Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 29SEPT11 Moving Cities
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed29SEPT11 Moving Cities
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 22>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 16:29
Good Sirs!

Another interesting game mechanic has been discovered in the ongoing real estate conflict on a small island mass in Tallimar.

Situation:

 A two tile island located here --> http://uk1.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/-290/-830

From what we can tell, a siege was sent at the city on the tile http://uk1.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/-289/-830 before the tile at -290/-830 was "settled" by an exodus move.

My city, Hail Dark Blight! landed before the siege. The siege then landed at 10/24/2011 1:50:24 PM

FW: An attacking army has begun a siege at Hail Dark Blight! (StJude sux at this game)

Sent By:Borg [ICON]
Received By:You
Date:10/24/2011 1:50:24 PM


> FW: An attacking army has begun a siege at Hail Dark Blight! (StJude sux at this game)
> Received: 24 Oct 2011 08:23
> Original Message:
The Siege of StJude sux at this game belonging to Borg will take 12 hours to prepare, and will be ready to begin bombardment at 24OCT11 20:23.

No further details are available


The sieging army is "garrisoned" in my city.

I assume this is not intended?


Edited by StJude - 24 Oct 2011 at 16:30
Back to Top
GM Stormcrow View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
GM

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 16:59
Hum.

It appears the siege was inbound before you chose to move a city via exodus on to the same square, so both the siege camp and your city were in motion at the same time, and the city arrived first.

Under these circumstances the siege would set up as intended, garrisoned in the "hostile" town and would operate under the "Peace of the Camp" rules (an old ruleset that really hasn't been used to its full capacity by anyone so far imo).  I guess it's up to the sieger to decide whether they wish to recall their army at this point via messenger.

It's a very unusual circumstance tbh and whilst I don't think the current situation is "correct" in terms of gameplay intentions, I'm actually quite pleased to see that the codebase at least handled a very weird situation without having a major conniption Big smile

Probably the more accurate resolution in terms of intention would be for the arriving hostile occupying army to change its orders from "set up siege on neighbouring town, occupying this square that has now been settled by a hostile city" to "perform a one-off limited siege direct attack on the new town that's appeared where I was going to camp and return home if I win".

We do also, however, have to work out what happens if the reverse is true (ie the hostile occupying army arrives before the town).  In these circumstances, I don't want to "bounce" the town as this would be very exploitable (town ping-pong, anyone?) - and I certainly don't want to auto-destroy the town (!) - but it might be sensible to have the arriving town relocate itself automatically to the nearest unoccupied non-sovereign square on the map (ie if you want to secure your intended exodus destination, you'd better get a friendly occupying army to hold the square you want in advance of your arrival).

/me will ponder further

SC



Edited by GM Stormcrow - 24 Oct 2011 at 17:00
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 20:10
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

It appears the siege was inbound before you chose to move a city via exodus on to the same square, so both the siege camp and your city were in motion at the same time, and the city arrived first.

Incorrect, the city was in motion 9 days ago. The siege in motion maybe 2 days ago?

Essentially city in motion first, siege in motion later.

City lands FIRST, siege lands SECOND.

In both cases, the city precedes the siege in being sent and in landing.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Under these circumstances the siege would set up as intended, garrisoned in the "hostile" town and would operate under the "Peace of the Camp" rules (an old ruleset that really hasn't been used to its full capacity by anyone so far imo).  I guess it's up to the sieger to decide whether they wish to recall their army at this point via messenger.

VERY unlikely as you can imagine.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

It's a very unusual circumstance tbh and whilst I don't think the current situation is "correct" in terms of gameplay intentions, I'm actually quite pleased to see that the codebase at least handled a very weird situation without having a major conniption Big smile

Definitely! At the same time, seeing issues where the entire server blockaded is quite amusing when you are of the community and not having to deal with the tickets Big smile. I would be lying if I did not admit that I would have liked to have seen similar oddities here.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Probably the more accurate resolution in terms of intention would be for the arriving hostile occupying army to change its orders from "set up siege on neighbouring town, occupying this square that has now been settled by a hostile city" to "perform a one-off limited siege direct attack on the new town that's appeared where I was going to camp and return home if I win".

Obviously, from our camp, we would prefer the above! Our argument being that based on the order of the events, we landed before the siege did and where also in motion before the siege. A one off attack would obviously be much preferred.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

We do also, however, have to work out what happens if the reverse is true (ie the hostile occupying army arrives before the town).  In these circumstances, I don't want to "bounce" the town as this would be very exploitable (town ping-pong, anyone?) - and I certainly don't want to auto-destroy the town (!) - but it might be sensible to have the arriving town relocate itself automatically to the nearest unoccupied non-sovereign square on the map (ie if you want to secure your intended exodus destination, you'd better get a friendly occupying army to hold the square you want in advance of your arrival).

This does pose some VERY interesting issues. Currently, an occupying army reinforces the town. Not a big deal if the army is simply occupying. Now we have an issue with a siege, because even I would agree that it would be an exploit if City A was under siege and I sent City B from 2 Sq's away and "stopped" the siege by garrisoning it. 

