| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Zeus 
New Poster
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 38 |
 Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 21:20 |
|
How about during an alliance war you can conquer a city for good but all its buildings are lost along with tech and half its pop. Have to leave so thats all I can say. Think about it.
Edited by Zeus - 23 Jan 2011 at 23:33
|
 |
bartimeus
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Right behind U
Status: Offline
Points: 222 |
Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 21:45 |
 Zeus wrote:
About during and alliance war you can conquer a city for good but all its buildings are lost along with tech and half its pop. Have to leave so thats all I can say. Think about it. |
1) English isn't my first language, but I'm pretty sure "about during and alliance war" doesn't make full sense.
2) Population is calculated with the food consumption which is calculated with the building you have... you can't lose every building while keeping half of the population.
3) That comes up to exactly the same as being razed after a siege, from the attacked player's point of view. so that wouldn't help as an "alternative to siege so people don't leave the game" .
4) you just described the "capture city" function, which is already available alongside "raze city" after the siege city lost 75% of it's population. (but the attacker gets to keep the tech and the buildings that make up the 25% remaining population)
|
|
Bartimeus, your very best friend.
|
|
Zeus
New Poster
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 38 |
Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 23:41 |
[/QUOTE]
1) English isn't my first language, but I'm pretty sure "about during and alliance war" doesn't make full sense.
2) Population is calculated with the food consumption which is calculated with the building you have... you can't lose every building while keeping half of the population.
3) That comes up to exactly the same as being razed after a siege, from the attacked player's point of view. so that wouldn't help as an "alternative to siege so people don't leave the game" .
4) you just described the "capture city" function, which is already available alongside "raze city" after the siege city lost 75% of it's population. (but the attacker gets to keep the tech and the buildings that make up the 25% remaining population)
[/QUOTE]
Makes sense just it weird capturing a city for 14 days. How about when you capture a city you reduce the level of all buildings and the pop. Or as this already been discussed? After about 4 days the revolt takes place,if you want it to which most would, and all the units in the revolting army are just one type of unit. There would be a new unit and the unit has very little capibilities but are strong in numbers. Lets say 3/4 of the pop for small cities and 1/2 of the pop for big cities are part of the revolution.
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418 |
Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 23:54 |
Zeus wrote:
How about when you capture a city you reduce the level of all buildings and the pop.
|
I follow Bartimeus, this is a No for me as well. why do you absolutely want the defender to lose building? you wont bring siege engines to occupy someon. if you do so that's a siege.
Zeus wrote:
and all the units in the revolting army are just one type of unit. There would be a new unit and the unit has very little capibilities but are strong in numbers. |
already talked about that
Mandarins31 wrote:
the revolting system is a good thing, but must chose well how many soldiers would be able to attack in fonction of the city's pop. [...] create a special war unit for the occasion: "armed cityzens"? (*Edit: which would have a medium attack... or mabe his attack will depend on the pop of the city)
|
Zeus wrote:
Lets say 3/4 of the pop for small cities and 1/2 of the pop for big cities are part of the revolution. |
when do we call a city big or small? better to have the same calculation for each city. HM's suggestion is still the best for me.
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. |
Edited by Mandarins31 - 23 Jan 2011 at 23:54
|
|
Zeus
New Poster
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 38 |
Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 14:17 |
Mandarins31 wrote:
I follow Bartimeus, this is a No for me as well. why do you absolutely want the defender to lose building? you wont bring siege engines to occupy someon. if you do so that's a siege.
when do we call a city big or small? better to have the same calculation for each city. HM's suggestion is still the best for me.
|
Ok first if you attack a city and win and occupy buildings will be destroyed and people will die. So the pop would have to go down and the building levels would have to go down but not be destroyed.
You call a city big or small by its pop. A lot of people in it its a big city. This was also already talked about. But I get it I forgot about what HM said.
Edited by Zeus - 24 Jan 2011 at 14:18
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418 |
Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 17:03 |
i dont get the point of making the occupied one lose his population. if you want to do so, start a siege. this occupying feature would justly be to avoid people to lose theire buildings and leave because it takes to many time to rebuild.
but im repeating what i and Bartimeus already said.
So, well, i got you idea, even if im not for it.
to reply to Smoking GNU, if your thought was to find an idea to offer a new alternative instead of the siege, then we are talking about a stratagem that hits the ennemy hardly anyway.
then we must think more about how would work the restrictions. need to find how to restrict the occupation ability against a player/town. Also, maybe, how to restrict the use of this ability by the attacker.
i already gave an idea about that with the "conquered" status:
Mandrins31 wrote:
(* how coud conquer system work* tips:
- if you are already conquered nobody else can occupy you ( solves many restricions poblems) |
but this idea may not be enough, because it doesnt say if a player or a town should have a limitation of conquers. if a city has its maximum of conquers, you may need to liberate someone if you want to occupy someone else.
i dont have better suggestions about restrictions actually, but im sure there should be many ideas to exploit.
PS: please Zeus, make an effort on your writing. As for Bartimeus, english is not my first language and i had some difficulties to understand what you were talking about.
Edited by Mandarins31 - 24 Jan 2011 at 17:07
|
|
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839 |
Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 20:13 |
hmm... as for restrictions...
attacker gets, let's say 75% of all res/weapons, and so on (perhaps not money, see later), that are in that city at this point of time (perhaps he has to carry it of by caravan someway...)
Then, of everything, that is produced in this city (again not money), the occupier grasps 75%, the remaining 25% are hidden by the local craftsmen and donated to the resistance.
The resistance can build units like in the barracks (just with no upkeep), and then wait for a good time to come back.
The occupier might of course reinforce along as he knows the resistance getting stronger, BUT he must pay upkeep (therefor no money from the conquered town), so there will be a time, where the occupier is outpowered, the resistance launches an attack.
The surviving armies now DO cost upkeep, so those too much will deserteur and go back to be civilians.
Actually, the occupier got MANY resources and weapons, while the defender had at least 25 % of res, and built up some army.
And if the occupier can calculate, he will have left the city just before the launch...
As for the exact percentages, those might be adjustable, as here the GM's could tune the average occupation time.
Of course there would have to be a cooldown of, let's say a month, where you just can attack the other cities of that player (if you really want to be annoying)
Edited by Hora - 24 Jan 2011 at 20:14
|
|
Tolf
New Poster
Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 6 |
Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 20:51 |
Hora wrote:
Then, of everything, that is produced in this city (again not money), the occupier grasps 75%, the remaining 25% are hidden by the local craftsmen and donated to the resistance.
|
The %age could be based on Vault level, making that building a bit more useful.
Still, I dont really like the "resistance" idea in general.
The point with this whole new stratagem is, stronger people can now hurt smaller people and benefit out of it more than by raiding and attacking. Right now they dont because sieging is too evil and you dont do it for some wood and stone.
So the restriction would have to work in a way so that a 50k pop player doesnt "collect" the smaller ones in his area and keep them under constand pressure, with or without "taking turns" with his guildmates. The resistance-thing wont work at all if the smaller player is, well, smaller. So new and independent players will get occupied and farmed.
I think this has to be wanted by all of you before we are going that way any farther, no?
Or did I miss the point?
|
|
bartimeus
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Right behind U
Status: Offline
Points: 222 |
Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 21:36 |
All righty, I feel ready to make a fool of myself in the forum by suggesting some weird stuff.
How about sending an army to occupy a non confederate town makes you the temporary sitter of this city for as long as the army stays there...
The legit owner can see everything in his town (including troops number) and can choose when he launchs the revolt (which are unit's that would build up faster if you have loads of pop), but he cann't lauch any new production or building.
diplo are unaffected and can still be controlled by the owner (so we can send messenger to get the armys out to come back.)
(some solution will have to be found reguarding assassins since it would make smaller city way to easy to keep with comparaison to large "assassins capable" cities... the best thing would be for the attacker to be able to send diplo to defend his army... then occupying would mainly be a diplo thing... as it should be.)
the attacker/ now exclusive sitter for this city gets to ship every recources to his own towns. and can delevel/ upgrade whatever he wants, as well as launch a new production queue.
What do you think... my main concern is that it would render obsolete the standard raid and attack stratagem to empty someone's resources.
Edited by bartimeus - 24 Jan 2011 at 21:43
|
|
Bartimeus, your very best friend.
|
|
SirTwitchy
Greenhorn
Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Location: usa
Status: Offline
Points: 44 |
Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 00:44 |
|
another idea, if the occupation is successful for say 15 days total, the army could then leave and the occupied city would have to pay a tithe to their occupier for a period thereafter. The tithe could be 10-25% of resources produced and this could continue for 2 weeks to a month after the occupier has left.
|
|
please disregard the twitch, the meds haven't kicked in yet...
|
|
Tweet
City Occupation