City Occupation

The GMs would ESPECIALLY want to impliment this, i think, since people leaving because they were siege can't be good for the game reputation.

*nudges SC*

Should there also be a cooldown on that occupy a city idea?
As in a player can only occupy a town 14 days out of the month


I can still see players quitting over not being able to take control back on their town. However, I am all for this feature compared to sieges because people do quit over it

Hmmm... and maybe when a player does take over another player's town for 14 days, the player that took it over will then be able to tax the player's city at 25% for another month.

I like the idea of a city revolt based on pop size... being able to use this just like a sally forth with the same cool down. But, instead of needing say 28k army to fight off a revolt from a 25k city, a city can only use half of its city population as a military force. I feel it would be hard to take over a town that has 20k plus pop over a period of time. So from 20k pop to 10k pop, and the 10k military can sally forth the occupied armies. Also, only one player from an alliance or one player's military can occupy a town. I do not like the idea of more than one player sending troops together to occupy a town for 14 days.

I also feel this game should give alliances the power to force taxes on other alliances. They must agree to pay taxes up to say 5% from each of their member base. This would be automatic once the alliance leader accepts these terms from the alliance forcing a gold tax on them. This idea has a nice empire feel to it.

Back to your idea...

Instead of only being able to take over one town per account with this occupation idea... Players should be able to take over every town but the players capital. However, like I said above, it would be only for 14 days out of the month with a 25% gold tax for 30 days after the occupation of a city for 14 days as a reward of being able to occupy the town for that long.

Edited by Lionz Heartz - 23 Jan 2011 at 13:59

Good points.

But say the occupying army had 5K trueshots, and the revolting army, as you put it, had 6.5K knights. Now, concidering the type of terrain the city is on, you'll have varying degrees of a result
for example, if the city is on a Large mountain, the Defending trueshots would still win (defending archers get large bonus, attacking cav get large penalty)

Good idea, it should make the gameplay more interesting. 

HonoredMule wrote: I think having an attack power equivalent to the population or some small factor on it (like 2-3x) would be more reasonable.  The occupying force would still take expensive casualties every 12 hours.

+1, totally agree.

the only thing about a randomly chosed army is: from where are comming these experienced soldiers? if citizens and farmers armed with the first weapon they found, where comming from all around the city to defend it, that would be more realistic. that's why i talked about those "armed citizens". the only thing to clarify would be if they get bonus depending on terrain or not.

Lionz Heartz wrote: Should there also be a cooldown on that occupy a city idea? [...] I can still see players quitting over not being able to take control back on their town.

i think we are touching the main difficulty of this idea. we must define *very* well the restrictions of the occupation stratagem. 
actually, i dont have any good idea about how these restrictions would work... and i think that the few ideas already given about that are not very precise.

moreover i think that, first of all, we must be 100% clear about the aim of the occupation stratagem: is it more to benefit the one who is occupying, or is it more to put the occupied one under pressure?
we are more talking about to put the pressure on the occupied one. but maybe it could advantage the conquering one without desadvantaging the occupied one that much. and if to occupy someone a certain time put him as your conquer, then, more conquers you have, more production rate of anything.

so we must be clear about to chose the first or the second option. because, if we really want the occupation to be an important mean of pressure, that's harder to find a good restrictions system.


PS: about the conquers idea, that's not incompatable with the fact that the occupation could be a hard blow for the occupied one. maybe as far as the guy is occupied, he has a very low or inexistant production as we say above. and if he is occupied constanly during a certain period (counting in days) he is conquered. so that's not incompatible with the occupation as a hard hit.

(* how coud conquer system work* tips:
- if you are already conquered nobody else can occupy you  ( solves many restricions poblems)
- as your town is conquered, it can't conquer an other town
- to ask freedom; or you wait long time enough and you will have a rebellion option. or you attack the town that is conquering you, and win the battle)
- if a town is attacked, and loses the battle, it lose all its conquers - or mabe it takes time, to let the time to react... could work with HM's non instantaneous battles idea)



bam brainstorming :p.
no, i lie, in fact i didnt just find this "conquers" idea. this idea is very similar to what you can find on BattleDawn (already talked a bit about this game). but in this game, no occupying possibilities, and you have one town only. but here i propose to occupy a certain time before having someone as your conquer, and also, i add that each town would have its own conquers, and each conqers benefits one town only.







Edited by Mandarins31 - 23 Jan 2011 at 18:46