The issue for me is WHAT was initiated first. Currently, a regular occupying army gets garrisoned.


Edited by StJude - 24 Oct 2011 at 20:21
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 21:04
The order was armies (that are with the siege army) land first, city lands second, siege lands third...
Back to Top
Celebcalen View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 288 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 22:19
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


(... if you want to secure your intended exodus destination, you'd better get a friendly occupying army to hold the square you want in advance of your arrival).


Whilst the timing of events which may led to this particular anomaly(?) seem to be in dispute and are crucial in resolving this piece of game play - the event itself has also raised other issues concerning "Exodus" (which in it's conception is still a pretty exciting option for a gamer to exercise).

Still. It's a pity that this arisen now as I have been following the battle of wits and organisation between the protagonists, who have been using the full range of game mechanics, available to them, including the latest developments, to gain a tactical advantage. These are the sort of contests that,for me, are quite exciting. These sorts of contest are quality gaming and it would be a shame if it were spoiled by an anomaly of some sort.

As things stand I think that the most important advice given by GM Stormcrow to those who may considering using exodus in the near future is quoted above.
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 22:34
There are two important issues here. First the arrival of our city and second that a siege is being launched from my city and cannot be attacked by anyone or any city in our alliance.

The order of events are as follows:

1.) There were occupying armies on the tile. When my city landed, those armies reinforced my city.

2.) The reinforcing armies were called home.

3.) Two more armies arrived, the first was an army set to occupy. This triggered my WoD and they setup camp. A few hours later the second army arrived, which was the siege force and setup camp.

4.) My city did not arrive ON TOP of the attacking armies. It was there before them. To me, the way the game mechanics are laid out, the armies should have converted to attacks on my city and should not be allowed to simply take up residence and setup a siege.

5.) How then do we in ICON launch attacks at this siege from cities that were not exodused to break the siege? There is no way for us to do so currently.

In short, had the siege landed first, I would understand this situation. However, my city landed first and the siege AFTER. 

I would very much appreciate if some attention were given to this situation.

Borg opened petition 4398 to address this anomaly.


Edited by StJude - 24 Oct 2011 at 22:37
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 23:31
Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:

There are two important issues here. First the arrival of our city and second that a siege is being launched from my city and cannot be attacked by anyone or any city in our alliance.

The order of events are as follows:

1.) There were occupying armies on the tile. When my city landed, those armies reinforced my city.

2.) The reinforcing armies were called home.

3.) Two more armies arrived, the first was an army set to occupy. This triggered my WoD and they setup camp. A few hours later the second army arrived, which was the siege force and setup camp.

4.) My city did not arrive ON TOP of the attacking armies. It was there before them. To me, the way the game mechanics are laid out, the armies should have converted to attacks on my city and should not be allowed to simply take up residence and setup a siege.

5.) How then do we in ICON launch attacks at this siege from cities that were not exodused to break the siege? There is no way for us to do so currently.

In short, had the siege landed first, I would understand this situation. However, my city landed first and the siege AFTER. 

I would very much appreciate if some attention were given to this situation.

Borg opened petition 4398 to address this anomaly.


The fact that the mechanic works this way benefited Icon in the last siege (we had to kill 20k of our own troops) and we didn't see any forums threads about it. Now that it goes against you, you want it reversed?
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 00:11
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:


The fact that the mechanic works this way benefited Icon in the last siege (we had to kill 20k of our own troops) and we didn't see any forums threads about it. Now that it goes against you, you want it reversed?


Bitter Sea that way chief -->
Back to Top
Manannan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Location: Mystical Mists
Status: Offline
Points: 576 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 02:20
Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:

Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:


The fact that the mechanic works this way benefited Icon in the last siege (we had to kill 20k of our own troops) and we didn't see any forums threads about it. Now that it goes against you, you want it reversed?


Bitter Sea that way chief -->

Good shout Kumo... I notice he never EVER publishes bad battle reports for himself or allies, only ones that go his or his allies way. And the second something doesn't go his way he's straight on b****ing about it like my ex mother in law!

At the same time though Jude good shout calling out a game error. Something they obviously didn't think about when planing exodus.

Who wins... NEITHER! You're both complaining in the announcement forum!

Where does that put this post? Right on par with the two of them as I'll freely admit to whining too.... Anyone got some cheese to go with my whine? Stuff it I'll crack open a beer instead! Beer
Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either!

"Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude
Back to Top
Zork2012 View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 135 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 02:20
Kumomoto, in the case of you have to kill your own troops, the mechanics worked as advertised, this is a unique situation where we are not allowed to attack the siege, its inside a friendly city. Here we have troops that should have done one of two things. Either attacked the city that was occupying the square they were sent to , or reinforced the city that was on the square they were sent to. Nobody has ever been able to siege from inside an existing city. This is where the mechanic of the game fails.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 22>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.