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 1112131415 22>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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: 25 Oct 2011 at 16:00
Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:

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 Celebcalen Celebcalen wrote:

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
 

I'm not sure the timing of events is actually important at all - it's the fact that both were in motion at the same time and neither had "landed" on the square. I don't want to get into a situation whereby we're "blocking" off squares from people sending armies to them without any indication of why they're blocked from moving to a square (ie because a city is inbound to it via Exodus) as that will simply become a Petition generating machine, as well as not really having any "realism" to it.

If we were being "realistic" about things, we should have whatever army was in the Exodus-moving city fight any hostiles on the arrival square, and if they lost the battle, the city would be instantly lost.  But I don't like that very much either.

I feel that bouncing the city to the nearest unoccupied, non-sovereign square and having it settle there is probably the best way to deal with the situation of a city arriving on top of a hostile force in the future.

I also feel that inbound hostile armies that arrive after the city has been established should have their orders changed to one-off attacks (or raids?) against the newly arrived city, as a better way of doing things.

However, what's currently happening is what's always been the case in the existing ruleset if you actually settled a city via settlers (rather than exodus).  

ie - and this is the critical bit - *nothing* here is related specifically to Exodus. It's always been this way for normal settling of cities using settlers.  This isn't an Exodus "bug", it is the (I agree, unrealistic and imperfect) way that it's always been done under the game rules for settling.

The Peace of the Camp rule is in force, and always has been.  So this situation isn't anything new - I believe players in the past have dealt with the Peace of the Camp rule by temporarily dropping out of their alliance, sending their own army out somewhere on a brief road-trip, and having the alliance attack their city to clear out the (hostile) defenders.

As it is an understood (albeit, I agree, unrealistic and imperfect) game mechanic that has been used in the past, we're not willing to intervene or change game rules as a knee-jerk reaction to a longstanding game mechanic.

Regards,

SC
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 16:13
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:



I'm not sure the timing of events is actually important at all


The timing of events would seem to me to be important in the area of who "claims" the square first. Army or city? Are the other events and their timing important? Debatable, but for now the central issue is the city landing before the siege. I think everyone agrees on that point.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

If we were being "realistic" about things, we should have whatever army was in the Exodus-moving city fight any hostiles on the arrival square, and if they lost the battle, the city would be instantly lost.  But I don't like that very much either.

Not a fan either, but would definitely be realistic.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

I feel that bouncing the city to the nearest unoccupied, non-sovereign square and having it settle there is probably the best way to deal with the situation of a city arriving on top of a hostile force in the future.

Not the end of the world, after the army leaves or after 5 days when the player forces it to leave, you could simply claim Sov level 5 on the square and move again.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

I also feel that inbound hostile armies that arrive after the city has been established should have their orders changed to one-off attacks (or raids?) against the newly arrived city, as a better way of doing things.

This is what we expected to happen when the siege landed

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

However, what's currently happening is what's always been the case in the existing ruleset if you actually settled a city via settlers (rather than exodus).  

ie - and this is the critical bit - *nothing* here is related specifically to Exodus. It's always been this way for normal settling of cities using settlers.  This isn't an Exodus "bug", it is the (I agree, unrealistic and imperfect) way that it's always been done under the game rules for settling.

The Peace of the Camp rule is in force, and always has been.  So this situation isn't anything new - I believe players in the past have dealt with the Peace of the Camp rule by temporarily dropping out of their alliance, sending their own army out somewhere on a brief road-trip, and having the alliance attack their city to clear out the (hostile) defenders.

The Peace of the Camp rule? Would you mind elaborating on that mechanic? So, as the rule is currently, if a player sends a siege or blockade on a city, and some poor newbie happens to use Tenaril's on that square before the siege or blockade arrives, then the siege or blockade will take up residence in the newbies city?

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

As it is an understood (albeit, I agree, unrealistic and imperfect) game mechanic that has been used in the past, we're not willing to intervene or change game rules as a knee-jerk reaction to a longstanding game mechanic.

Regards,

SC

So, based on the earlier comment that it makes sense that an incoming siege that landed on an already established city should have it's orders changed to attack or raid, how will you be handling this current situation? Has Borg lost his city and the game mechanic will remain in play? Or will the game mechanic be modified as stated above and will his city be restored?
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: 25 Oct 2011 at 16:56
Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:

The Peace of the Camp rule? Would you mind elaborating on that mechanic? So, as the rule is currently, if a player sends a siege or blockade on a city, and some poor newbie happens to use Tenaril's on that square before the siege or blockade arrives, then the siege or blockade will take up residence in the newbies city?

The Peace of the Camp rule has been around since about May 2010 and was introduced when reinforcing armies was introduced, and is detailed here.  It's a highly under-utilised ruleset imo.

In order to ensure that the city moving via exodus (or the settlers moving to settle a new city) do not get destroyed by a hostile or neutral occupying army in situ at the arrival location, at the time of arrival any occupying forces are deemed "friendly" to the town regardless of their affiliation, and so the Peace of the Camp rule kicks in.

