Worlds End Announcement

Oh btw...seems Illy has lost a great guy in sel despite his faults, his only guilt was being over passionate about the world of ILLY.......YES AA....and all because of " only a 13 food square "

Belthazor wrote: Gemley wrote: You always have been a aggressive player havent you shadow1? In fact I remember when I used to play Illyriad and you attacked one of my alliance members more then once on the grounds that she was in your territory, good for her that The Dude got you to stop. No surpise that you are one of the players wanting to attack The Dude.   Aren't you suspended?

I deleted my own accounts, but I still like to get on the fourms sometimes.

Anjire wrote: lorre wrote: EternalFire wrote: How close? Isn't it common courtesy to assume if a city is next to high sov, as im assuming is what it was, its as good as theirs? this is just to answer the question of eternalfire   - 131|-432 sovsquare -129|-432 WE city -137|-431 Res city My only comment on this is that the game mechanics can be used to show that the claiming of a 13 food sov square over 6 away is a poor choice.  A 5 food sov square up to 2.24 away would net a greater return on investment.

It is a good point fluffy.

But I would assume in both the cases that you pointed out that the longer distance sov claims were made though incorrectly assessing the cost/benefit potential of sov claims around their cities and not for any other strategic reason.

Indeed even the leaders of H? are no infallable.

In the situation this thread pertains to I would have been tempted to approach the situation by carefully explaining to the 'long sov' owner that he could claim 3-4 squares closer to his city for the same upkeep and generated an overall greater food sov bonus (and greater flexibility for production bonuses further down the road).

In this case I suspect that the offended party responded the the 'long claim' in a rather less logical manner.

Having said that this is only the briefest of assessments on my part - I do not know the full details - perhaps the 'long claim' was indeed initiated as a provocative move - I suspect my initial guess holds more truth though.

I guess it has been said many times before - but good communication and careful explainations should always be the first moves to avoid causing offense and potentially escalating a situtation.

Just a minor note: the "return on investment" assessment only applies if you're long-term plans do not support claiming all squares within 2.24 tiles distance and the high-value square outside that radius.