| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Daufer 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
|
 Posted: 26 May 2012 at 14:54 |
 dunnoob wrote:
Not necessarily. Please correct me if I get it wrong, sov I would cost 424 gold and 42 RP per hour. If the ruined tower is say a 12 clay square it can give you a 2.4% clay bonus for level 1.
Four level 20 clay pits would yield 10152 clay per hour, and for that a 2.4% bonus is roughly 243 clay per hour. The average price for clay on the market might be 2.2 (or more), for that price the bonus corresponds to 536 gold per hour. You'd win 112 gold per hour by claiming the clay sov, and that can justify the 42 RP. |
Or for a mere 40 RP an 400 GPH you could claim Sov IV on an adjacent square, get a 4% bonus to clay production, and sell the extra 400 clay for 880 gold per hour. Though personally I would rather allocate all the squares to somethng more valuable like food, advanced resources or troop production.
Claiming distant squares for sov usually only makes sense if you have already claimed everything nearby that was marginally productive and the distant square is so spectacular that the benefit minus cost outweighs the benefit of reallocating a closer square to the same task. On large, developed cities where you already have nineteen sovereign structures and have to position the twentieth and final structure for maximum benefit this can be an important consideration.
|
 |
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 10:39 |
Basil wrote:
the cost of sov on that tower would be prohibitive for the lower city |
Not necessarily. Please correct me if I get it wrong, sov I would cost 424 gold and 42 RP per hour. If the ruined tower is say a 12 clay square it can give you a 2.4% clay bonus for level 1.
Four level 20 clay pits would yield 10152 clay per hour, and for that a 2.4% bonus is roughly 243 clay per hour. The average price for clay on the market might be 2.2 (or more), for that price the bonus corresponds to 536 gold per hour. You'd win 112 gold per hour by claiming the clay sov, and that can justify the 42 RP. Slight modification, a 16 clay square and a town with three level 20 clay pits would also yield a bonus of 243 clay per hour, and with less total clay the bonus might be worth 42 RP. With a chancery this is not prohibitive. Earlier Kumomoto wrote that even distance 5 could be still economically interesting.
|
|
Sybil
New Poster
Joined: 26 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 10:02 |
|
|
|
Gilthoniel
Forum Warrior
Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Location: Cuiviénen
Status: Offline
Points: 211
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 09:51 |
Basil wrote:
I know, Rill. I didn't mean to pick on you. You're by far the easiest player to get along with in Illy. But my idea of claiming more space than they need is apparently different than yours. I think 10 squares is needlessly excessive. |
Sybil says "B-A-S-I-L! Stop spamming Rill!" XD
|
|
Basil
New Poster
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: BritishColumbia
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 09:45 |
Rill wrote:
Basil wrote:
I know, Rill. I didn't mean to pick on you. You're by far the easiest player to get along with in Illy. But my idea of claiming more space than they need is apparently different than yours. I think 10 squares is needlessly excessive. |
I've said that within 10 squares should occasion a discussion, but that most settlements within 7-10 squares will probably work just fine; if there are specific interesting sovereignty squares in the middle distance as there was in the example cited, that's something that should be discussed up front. In most cases I both agree to and expect agreement to city settlement in the range of 8-10 squares from an established city (sometimes even closer but rarely closer than 5 squares), subject to agreements about specific sovereignty squares of special interest in the area between the cities. |
Looks like we're not too far apart. I personally think that Dlords' 10 square claim is excessive, and I don't really see a need to stake a claim more than 8 squares, as a matter of policy. Beyond 4, there's little reason to argue, and on the rare occasion that that borderline square has significant benefit, first come, first served.
But I guess we'll see how it all shakes out. Belligerence begets belligerence, maybe the best place to be is on the periphery watching clashing ambitions.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 09:31 |
Basil wrote:
I know, Rill. I didn't mean to pick on you. You're by far the easiest player to get along with in Illy. But my idea of claiming more space than they need is apparently different than yours. I think 10 squares is needlessly excessive. |
I've said that within 10 squares should occasion a discussion, but that most settlements within 7-10 squares will probably work just fine; if there are specific interesting sovereignty squares in the middle distance as there was in the example cited, that's something that should be discussed up front. In most cases I both agree to and expect agreement to city settlement in the range of 8-10 squares from an established city (sometimes even closer but rarely closer than 5 squares), subject to agreements about specific sovereignty squares of special interest in the area between the cities.
|
|
Basil
New Poster
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: BritishColumbia
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 09:10 |
Not only that, but the cost of sov on that tower would be prohibitive for the lower city, and very marginal for the upper one.
|
|
Basil
New Poster
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: BritishColumbia
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 09:04 |
|
Quackers, those towns are only 7.2 squares apart. Your example is irrelevant.
|
|
Basil
New Poster
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: BritishColumbia
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 09:01 |
|
I know, Rill. I didn't mean to pick on you. You're by far the easiest player to get along with in Illy. But my idea of claiming more space than they need is apparently different than yours. I think 10 squares is needlessly excessive.
|
|
Quackers
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Jeff City
Status: Offline
Points: 435
|
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 08:59 |
Basil wrote:
Five squares out is beyond practical sov claims in almost all instances. Four squares is farther than most sov claims can be considered worthwhile. I'm too small a fry (and too respectful and diplomatic), to test the territorial claims of bigger players, but I guarantee that anyone trying to enforce a ten square limit will soon find that that expectation leads to conflict.
Rill, you have 7 towns already, and good standing in a large alliance. You aren't concerned about finding space for your next three cities. But I assure you that space is running out for settlers if maintaining any kind of geographical cohesion is a consideration. Ten squares is far more than the great majority of cities need to take maximum advantage of their locality. In my opinion, an eight square declaration would be far more understandable and defensible. The very few sov conflicts that might arise from that could easily be settled peacefully (or not), by competing for the spots in question.
Either way, as I've been told by a few posters here, my opinion doesn't count because I don't have the size and military muscle to back it up. But if the GMs want conflict then excessive, unilaterally declared territorial limits will absolutely lead to war. |
5 squares is not out of range. 5 squares should be about max that anyone should claim. I'll show you a picture of what a normal map looks like. (Don't know where your at, but this is what I normally see.)  You can see one town up at the top claim a spot 5 squares away, and that player is claiming level 5 sov on that spot. In the circles is two people that located close together. If that ruined building was actually a good food spot, there would be conflict because someone moved very close to it. That causes problems. That ruined building is close to 3 squares away from each town, so if both wanted that ruined building they would have to fight. If someone has to keep fighting for sov over and over, the bigger player will end up either forcing the smaller player to move, or razing that player to the ground. (It has happened.) But since that sov is not what that player needs, he has allowed the other player to move close so they can claim that spot as their own. That is basically how I see most alliances going about this. As long as you don't try to steal their sov, they will allow you to be pretty close to their towns, if it is reasonable.
|
|
Tweet
A statement from the Dwarven Lords...
