16MAY24 Bugfixes: Siege, Blockade, Occupy

my opinion:

what should NOT be allowed:

-1 - putting siege inside a placed city of any player (sma)
-2 - putting city inside a placed siege of any player (ascn)

what should be allowed:

-3 - exoing a city to land where a siege from a confederated/ally will land later (iron/re)


situation 1 is basically only ever used to counter situation 3, but i still think its not good. with the new dev fixes i believe this should not work anymore so all is good.

situation 2 is abused by ascn, they exo neutral cities onto existing sieges to be able to attack the sieges with equipped troops and collect 100% of the equipment, and be able to assassinate siege camp commanders. i think it is clear why this is broken and should not be allowed. not clear if the recent dev fixes change this, would like some clarification @jejune if possible

situation 3 can only be achieved under city circumstances:
a. the location a city was exoing to was discovered and cities were pre-exoed and effectively timed (iron)
b. sov 5 was claimed next to the city to allow an exo
c. the city did not have sov at an adjacent square and the user was offline for more than 30 days

i think circumstance a rewards good information keeping, scouting, game knowledge, and military planning. i think circumstance b and c would only be feasible if the player was inactive and his alliance was not paying attention, in which case they deserve to lose the defenders advantage.

KarL Aegis wrote: The fact that anyone has tried to justify the SMA remote siege at all shows the state of the community. The absence of justice is punishment to Iron and RE, leaving SMA the winner for breaking the game.

Just read this.  

The fundamental is that BOTH sides used GDT to do things that the UI did not intend to happen, and - for this reason - we've chosen to close these particular exploits (now that we are aware of them) and not punish the individuals or alliances involved. 

SC you told me and gc that Sma did not go behind the ui to launch their seige. When you said that, I said "so I can do that too". Only replicating what you said was a legal move from Sma. Which shows it would have been ignored (if I hadn't done the exact same thing, a little different ofc). You could have simply repatriated their seige, and I would have never known how any of it was done. I had to save myself from from an exploit, because you wouldn't. And then I get asked to give back the town that someone else has captured (who did not go behind the ui). I wonder what would have been reciprocated had I been razed.

Edited by King Sigerius - 13 Jun 2024 at 22:32