Let's Discuss the 10 sq rule with settlers

The best argument for the 10-square rule is that it leaves space for future expansion and enables the first settlers in a place to be a little bit selective about who they want as neighbours. Unless they plan to use it for their own expansion, most people will let you settle inside their area of interest if you have a good reputation.

So how does the rule make sense for a new player who has no control on where the game placed me. So I can't settle my second city near my original one because if violates someones else 10 sq rule even though they will never use half of those squares? So I have to settle somewhere farther apart and slow my growth. And as a new player how am I suppose to earn a good reputation? That takes time and diplomacy. 

In my opinion, the rule is outdated and unfair to the new players. Since this game has no end game, the established players will always have an edge over the new ones. How is a new player with two cities ever a threat to an established player with 8-10 cities. 

 

All other references to this are Alliance Policies, and not a rule.  To even correct a prior GM Rikoo statement on this, because the terminology matters - players do not create Rules in this game, nor do alliances create Rules in this game.  Only the game's leadership/dev's create game rules.  A GM should tread very carefully when using terms such as Rule, Policy, Restriction, Tradition, etc..  Nothing should be called a Rule unless the Game Company publishes it as such.  None of us, not even GM Rikoo, is the final authority for publishing a Game Rule.

 

Now, to get on with this, let it be known that my alliance, Tsunami [WAVE] will not publish nor honor a 10-Square Policy published by other alliances, but only because we do not acknowledge it.  Having said that, we will still follow tradition and courtesy as many of you do, especially mindful of the 20-square sovereignty pattern that the average player may employ, and specific to Settlement of towns.  However, there is already a Game coded restriction in place to settlement specifically, and it is the Sovereignty claim system.  If you don't want someone else to settle, then claim Sovereignty over the tile.

 

However, for resources, there is no way to guard/hold resources on the map other than placing your army on top of the tile and then hoping someone bigger does not come along with their army and crush you.  That - is the only way to define ownership of rare minerals, rare herbs, grapes, hides, anatomies, basic minerals, and basic herbs.  Anything else is just bluster, if you aren't willing to commit an army to hold the ground.  You don't own the "mineral rights" to the land - even in real life that is a complicated legal process and not automatic for the ground just beneath your home, so let's try not to apply fantasy logic here (and oh by the way this is an international game so not everyone has the same "norm" opinions as the others).  In this game, only armies control resources on the land, otherwise we bump caravans.

 

Myll

Brand,

Up front - I am in total agreement that an army should be on site if you want to control the resources. 

You said, "...a sov claim...is a sufficient statement of ownership."  -- but that I would totally disagree with.  Y our statement con-volutes two separate issues: Land Claim/Settlement, vs Resource control.  The Sov claim does not restrict any other player from harvesting, it only prevents settlement, and isolates the tile's sov building capability to the player who claimed sovereignty.  Sov claims do not imply that you own the resources sitting on said land, only an army on site controls the ability of harvesters to access the resources (or harvester(s) on site can indicate who is currently working the land until bumped or killed).

You may want it to imply ownership, but the coding of the game does not restrict gameplay for harvesting actions.  Yes, I already know the detractors will talk about Diplomacy and how important the finesse of it is, but that in itself still does not render ownership of the res, it only results in interpersonal negotiation with an end result of a player being sent an approval or disapproval of potential actions, and even then the players are both taking risk by sending either army(s) and/or harvester(s) to the site, and a 3rd party could even show up with their own army and harvesters! 

It's the "owner" part of the equation that really needs to be dissected in this argument - there is no ownership outside your town, only sovereignty (which is not by definition ownership), and there is control (which is temporary and based on the amount of force/army you are willing to commit).

Myll