| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
HonoredMule 
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
 Posted: 27 May 2012 at 19:30 |
|
I may be mistaken--I can't find the release thread from when sovereignty first came out--but I believe it said that enemy occupations would cause sovereignty to start going down immediately. As for reclaiming it, I can't recall. Nothing else about sovereignty is ever automatic though. Even half the stuff that is supposed to be isn't.
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 27 May 2012 at 22:18 |
|
In my experience nothing happens until you counter-claim the sov. Given that the original post also said that the occupying army would siphon off the resources produced, which we are entirely sure didn't happen, I would not assume that parking an army on a sov does anything other than ... parks an army on the sov.
Edited by Rill - 27 May 2012 at 22:19
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 28 May 2012 at 16:11 |
|
Simply Occupying another's Sov appears to have no effect on the Sov.
|
|
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
|
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 05:26 |
 The_Dude wrote:
Simply Occupying another's Sov appears to have no effect on the Sov. |
Would the occupied party know if there's a counter claim, or should they just assume the worst case with extreme prejudice?
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 05:30 |
dunnoob wrote:
The_Dude wrote:
Simply Occupying another's Sov appears to have no effect on the Sov. |
Would the occupied party know if there's a counter claim, or should they just assume the worst case with extreme prejudice? |
If someone occupies the sov of another player who is not NAP'd or confed without prior discussion, I don't think there's any requirement to communicate before forceful removal. It might be desirable to do so, but removing another army that is on your sov without permission is a defensive act. Removing a harvesting caravan other than by bumping is maybe a little mean, since the caravan does not threaten your sovereignty.
Just my opinion, of course.
|
|
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
|
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 06:16 |
Rill wrote:
removing another army that is on your sov without permission is a defensive act. |
ACK, I wouldn't hesitate to do it when I want it. But if the army is only parked ignoring it is an option, e.g., a smaller player with 50 units is no big threat.
On nearby squares if he'd claim them it would ruin his economy for months, and on my sov if he only occupies it without counter claim he doesn't get XP, and I can continue to kill rats elsewhere. But is there some "sov falling" alert in the case of a counter claim?
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 06:56 |
Yes, you get a notification if someone counterclaims your sov. But say you see an army and you have to be gone for a day. During that day the other player could counterclaim your sov and unbalance your city. You might choose to proactively remove it. I'm not saying that this would be everyone's choice in every situation, but I think it's a rational choice in some situations. The fact that the square is someone else's sovereign square shows up when you mouse over it, so even if people have sovereignty turned off on the map they still have a way of knowing.
Anytime one sends one's armies outside one's cities, there is a risk of mishap. Accidentally parking on someone else's sov and getting one's army annihilated is one small element of that risk.
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 09:08 |
|
HM I think the release note said that if it was occupied then you did not get the benefits from the sov structure, rather than it being counter claimed, which would make sense as how can you villagers work the structure there if there is an unallied army camped on its doorstep.
However, as you say, I have not noticed this take effect at all and also as you know; I have had plenty on unallied armies on my doorsteps.
|
|
Babbens
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 165
|
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 09:46 |
Is that it?
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/coming-soon-sovereignty-brace-for-impact_topic765.html
WHAT OTHER EFFECTS ARE THERE FOR PLANTING A
HOSTILE OR NEUTRAL ARMY ON A SOVEREIGN SQUARE?
We're also
glad you asked.
Whilst a Hostile or Neutral Army is in Occupation
of a Sovereign Square:
- The Sovereign Square holder will
immediately cease to gain any Sovereign Structure Benefits from that
square
- The Hostile or Neutral Army will siphon off the
resources (being generated by a Resource Sovereign Structure) or the
resources being pumped in (in the case of a Production Sovereign
Structure) - see the post below for more details on Sovereign
Structures.
The Army will fill to its carrying capacity, after
which the additional resources are simply lost.
So, planting an
occupying hostile army on someone else's Sovereign Square is not only a
method of siphoning substantial resources from the owning City, it can
also be used to halt or reverse Sovereign claims.
|
|
|
Ancient Nightowl
New Poster
Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Location: NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 38
|
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 12:05 |
"So, planting an occupying hostile army on someone else's Sovereign Square is not only a method of siphoning substantial resources from the owning City, it can also be used to halt or reverse Sovereign claims."
Which seems to bring us full circle and back to the reason for the original post by Dwarven Lords - protection of their assets by limiting access to the area immediately around their towns.
|
|
Tweet
A statement from the Dwarven Lords...