Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - A statement from the Dwarven Lords...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedA statement from the Dwarven Lords...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 20>
Author
Devish View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 13 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Direct Link To This Post Topic: A statement from the Dwarven Lords...
    Posted: 18 Jul 2012 at 21:24
The 10 square rule (the real rule not the whim) needs to be reviewed imho. While this rule was fine a year or 2 ago, it is simply not realistic anymore. The corollary of this is that the prevailing "wisdom" of 10 square clearance in general is ridiculous.

However, any 'rule' that any alliance is able to enforce successfully is a projection of power, and, as such, should be seen in this light. You do have the choice to either abide by the 'rule' or challenge it. This is part of the game. While I don't necessarily believe in the 10-square convention, I do believe in any alliance's right to exercise its own judgement, and enforce their policies to further their own goals and ambitions. I believe that every alliance (yes, even us training alliances) have their own agenda which comes first and foremost. I applaud DLORD for taking the time to explain their policies on the forums, and adopting a flexible approach when dealing with other players.


Edited by Devish - 18 Jul 2012 at 21:28
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2012 at 18:44
Originally posted by dunnoob 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).

Quote 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?

Quote 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.

Quote Putting it mildly, so far all given economical arguments for a general ten square land claim were unconvincing.  If you want to justify this claim at all, above a simple "my 10K stalwarts say so" statement, how about "my alliance might wish to move to or to settle in this range", or "pathfinding could allow to get tolls from folks using a favourable route in this range"

As Drejan stated previously to another, I will repeat it. You missed the point. Economical is PART of the aspect here and yes the points are very valid - to us, and that is what is being spoken of here.

Tolls and pathfinding and such will come into play later once they are active. So for now.. it is good manners to ask.. but one can always try it the other way, we are not opposed to people playing the game how they desire, just know that we will play it our way as well.  Wink

Edited by belargyle - 21 Jun 2012 at 19:00
Back to Top
Berylla View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2012 at 22:16
Originally posted by Avion Avion wrote:

 
A neighbour of mine has claimed sovereignty over a square that has a resource spawner.  Does this give him any extra advantage?  As well, he had troops stationed there so that no outside caravans could visit (I was told my caravans would be destroyed if I tried to harvest there).  I was going to ask him to move his troops but they eventually left before I got up the nerve.  I suppose he has a right to park troops on his own sovereignty squares but what if they have spawners?

Spawn squares usually have a higher number than the max 7 for a basic resource, like 15 food or 20 wood or something similar. Just hover your mouse over the square to find out. 
I'm keeping troops on a square for sovving, and sometimes people for some odd reason send their caravans there and have them distroyed. My own caravans and those of alliance members and con-feds are protected and CAN harvest from them even when there are troops.
Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 19:56
Originally posted by Drejan 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.
Originally posted by Drejan 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.
Originally posted by Drejan 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.  

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.)  

Putting it mildly, so far all given economical arguments for a general ten square land claim were unconvincing.  If you want to justify this claim at all, above a simple "my 10K stalwarts say so" statement, how about "my alliance might wish to move to or to settle in this range", or "pathfinding could allow to get tolls from folks using a favourable route in this range"
Back to Top
Subatoi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 17:07
Originally posted by Avion Avion wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Perhaps this discussion needs to go in a thread titled "Sovereignty Issues Unrelated to DLords"


I vote for that - the original discussion seems at a dead end.




Sov issues pertain to land claims, you can claim sov to ensure that some sqs are for alliance only, drop sov when member wants to land city etc.

there is no need for a new thread.
Back to Top
Sloter View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 16:56
Maybe he used troops to claim higher lvl of sov or some other reason other then protecting res spawn point.
Back to Top
Avion View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2012
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 111
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 16:30
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Perhaps this discussion needs to go in a thread titled "Sovereignty Issues Unrelated to DLords"


I vote for that - the original discussion seems at a dead end.

Here's what I would ask in that new thread:

A neighbour of mine has claimed sovereignty over a square that has a resource spawner.  Does this give him any extra advantage?  As well, he had troops stationed there so that no outside caravans could visit (I was told my caravans would be destroyed if I tried to harvest there).  I was going to ask him to move his troops but they eventually left before I got up the nerve.  I suppose he has a right to park troops on his own sovereignty squares but what if they have spawners?

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?
Back to Top
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 14:16
Trolling or not, you 've readead all the pages but you miss the point.
5 range (your) + 5 range (his) = 10 range, wanting to claim a square at 5 range is not something too special with new buildings, the claim state that you should ask before settling from 5 to 10 squares between the two cities, to avoid fights for the sovs.
Nothing special, the game avoid moving cities in this range too...
Back to Top
Granlik View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 280
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jun 2012 at 13:50

I have now spent over half an hour diligently plodding through this thread from page one. The arguments on both sides are well thought out, constructive and thought provoking. I can see clearly why there is so much interest in the subject.

 

What I would like to see however are some examples of cities with a sovereignty reach of eight or more squares from its base square. Such a city would be a megacity in my eyes.

 

I am NOT interested in conglomerations of joined up sovereignty  areas comprising of several cities of which can be seen around Elgea.

 

Examples please……

 

Back to Top
PirateKing View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2011
Location: ~South Seas~
Status: Offline
Points: 225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 May 2012 at 02:45
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? 
Aarrr! Thar be no better friend than making friends with a pirate!
~SouthSeasPirates~
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 20>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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