A statement from the Dwarven Lords...

dunnoob wrote: Only a very special square at range 5 would justify to claim it for economical reasons.  There are only twelve squares in distance 5 from a given city, and each of these twelve squares corresponds to one square in distance 10, where settling a new city could result in one arguably "disputed" square in range 5 from both cities.  OTOH the old city would be able to claim this square for whatever reasons including extreme prejudice before the new city without a dubious general ten square land claim.

Then in your own account above it would behoove the new city wishing to settle, to first speak with the older city - personally I would not like to see a city wiped out just because they have no courtesy or at least common sense . The fact that we wish discussion should let you know we are willing to speak on the issue and in fact have done this quite a few times since the posting of this thread and all have worked out quite well. The problem with just plopping a new city where they feel like it is that it doesn't know what the older one will do or if it will allow it stay there (or their alliance for that matter).

The old city should be also able to win any fights on this one potentially special square, especially if it is backed by a powerful alliance such as DLord.

This is true, so I don't understand why the desperate need for self destruction? If they new city will simply relay intentions and see if it will work with/for older city in question - why take the chance of the new city's obliteration?

Only teleporting cities into a wide ten square radius around existing cities is impossible, because nobody wants a huge city to pop up near to their growing settlements.  That rule is also used for a less threatening exodus (arriving at pop below 2K as a sitting duck for 5 days.)

Thus you agree the 'Rule' IS in fact used for existing cities. Therefore what you have is our statement based off of an established 'game rule' with modifications to fit our desire. The only two aspects of a city being placed without the 'Rule' in effect (and not trumped by lvl 5 sov) is a newbie city and a settler made city.. both of which begin from scratch and building these kinds of cities in the shadow of an older one (as you fairly mention) leave said city at the mercy of the larger one. Since newbs are protected by the common good (and Dlord strongly upholds it).. you have again, a city placing itself in danger if it has not first spoken with the old city.

Drejan wrote: 5 range (your) + 5 range (his) = 10 range, wanting to claim a square at 5 range is not something too special

Only a very special square at range 5 would justify to claim it for economical reasons.  There are only twelve squares in distance 5 from a given city, and each of these twelve squares corresponds to one square in distance 10, where settling a new city could result in one arguably "disputed" square in range 5 from both cities.  OTOH the old city would be able to claim this square for whatever reasons including extreme prejudice before the new city without a dubious general ten square land claim.

Drejan wrote: to avoid fights for the sovs

The old city should be also able to win any fights on this one potentially special square, especially if it is backed by a powerful alliance such as DLord.

Drejan wrote: Nothing special, the game avoid moving cities in this range too...

In fact it does not avoid to place new settlements in any distance from old cities.  

Maybe he used troops to claim higher lvl of sov or some other reason other then protecting res spawn point.

Trolling or not, you 've readead all the pages but you miss the point.

Planting an army on another player's sov with the intention of claiming is quite costly.  Dev's, can we please have a "graffiti" skill that would simply trash and mar their land instead?