| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Daufer 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332 |
 Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 01:13 |
 Anjire wrote:
If a thief is caught and refuses to take the steps necessary to defuse the situation via diplomacy then I will not bat an eye when his/her city is reduced down to 0 population.
|
If a small player is caught thieving me, I will ask him to stop and give back what he took. If he is an "asshat" about it and makes no appologies, I'll probably thieve him until he has nothing left or until he reconsiders. I could siege him out of the game, but isn't utterly destroying someone because you don't like their attitude a course that most of the community would deem a bully tactic? Especially if they are too small to respond?
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 01:21 |
|
there is no need to change siege.
there is, however, the need for a change in how siege warfare is actually used
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 01:33 |
I see a great need to change siege. At the moment a military path is all or nothing. As I said. A direct attack on a diplomatic player will achieve very little, but a siege destroys the diplomatic players entire town.
You assume that problems should always be resolved outside game mechanics or else town destruction. Why shouldn't moderate resolutions be achieved through military mechanics
|
|
lorre
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Location: Groot Kortrijk
Status: Offline
Points: 446 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 01:36 |
Erik Dirk wrote:
I see a great need to change siege. At the moment a military path is all or nothing. As I said. A direct attack on a diplomatic player will achieve very little, but a siege destroys the diplomatic players entire town.
You assume that problems should always be resolved outside game mechanics or else town destruction. Why shouldn't moderate resolutions be achieved through military mechanics
|
i agree siege needs to be sieged
now how it stands a city that took months to build will be taken down in what 48 hours?
i dunno much bout gamestuff but there must be a way to make sieges last longer weeks or longer
or something.
|
|
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 01:52 |
lorre wrote:
i agree siege needs to be sieged
now how it stands a city that took months to build will be taken down in what 48 hours?
i dunno much bout gamestuff but there must be a way to make sieges last longer weeks or longer
or something.
|
I already put in my suggestion for how to do this earlier in the thread. Guess I'll go find the suggestions forum.
|
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 02:21 |
Erik Dirk wrote:
I see a great need to change siege. At the moment a military path is all or nothing. As I said. A direct attack on a diplomatic player will achieve very little, but a siege destroys the diplomatic players entire town.
You assume that problems should always be resolved outside game mechanics or else town destruction. Why shouldn't moderate resolutions be achieved through military mechanics
|
once saboteurs will be able to interact whit sieges, this will change
|
|
Jane DarkMagic
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 554 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 03:41 |
If you attack medium-big players no one will criticize you.. yes, you may get crushed since they generally know how to play the game, but much for fun than starting a war with a clueless newb. Kurfist, you and StJude have post similar threads in the past week.. Why don't you two have an all out war and try and destroy each other? It could be a good time and interesting feud.
Love,
Jane DM
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 03:43 |
Jane DarkMagic wrote:
If you attack medium-big players no one will criticize you.. yes, you may get crushed since they generally know how to play the game, but much for fun than starting a war with a clueless newb. Kurfist, you and StJude have post similar threads in the past week.. Why don't you two have an all out war and try and destroy each other? It could be a good time and interesting feud.
Love,
Jane DM
|
As previously requested, if you have an issue with specific individuals and/or alliances, I would ask that you start a thread in the Bitter Sea.
|
|
Jane DarkMagic
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 554 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 03:47 |
|
This is the bitter sea. I was replying to the original post by Kurfist.
|
|
Kurfist
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824 |
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 14:27 |
|
Hey look I see my name from here! No one?
aww
Because Jane, For the past...8 months ive been whispering, and biding, and "dying" for my cause. Illy has already been globally dominated and i'd love to see an illy revolution sprak upin the next few years. That doesn't make me a troll, it makes me a player who's willing to risk himself and his friends "who will do so on their own accord" for the future of illy. and it brings a hefty war to anyone still here in 1-2 years.
Back to topic.
A saboteur that can destroy siege engines would be cool, how to make it so the attacking army has a chance to defend itself though..
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
|
Tweet
whaever