| Author |
|
Kumomoto 
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
 Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 02:23 |
|
I hate to help the enemy, but there is a very simple solution to his problem... Just leave his alliance and attack...
Here endeth the lesson.
Edited by Kumomoto - 25 Oct 2011 at 02:33
|
 |
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 02:31 |
 Zork2012 wrote:
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. |
It is also unique in that the cities in question are set up on a island purely in an attempt to take advantage of another game mechanic that in all honestly fails the "fun" test as well.
|
|
Zork2012
Wordsmith
Joined: 16 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 135
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 02:34 |
|
But that is also an established game mechanic, sorry it isnt fun for you, I would like to keep some cities and so would the rest of my alliance. Keeping cities is fun for us, so atleast half of us are happy.
|
|
G0DsDestroyer
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Location: Ásgarð/Vanaheim
Status: Offline
Points: 975
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 02:45 |
|
There can be a city made on an island on Earth that can't be taken/sieged. In the past of course. As for the fun factor...Have fun without ruining other's fun, at least to much. And destroying a city doesn't of a player sure doesn't sound too fun for the player losing the city now does it?
|
|
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 02:46 |
Kumomoto wrote:
I hate to help the enemy, but there is a very simple solution to his problem... Just leave his alliance and attack...
Here endeth the lesson.
|
Again, if you and Mana wish to make complaints, I would kindly request you start a thread in the Bitter Sea.
This thread, last I looked, is to do with the Exodus mechanic and its interaction with other mechanics.
|
|
Koragg
Greenhorn
Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 02:46 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
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
|
This could be disasterous if the tile chosen has only 1 or 2 resource tiles, as it would be a sudden and unplanned loss of anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of base production. Imagine landing on a 1 food tile and suddenly you have no food to support your town.
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 07:29 |
|
Personally I say the mechanics should follow logic, if the city arrives first then the siege hits a stone wall and is open to attack, if the troops/siege land first then the city hits a roadblock and is open to attack, either scenario, the best army wins. It is irrelevant what is the current scenario and what has occurred in the past, making change for game balance is the intention of this thread I think, so over to you Devs its your move,
|
|
Gilthoniel
Forum Warrior
Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Location: Cuiviénen
Status: Offline
Points: 211
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 10:32 |
Mr Damage wrote:
Personally I say the mechanics should follow logic, if the city arrives first then the siege hits a stone wall and is open to attack, if the troops/siege land first then the city hits a roadblock and is open to attack, either scenario, the best army wins. It is irrelevant what is the current scenario and what has occurred in the past, making change for game balance is the intention of this thread I think, so over to you Devs its your move, |
Mr Damage has hit the nail on the head. We don't need players trying to score points off each other in this thread. I am a new player but I would like to endorse this and hope that GM's sort it out quickly.
The only only thing I would add is that where a player suffers loss because of a failed mechanic they should be compensated . It is only fair. 
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 13:55 |
Mr Damage wrote:
Personally I say the mechanics should follow logic, if the city arrives first then the siege hits a stone wall and is open to attack, if the troops/siege land first then the city hits a roadblock and is open to attack, either scenario, the best army wins. It is irrelevant what is the current scenario and what has occurred in the past, making change for game balance is the intention of this thread I think, so over to you Devs its your move, |
I think this is spot on!
|
|
Zork2012
Wordsmith
Joined: 16 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 135
|
Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 15:46 |
|
Kumomoto, I think we agree on this point, the siege should have hit Judes city as an attack. That would follow logic.
|
|
Tweet
29SEPT11 Moving Cities
Topic Options