A new exodus marking "rule"?

DeathDealer89 wrote: And then you raze the town, so your actual city can land on the sq.  So yes there is significant time where it would need to be marked... The rule is very simple the same way people mark cities they intend to siege with armies.  I'm guessing if you don't accept one you don't accept the other.

why would you make your town instead of taking the one you made with your alt? You are adding an extra step, which is why you find yourself with that interim wait... Also what you are describing is distinct from what I am referring to in my original post...  Here you've already ported a city onto the location, conducted a siege, razed a city on the square and clearly have operations and an investment on that square underway. Though your practice is still a gambit, this is not the practice that I've observed and I'm referring to in my original post. I am referring to the practice of sending out armies to occupy a square and hold a square to reserve the location before any city has landed or sometimes before you've even put a city in exodus.

An aside about marking cities you intend to siege, why dont you just siege the city? If you're going to send an army to mark it you can send an army (without siege engines) to siege it in the same amount of time then there is no ambiguity.

Auraya wrote: I think you have misunderstood a point.. when choosing exodus/ tele locations for newbies, it is usual practice for both spots to be chose...

You're having your new players count their eggs before they hatch..  That's like seeing something in a store window, going a week later to purchase it and then getting upset at other customers because it's not there. Do one thing at a time. You build up a seven food city, then you exodus your capitol city to a square making your seven food city your capitol. Then you port your seven food city capitol wherever you want instantly. Then you choose a spot for your exodus city and move that city.

Grooming your players to game with the expectation that others will mail them and guess their intentions is not a good way to bring new players into the game imho. Most players will not mail them I think and they'll end up disappointed and feeling wronged. It is their expecation, that others should go out of their way to court their game play that is misplace imho.

Auraya, perhaps you can clarify something about newb terraforming. Why would you not have them reach 450 pop, settle a 7 food square, then have someone else demolish the original capital, and Tenaril the new 7 food capital wherever you like? No exodus research required, and it's pretty fast to get to 450 population if people are feeding you resources. It seems a lot more straightforward than what's being proposed here.

That would be called a marker army.  

Edited by DeathDealer89 - 16 Mar 2013 at 02:43

i am greatly curious about what might have catalysed this thread.  perhaps Meagh will enlighten us.  in the meantime...

Endrok wrote: There is only one alliance that I know of (I accept there may be others) who publish anything about this on their profile page and even then it only becomes clear after being redirected to their public forum.

yes, that would be eCrow.  i wrote the description recently after being made aware of a dispute wherein the alliance in opposition told me they were not aware of the practice--which, incidentally, i learned in mCrow and predates me, the 10-square rule, and the game reserving ten squares around exoduses in progress.  newness is not among its flaws.

Endrok wrote: I agree with Meagh that this 'rule' is nonsense, mostly because it relies on other players second guessing your intentions!

i wonder if, having found the link, you actually read it.  it does require courtesy; it does not require mind-reading.

Meagh wrote: To me, you are sending an army to secure a location in order to make sure your settlers don't die when they finally land.

that is a purpose, but certainly not the only purpose.  for example, as an alliance with a geographic bias, we use it in situations where a player has several cities to move and wants them to be in fairly close proximity.  only one city can move at a time, so markers will be sent to all the intended locations while exodus is in progress.  also, since we are scrupulous observers of the 10-square rule, we place a marker on a square we would like to settle while we obtain permission from prospective neighbours.  and, as has been noted elsewhere, a marker can prevent a settler from locating in close proximity to an exodus in progress.

Endrok wrote: There are certain sections within Illy who assume that because this is a policy that they approve of then the rest of us are under some obligation to know about it.  You can't just make up a rule and place the onus on all other players to know YOUR rule....

of course you can.  all alliance policies begin as new, unilateral policies.  the 10-square rule was once just a forum announcement by H?.  i have recently been schooled in the resource policies of Dlord, which are like nothing i had seen elsewhere.  it behooves the player new to an area to research the policies of his neighbours or face their displeasure.

Meagh wrote: I have been told that most alliances use this and agree that it's a fair process for claim. Is this so? Do you use it? do you recognize it?

i wouldn't say *most* alliances use it, or even agree that it's fair, but there was a time when most alliances knew of it and understood what it meant.

Teets wrote: I think it should be first come first serve. If my town gets there first it's my spot.

i sometimes think players ought to move off really nice real estate they inconveniently have a city on.  unfortunately for me, they mostly disagree.

bansisdead wrote: It's an acceptable method of claiming lands in Mal Motsha by Dominion members, and too not respect it in Mal Motsha is asking for trouble!!!

indeed.  no one is obligated to feel that markers are just or fair.  they are signposts expressing the intent to occupy an area.  if you show contempt for the signs, you have shown contempt for the poster; do not be surprised if you provoke a predictable reaction.

Angrim wrote: i am greatly curious about what might have catalysed this thread.  perhaps Meagh will enlighten us.  in the meantime...

I would not bring any specific incident to the forums. Anything like that get's resolved privately and diplomatically between the parties directly involved. However this is something I have seen and something that makes no sense to me. the reason for this thread is to see how widespread the practice is... and after reading I think it's fair to say the "rule" is implemented and interpreted differently among alliances and has no clear unified meaning in practice.

To reply directly to your (Angrim's) post, I think 'marker armies' and designating land could be useful within an alliance if the alliance controls and is dominate in a geographic region. Using it as an alliance policy makes sense and sounds like fair use as it helps with alliance coordination and on the relocation of cities within a controlled area. Doing something like this is quite distinct from:

Brandmeister wrote: The situations I've seen recently have had armies parked in the middle of open areas surrounded by other players, with NO cities in motion, by a player who was currently unable to settle new cities. The marker army was meant to establish a 10 square halo for the next (future) settlement, which might be 2-4+ weeks away from even being possible. It isn't an incoming exodus/settlement marker, it's like a stock option that might be exercised if the player is so inclined. I think the strong reaction occurs when other players with nearby cities realize that the 10 square city claim is being made by a player who currently has no ability to capture or settle a new city. This goes triple when the army is meant to represent a potential future city that might possibly claim rare resources.

^^ This. This is what i'm talking about... Is this so? Do you use it? do you recognize it?

Edited by Meagh - 16 Mar 2013 at 05:55