Another anomaly has also recently come to light in that it appears that it is also possible to use Tenaril's Relocation spell to teleport your city on top of a hostile occupying army - something the Tenaril's ruleset does not prevent due to the Peace of the Camp ruleset - and this is also something we will need to handle more elegantly in the future.

Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:

So, based on the earlier comment that it makes sense that an incoming siege that landed on an already established city should have it's orders changed to attack or raid, how will you be handling this current situation? Has Borg lost his city and the game mechanic will remain in play? Or will the game mechanic be modified as stated above and will his city be restored?

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

We're not going to be making any changes to handle this current situation nor reinstating any lost armies/cities or whatever; simply because this isn't a bug, it's a very long-standing and pre-existing game mechanic, regardless of whether it is "realistic" or not.  This game mechanic has been used in the past to benefit players to the detriment of others - and it's not something we're going to be changing retrospectively.

Whilst I agree that we can all see better and more realistic ways of handling these circumstances in a future patch, for the moment things are what they are, and always have been.

Regards,

SC
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 17:13
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

The Peace of the Camp rule has been around since about May 2010 and was introduced when reinforcing armies was introduced, and is detailed here.  It's a highly under-utilised ruleset imo.

Appreciate the link! Seems some back reading is in order!

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Another anomaly has also recently come to light in that it appears that it is also possible to use Tenaril's Relocation spell to teleport your city on top of a hostile occupying army - something the Tenaril's ruleset does not prevent due to the Peace of the Camp ruleset - and this is also something we will need to handle more elegantly in the future.

Yes, it is was the only recourse we saw based on current mechanics to save at least one city.

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:


We're not going to be making any changes to handle this current situation nor reinstating any lost armies/cities or whatever; simply because this isn't a bug, it's a very long-standing and pre-existing game mechanic, regardless of whether it is "realistic" or not.  This game mechanic has been used in the past to benefit players to the detriment of others - and it's not something we're going to be changing retrospectively.

Whilst I agree that we can all see better and more realistic ways of handling these circumstances in a future patch, for the moment things are what they are, and always have been.

Fair enough, thank you for taking the time to respond.
Back to Top
Koragg View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 18:40
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

 
I feel that bouncing the city to the nearest unoccupied, non-sovereign square and having it settle there is probably the best way to deal with the situation of a city arriving on top of a hostile force in the future.

Since you didn't address it, I'm going to assume you didn't see my very strong reason why this is not a good idea, so I'm going to repost it:

"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."

If this rule goes in for settlers too, then it will be quite annoying in many cases where you now have a town in the wrong place that you can't do anything about except to have someone raze it so you can resettle.  (The exodous problem isn't too big a deal since you can exodus again after 5 days, so barring the 1-2 resource tile problem.)
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: 25 Oct 2011 at 18:48
Originally posted by Koragg Koragg wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

 
I feel that bouncing the city to the nearest unoccupied, non-sovereign square and having it settle there is probably the best way to deal with the situation of a city arriving on top of a hostile force in the future.

Since you didn't address it, I'm going to assume you didn't see my very strong reason why this is not a good idea, so I'm going to repost it:

"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."

If this rule goes in for settlers too, then it will be quite annoying in many cases where you now have a town in the wrong place that you can't do anything about except to have someone raze it so you can resettle.  (The exodous problem isn't too big a deal since you can exodus again after 5 days, so barring the 1-2 resource tile problem.)


I believe it is the responsibility of the person settling or moving via exodus (given that they can choose their destination and time of arrival) to secure this destination in advance with friendly (other town) or friendly (alliance/confed) armies in advance of their arrival.

So yes - if you don't take precautions to ensure that the destination square is under friendly control prior to your city's arrival, the consequences could and should be potentially disastrous - but certainly less disastrous than having your city instantly destroyed by hostile forces upon arrival.

Regards,

SC
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 18:51
how do you choose the arrival time? as that would have been helpful, we had to guesstimate the arrival times. If we could have chosen the arrival time we would have had both cities arrive at the same time
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: 25 Oct 2011 at 18:54
Originally posted by Zork2012 Zork2012 wrote:

how do you choose the arrival time? as that would have been helpful, we had to guesstimate the arrival times. If we could have chosen the arrival time we would have had both cities arrive at the same time

Distance divided by movement speed is the usual way of calculating travel time and arrival time...!

Regards,

SC
Back to Top
Koragg View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 67 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 18:55
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

[QUOTE=Koragg] [QUOTE=GM Stormcrow] 
So yes - if you don't take precautions to ensure that the destination square is under friendly control prior to your city's arrival, the consequences could and should be potentially disastrous - but certainly less disastrous than having your city instantly destroyed by hostile forces upon arrival.

Well, potentially dropping to 1 food (from, potentially, 5 or 7) and resulting in losing all your food, and thereby resulting in negative gold (with those proposed, but not yet implemented changes) and having your army disband is .. pretty much the same thing.  If anyone attacks you at that point your town is pretty much a goner.

But as long as you are aware of that potential concequence in advance, rather than having it crop up as unexpected, that's fine.
Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Oct 2011 at 22:45
I have a question for you, SC.    If you are in a declared state of war with an alliance and the same scenario plays out, will the result be the same?     Shouldn't the armies be treated as hostile against an incoming city if you are at war?   
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415 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.