| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
TomBombadil 
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78 |
 Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 00:35 |
 Hewman wrote:
Recap:
- X square radius
settlement prohibition - REASONABLE, generally accepted.
- X square radius
military occupation prohibition - UNreasonable,
unless the occupation is a siege, blockade, or is on your sov. square.
- X square radius
harvesting prohibition - UNreasonable, unless you have sov. on that square.
Does anyone disagree with these principles? Let's get a discussion and perhaps even a debate going so we at least know where the rest of the community stands on this issue... cuz it's not going away.
|
Some counterexamples:
- X square radius
military occupation prohibition :
Historically I don't believe anyone has ever liked seeing a foreign army march through their own lands without permission, be it barren wasteland or lush golden fields.
- X square radius
harvesting prohibition:
If there are 2 rare mines with 5 alliance cities within 7 squares of both, and these in turn are surrounded by a large alliance cluster with the closest non-alliance player being more than 60 squares away, why should we claim sov or even keep armies on it just to show that it is ours?
Doing either would just create unnecessary upkeep cost.
Regarding it as not being owned simply because there is not sov on it would be unwise.
In opposition to this, coming as an outsider from 60 squares away and claiming sovereignty on these two mines would in no way be regarded as any form of acknowledged ownership from the surrounding alliance.
Any real declaration of ownership is only valid as long as you are capable of enforcing it, be it militarily, diplomatically or just by mutual agreement on terms of cultural norms.
Edited by TomBombadil - 07 Sep 2012 at 00:39
|
 |
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 00:40 |
Drejan wrote:
Hewman wrote:
The purpose of this post is not to merely ruminate on my personal views on land claim
|
followed by your personal views.
I do not understand why people say sov. is the real method to claim.
Sov is a flag, you can place flags on the moon that does not make it yours, and if you have no flag in a populated territory is this no-one land?
Sovreignity is just a number in a sandbox, and not a cheap one, when sov will cost lot lot lot lot lot less i will agree on what you say.
Claim:
|
Posting my reply to a previous post because it answers this:
Hadus wrote:
SugarFree wrote:
sov does not make it yours either |
Harvesting on someone else's sov spot is like taking flowers from their front yard: sure, it isn't well protected like the valuables locked in their house, and maybe you'll get away with it once in a while, but the community consensus is that it's their property, and trespassing will by frowned upon/punished.
|
It's is the real method to claim it. You are making a visible icon showing it's yours, and are paying by the hour to maintain that. It's the equivalent of a property deed in real life. Are you gonna tell the cops that you had a right to steal the flowers because owning the deed still doesn't mean he owns the property?
|
|
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 00:58 |
|
real method ? no. it's a flag like the angry beard on legs said.
|
|
TomBombadil
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 00:58 |
Problem is in a Feudal society the troops are the cops, and my troops don't like people claiming to own the flowers growing on my own lawn just because those people claim they have paid for a property deed.
You paying who for the property deed now? Certainly not me or any authority that governs me.
Your property deed would only be legally significant to me if it was enforced by the King's men. That is if we even have the same king.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 01:00 |
Drejan wrote:
Actually the claim is 5 square, and people should ask in 10 range Rill.
And we have many situations were we cooabitate more than happy under 5 square range with others.
Most of the time the issue you speak about are created by people who harvast 50-100 square from their cities near yours, or place armies near your cities.
Here is my question: why should i allow a land claim becouse someone placed 2-3 troops on it?
|
Drejan, earlier in global chat folks from Dlords were saying they would automatically kill any army occupying within 10 squares of a DLords city. Personally, I think the DLords' city policy is quite reasonable. The policy on people who have encampments, for example after killing an animal, seems a bit silly to me.
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 01:05 |
|
i don't know if the dwarfs are that strong or if they just blow hot air, but i would also kill everything in my 10 sq if camped whit no warning.
Edited by SugarFree - 07 Sep 2012 at 01:05
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 01:17 |
|
Sugarfree, everyone knows you are Kilotov.
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 01:33 |
for real? lol
i just told one person who i really am on PM, and it looks like he didn't talk either XD
why you so focused on this kilotov?
Edited by SugarFree - 07 Sep 2012 at 01:35
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 02:33 |
Drejan wrote:
Here is my question: why should i allow a land claim becouse someone placed 2-3 troops on it?
|
Because defending with a lot of troops on random terrain is a good way to loose a lot of troops. Logically, those troops may be the tripwire for a much larger force. If I see 2-3 troops, I assume that person wants that location and may (size dependent) respond with a more troops than I want to fight if I kill those 2-3. So, if it were me, the reasons I would "allow" (not contest) the land claim are:
I feel the claim is right and the number of troops is irrelevant.
or
I feel the claim is wrong but I feel the number of troops backing the claim is more than I wantto fight.
It seems simple.
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545 |
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 02:38 |
If you read my earlier post, TomBombadil and Sugarfree, I said I am a supporter of "You own what you can hold." If you can hold the 10 square radius around you, then you own it.
But the same applies to sovereignty, and sovereignty is considered a real claim by a very strong consensus among a great number of players and alliances--who are willing to enforce this when one of their friends or members has their sovereignty challenged by an antagonist proclaiming it is nothing but a "flag."
Is that a big enough King's army?
@TomBombadil: Considering sov a real claim and saying it cannot be challenged/counter-claimed are two different things. I was stating the former, not the latter.
Rill wrote:
Sugarfree, everyone knows you are Kilotov. |
Relevance to the topic? Just wondering.
Edited by Hadus - 07 Sep 2012 at 02:44
|
|
|
|
Tweet
Valid Land Claims in the New Era