| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Faldrin 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
 Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:36 |
|
I would like to propose the following: The removal of range in the cost of level 1 sovereignty and the building just in general lowering the cost of sovereignty. Then the price reduction of 40% will be reasonable.
The result: We will have something to fight over beside our towns.
|
|
|
 |
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 14:51 |
|
Ahh I didn't know that, thx TC. It'd be good if we could view more alliances' areas of influence on the strategic map at once though.
Having said that - I think think the chancery basic res upkeep is very high - considering that (at the moment) there appears to be very little real gain to be had from owning sov on a large tract of level 1 claims - given that sov structures are still limited to 20.
If anything - I reckon level 1 claims shoul be used to raise gold income not decrease it... if you want to put an element of 'realness' in I guess you'd say that cities with influence over the largest surrounding areas woul generally be the richest ones.
This would also give people a reason to fight over land.
Edited by Createure - 08 Oct 2011 at 14:56
|
|
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 14:40 |
|
Also in-case it hadn't been realised as well as preventing other players from settling on a square Sovereignty also shows on the Alliance and Strategic maps as squares belonging to that alliance.
|
|
intor
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 82
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 07:20 |
 Faldrin wrote:
I fear the discount is to little to make a difference.
The upkeep of the Estate will be to high to be worth it, and with only 20 of the sovereignty square having any use but "show" this will not be the game changer I had hoped for.
|
Maybe once pathfinding is implemented, sov squares could cause attrition to non-allied armies. This could be in the form of unit stat penalties, including movement speed. The deeper inside unfriendly territory, the greater the penalty (though it should still be relatively small, like 2%-5%, not 50%-60%).
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 06:50 |
|
I fear the discount is to little to make a difference.
The upkeep of the Estate will be to high to be worth it, and with only 20 of the sovereignty square having any use but "show" this will not be the game changer I had hoped for.
|
|
|
|
John5420
New Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 6
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 05:05 |
Any one else getting this error :
Unable to claim this Sovereignty!
You are currently claiming Sovereignty on 6 Sovereign Squares, and your current Sovereign skill level only allows you to claim Sovereignty on 6 squares.
6 Sovereign Squares is not even an option any more
Sigh must be bugged from the automatic grandfather upgrades
|
|
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 22:21 |
Mara Zira wrote:
GM Stormcrow wrote:
- CHANCERY OF ESTATES
The 2% Cost reduction only applies to Level 1 Sovereignty costs, but if you go beyond Level 1 Sovereignty on a square, the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted.
The five existing Sovereign technologies that related to the number of squares you could claim (Serfs through Subjects) have been changed to now refer to the number of Sovereign Structures you may build from a particular town. This remains capped at 20 Sovereign Structures.
|
Okay, the Chancery of Estates. So if I had the correct technologies
researched and enough of the Chancery's built, I could claim 75 or 100
squares under sovereignty, but I could only build sovereignty structures
on 20 of those squares. Correct?
I'm not sure I follow the "the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted" part, though. So with one Chancery building, a level I claim at 1 distance would be 6 research points and 60 gold. Level II would be 16 research points and 160 gold, Level III would be 26 research points and 260 gold, Level IV would be 36 research points and 360 gold, and Level V would be 46 research points and 460 gold (instead of 50 research points and 500 gold)? Or what?
Thank you.
|
Correct - The Chancery of Estates is more for land claim rather than production advantage.
|
|
Mara Zira
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Location: Arkansas, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 223
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 22:14 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
- CHANCERY OF ESTATES
The 2% Cost reduction only applies to Level 1 Sovereignty costs, but if you go beyond Level 1 Sovereignty on a square, the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted.
The five existing Sovereign technologies that related to the number of squares you could claim (Serfs through Subjects) have been changed to now refer to the number of Sovereign Structures you may build from a particular town. This remains capped at 20 Sovereign Structures.
|
Okay, the Chancery of Estates. So if I had the correct technologies
researched and enough of the Chancery's built, I could claim 75 or 100
squares under sovereignty, but I could only build sovereignty structures
on 20 of those squares. Correct? I'm not sure I follow the "the cost of the Level 1 part of your Sovereign claim continues to be discounted" part, though. So with one Chancery building, a level I claim at 1 distance would be 6 research points and 60 gold. Level II would be 16 research points and 160 gold, Level III would be 26 research points and 260 gold, Level IV would be 36 research points and 360 gold, and Level V would be 46 research points and 460 gold (instead of 50 research points and 500 gold)? Or what? Thank you.
Edited by Mara Zira - 07 Oct 2011 at 22:14
|
|
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 21:33 |
shawdow wrote:
GM Stormcrow wrote:
Incoming sieges and blockades that had not arrived before the city chooses to move away will be changed to attacks on the square that they we going to set-up on, and return immediately after. The sieging or blockading army's owner will be informed immediately via in-game mail when the city moves.
Incoming reinforcements to the city will be changed to occupations of the square. The reinforcing army's owner will be informed immediately via in-game mail that the city has moved. This may lead to some interesting strategies and considerations for both the attacker and defender.
|
I wonder SC, if this will be changed with Tenaril's Spell of Ultimate Teleportation as well at some point? At the present, all units follow the city. |
Incoming diplomats and armies will prevent a city moving using the spell - due to a distruption in the magical vibe...
|
|
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 21:31 |
Brids17 wrote:
| Now says Accept & Reject rather than Accept & Accept as the two options (!) |
How did that type even get by in the first place? |
We have a dedicated bug department, full of very keen people who enjoy their jobs far too much...
Or something like that... 
|
|
Tweet
07OCT11 - Release & Patchnotes
