City Subjugation

I wouldn't particularly enjoy using this option or having it used against me.

Chaos Armor wrote: Innoble wrote: 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. I agree with this statement through and through.

I also agree. Honestly I would dislike having this option in-game.

Why not a scenario where all the Sovreignty needs to be taken before its  possible to siege a city, makes the game more protracted and another good reason for sov. Would require some monumental battle before a city could be razed

The main complains seem to be that it would be used against players, and players wont like that. I think GNU's original point is very valid, and that is that right now if an enemy player wants to do military damage to you, it involves the destruction of your city via siege. The destruction of a city is much more of a penalty than what GNU is suggesting. 

geofrey wrote: The main complains seem to be that it would be used against players, and players wont like that. I think GNU's original point is very valid, and that is that right now if an enemy player wants to do military damage to you, it involves the destruction of your city via siege. The destruction of a city is much more of a penalty than what GNU is suggesting.  I predict that a subjugation system mentioned would have the following effect:  - Discourage destruction of cities via siege.  - Encourage more warfare besides siege reinforcing, and siege busting. Resulting in more military conflicts but less buildings being de-leveled.  - More territorial conflicts with not as harsh resolutions. Instead of "we are moving your city for you" it becomes "we are placing your city under our rule."  - An actual benefit to military conquest that doesn't encourage players to stop playing. A 10% loss of resource production/harvesting for 15 days is minor compared to the loss of a years worth of building.

Agreed.

In my experience, siege is used first, NOT LAST. It is not a last resort, no other choice option. Big, "we are the moral compass of Illyriad (you know what I mean)" alliances use it to "put others in their place," which is NOT frowned on by some who would object to this option being implemented.

IF this were already an option, the Illy map would look different than it does now. I assume an option that is less costly in diplomatic credibility would be used first in most circumstances. I would be willing to bet that if this were an option, say three months ago, "some things" would be different now. That very reason has me torn on this. Sure, I'd like to see it available, but I would not appreciate having my subjugators still actively persuing "under thumb diplomacy" on my alliance instead of slowly dying as they are now.

My view: Without subjugation, lesson learned, end of story. With subjugation, lesson learned, continued oppression.