps you deserve to win it. Sieging all those cities away would take a thousand times more effort than just competing over the tournament square itself. Sieging a single city directly next to a tournament square however is fairly easy and provides a big benefit.
It does bring politics into the tournament however, which can have a considerable effect on its outcome. Perhaps the devs meant it to be this way?
Perhaps such actions will only end when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, and the honey badgers come out of their holes to play their bongo drums, or however that saying goes.
Killing a scouting party is easy, you need only a handful of troops to do it. Sieging multiple cities requires more troops than it would take to take and hold a tournament square in the first place, with sieging a city far away providing little to no benefit at great cost, unless that city has its own mammoth training grounds or something. I doubt the large scale destruction of cities would at all be an efficient tournament strategy for anyone.
Lines have likely been crossed in every tournament so far in one way or another. Which is why I'd like to find out where everyone considers the line to be or where it should be drawn in general.
Edited by TomBombadil - 08 Jun 2016 at 09:19 |
||||
|
||||
| Gragnog
Postmaster   Joined: 28 Nov 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 10:57 |
|||
|
You want to play tournaments you stick to tournament squares and scouting armies. You want to play war you take on the city. As most in the game are terrified of war I suggest you stick to tournaments or accept the consequences of your actions.
|
||||
|
Kaggen is my human half
|
||||
|
||||
| Jadefae
Greenhorn  Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 74 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 11:41 |
|||
|
I do agree that moving a city next to a tournament sq goes against the nature of the competition. There definitely should be something in place to prevent this. Whether it be siege or the inability to move a city during tournaments, that is not my call. However if by siege, everyone that participates in that action needs to be prepared for the consequences.
As far as scouting armies. I 100% believe they are fair game. If you were at war (and tournament is mock war) and someone were to place scouts right outside, the scout armies would die be killed. |
||||
|
||||
| TheBillPN
Forum Warrior   Joined: 03 Jun 2014 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 305 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 12:22 |
|||
|
Cities next to a tourney square is perfectly valid. If you were to introduce a limit, say 25 squares or so, to how close a city could sit next to a tourney square, the closest person outside that limit would then become the one with the advantage on that square.
It would make no difference, except for the fact that a few other towns could be as close, and then it would become a game of who is either the best at military, is on the most often/has most sitters in different time zones, can replenish troops faster blah blah blah. The one who won out in the end, and it would happen pretty quickly, would then have control over the square, and would only need to send regular clearings to the square, in case the others managed to build up their troops again.
This is my first tourney, and I'm sure the City-next-to-square tactic was used in the other ones. If you want that square, then exodus some of your own towns as near as possible and fight for it.
Attacking cities is a declaration of war, tournaments are not war. There was a hunting tournament a while back that has nothing to do with the squares, so maybe they could be made to happen more regularly, if you think that would be fairer.
|
||||
|
||||
| Arx
New Poster  Joined: 20 Nov 2015 Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 13:40 |
|||
Plus one. Personally, I'd like to see a limit on how close a city can be placed to a tournament square - being able to place one directly adjacent seems like it reduces a lot of the competition to a race to put a city down there first. I guess I'm also in the camp that says it's against the spirit of the thing. I like the idea of relocating towns to be close to the action - that's a good play, but it's a commitment. If you want to commit to the tournament, that's great! Moving a city directly next to the square smells a little too much of exploiting the ten-square exodus rule, though. Specifically, it's a way of gaining a very strong advantage that can't be assailed without breaking courtesy. That seems discourteous, to me. Your mileage may very, caveat lector, in my opinion, etc. |
||||
|
||||
| Diva
Forum Warrior  Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 14:12 |
|||
|
Now that Tourney squares are
permanently marked, is there going to be a rush as to who is going to exodus, settle a city near 1 or 10?
As for anything else, the cotters from that city are making a boon collection. Fortunately, I have found that some alliances will be generous to return some gear.
I'm not for the city placement next to a square if you wanted just an opinion. I couldn't find that one in the poll.
Edited by Diva - 08 Jun 2016 at 14:15 |
||||
|
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
|
||||
|
||||
| Post Reply |
Page 123 6> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Benedetti wrote: