| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Gaia Nutella Tulips 
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 62 |
 Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 19:49 |
 DeathDealer89 wrote:
I would say subugate a city and you get a certain amount of gold (maybe even allow the subjugater to choose the tax rate) Something that would hurt the player being occupied but not simply make those people who mass farm the best in the game (this is the main problem if I have with this).
Also how come attacking doesn't bring back gold? Attacking NPC's brings back gold attacking a city does not??
|
Good questions raised none of which I can answer.. I blame the FSM >:D Now I will stop trolling and add my tuppence worth to this awesome thread.
I like the occupation idea - I think that all the caravans from the player should be disabled for a week or so and that every day 10% of the adv res and gold the player produces are shipped to the conquerors' town SIMILAR TO Alliance tax (cursed be that tax..) On leaving the city (unless it is recalled via messenger in which case the % should be smaller) the occupying forces takes some basics and unthievable items with them.
|
 |
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 20:01 |
a few points:
Your idea is in response to the lack of balance between the cost of a conflict and the reward. A problem that many senior players recognize, and a problem that the DEV team will want to address at some point.
I think something like this is a great idea and would give more reason for mild hostilities aswell as reward for succesfully overpowering the enemies encampment.
A few modifications on your subjugating:
- Subjugation is a military maneuver, similar to blockade/raid/attack/siege.
- To subjugate a city your forces must attack the city, defeat 100% of the hostile forces, and then maintain an occupation within that cities walls. (NAP rules apply)
- You can only subjugate an enemy town for as long as you maintain a garrison capable of controlling the town. 1:1 troop/population ratio.
- Eats up gold/hour to subjugate another city. The farther away it is from one of your towns, the more expensive it is to maintain.
- While under your rule, the town can be forced to pay you taxes in the form of production per hour. This would apply to harvested resources, resources/hour, and crafted resources (example 10-50% of every item produced/harvested gets sent to you).
- The player being subjugated by your forces is capable of building military units and an army in his subjugated city. They are safe from attack, but the player can choose to build an army and then have it attack his own city in an attempt to liberate his city.
|
|
|
|
Smoking GNU
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 20:39 |
geofrey wrote:
a few points:
Your idea is in response to the lack of balance between the cost of a conflict and the reward. A problem that many senior players recognize, and a problem that the DEV team will want to address at some point.
I think something like this is a great idea and would give more reason for mild hostilities aswell as reward for succesfully overpowering the enemies encampment.
A few modifications on your subjugating:
- Subjugation is a military maneuver, similar to blockade/raid/attack/siege.
- To subjugate a city your forces must attack the city, defeat 100% of the hostile forces, and then maintain an occupation within that cities walls. (NAP rules apply)
- You can only subjugate an enemy town for as long as you maintain a garrison capable of controlling the town. 1:1 troop/population ratio.
- Eats up gold/hour to subjugate another city. The farther away it is from one of your towns, the more expensive it is to maintain.
- While under your rule, the town can be forced to pay you taxes in the form of production per hour. This would apply to harvested resources, resources/hour, and crafted resources (example 10-50% of every item produced/harvested gets sent to you).
- The player being subjugated by your forces is capable of building military units and an army in his subjugated city. They are safe from attack, but the player can choose to build an army and then have it attack his own city in an attempt to liberate his city.
|
Those were basically the points i was making, except for the troop numbers must be equal or higher than the city population point. That would basically put 7 food plot cities out of reach of everyone except orcs, and even then they'll loose most of their army attacking a well-defended city and not have the troops to hold it. It's a bit extreme. I'd say 1 troop per 5 citizens would be good, if on the high side.
|
|
Gaia Nutella Tulips
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 62 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 21:27 |
GNU - you try being attacked by 5 peasants with pitchforks.. May the odds be ever in your favour!
What Geofrey suggests with the cost to occupy a city would be similar to sov right? I camp an army and pay extra to get goodies from a square, sounds similar in this scenario! I guess this would fall under the Military tree and/or Sov research tree.
SUGGESTION/QUESTION
Could the occupier cast a spell or have to spend more mana on the city they have occupied to stop it casting spells?
Edited by Gaia Nutella Tulips - 27 Aug 2012 at 21:49
|
|
Smoking GNU
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 21:39 |
Gaia Nutella Tulips wrote:
GNU - you try being attacked by 5 peasants with pitchforks.. I think the odds are not in your favour.
What I think GNU and Geofrey are suggesting is that occupying a city would become like another form of sov. This means that the aggressors city would need to use mana to stop the occupied cities casting spells..
This would lead to another Magic tree and a Sov tree - And I am all in favour for this!
|
I'm not sure about geofry, but that's not what i had in mind/suggested at all. Nowhere di i mention in any way that magic or sov played any role.
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 22:09 |
I don't think there should be a magic or sov. requirement. This is strictly a military maneuver.
|
|
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 23:13 |
I really do like this idea.
I wonder: where will the resources go? If you can force res and taxes from the subjugated city, will it just go to the city whose forces have subjugated it?
I think one option is that the city produces res and gold normally, but you gain control of the cities caravans and can send goods to your own cities. Thus capturing and subjugating a trade city is more valuable profit-wise since you will have tons of caravans capable to exporting, while taking over a military city would be benefitial because it prevents that city from producing troops.
Also, if you send thieves into a city you have subjugated, then automatically succeed, giving you another option for taking res from the city.
Nice idea though.
|
|
|
|
Smoking GNU
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 23:47 |
Hadus wrote:
I really do like this idea.
I wonder: where will the resources go? If you can force res and taxes from the subjugated city, will it just go to the city whose forces have subjugated it?
I think one option is that the city produces res and gold normally, but you gain control of the cities caravans and can send goods to your own cities. Thus capturing and subjugating a trade city is more valuable profit-wise since you will have tons of caravans capable to exporting, while taking over a military city would be benefitial because it prevents that city from producing troops.
Also, if you send thieves into a city you have subjugated, then automatically succeed, giving you another option for taking res from the city.
Nice idea though.
|
Mmmhm, that's a nice idea
And gives the player a chance to hurt the subjugator. If the guy doing the subjugation has to use the cities caravans to transport the res he steals/taxes via caravan to his city, a blockade might then conceivably be utilized to try and block this.
|
|
JimJams
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496 |
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 01:11 |
The idea could be very interesting but require a lot of study to fix all the possible abuse.
A simple attack and win leading to lose a city is even worst than a siege, especially because of the surprise factor (direct attack are way faster than siege). So we should try to find a way to make the success of the maneuver not that high... May be spies or saboteur inside the city could lower the success chance....
It have to last only a limited time, and I also would add some chance to "free" the city, using may be saboteur (wow) or spies.
Finally I think the city should not be damaged in any way, but the stored advanced resources should be partially lost in favor of the invader (percentage also depending on some of the internal diplo). All defending diplo are not lost in the process , as they go stealth immediately after the invasion.
|
|
|
|
Innoble
Wordsmith
Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 141 |
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 01:25 |
|
I see you guys mostly arguing about the workings of the possible change, but I am still not convinced the majority of the players actually wants a change to the "pvp" part of Illy. One of the things that makes this game unique is that pvp is not a "sporty" "gimmicky" "fun" thing to do. It is a last resort tool of life and death.
Conflict does happen, cities do get destroyed, but only rarely and only when people aren't smart enough to work it out diplomatically. Right now you only siege someone when you REALLY don't like them. There is a serious amount of e-hate required. When you dislike someone this much, you don't care about whether it is profitable or not to attack them. You just do it.
If this game will start to have features which make it profitable to hit towns and such, the game will change in such a way that it will become more similar to other games out there, by losing that which makes it unique. People will pvp just because they can. Bully their neighbours into getting their way, because there is no (or less) net-cost involved. This is how other games work.
Now I have played games like this and I have liked them, so I would probably be ok with it. I also know many of the current players would *not* like those games. Please keep in mind that if you are a pvp-oriënted player, you are not a majority in Illyriad.
I know there are quite a few pvp-type players that are frustrated with Illy because of the way it now works (war-wise) and this is why there is so much positive response in this thread, but perhaps if we did a widespread poll and give the rest of the players a reason to respond, it would go a different way.
|
|
Tweet
City Subjugation
