Cities Next to Tounament Squares

if i thought this were an actual problem (which i don't), i would suggest that the game randomise the tournament square each time a tournament is declared (or maybe once each month, so that the devs could automate it and not be involved)--one square per region, randomly selected from all settleable, unoccupied squares that don't have incoming settlers or cities in exodus. it's not a bad idea anyway. keeps the tournaments fresh, stops penalising alliances with homelands located on the wrong side of their respective regions, and would vary the terrain in each region on which the tournament is fought. (...stupid bloody plains squares...)

I have a city near the Westmarch square. In fact, we have several cities near the square (just as many alliances have several cities near some square or another). Sure, I have an advantage on that one square, but that won't win me the tournament. There are a bunch of squares, and alliances who have folks ready to compete in multiple areas have a better chance than us geographically contained folks. Especially at an advantage are large alliances, as extra cities and extra troops confer a much larger advantage than proximity ever could, especially if you have the ability to get your timings correct. In the end, what assets you have at your disposal and your ability to put those assets to use is going to be the main determining factor. Maybe I am wrong, but that seems apparent to me. 

Edited by jtk310 - 08 Jun 2016 at 19:26

I think it's perfectly acceptable to destroy snooper armies sent to monitor tournament squares. I have both sent such armies, and destroyed such armies. They are a de facto extension of the armies fighting on the square itself.

Most of the posts here have focused on destroying a city moved next to a tournament square. If the adjacent troops are an unfair advantage, then why not eliminate the troops, and leave the city intact? It seems that so many players in this game want to take conflicts straight to the ultimate escalation, the siege. Destroying a city can result in reciprocation, which naturally results in war.

Wiping out a tournament city's troops, while hostile, seems more on parity. The moved city is being used as a troop container to dominate the tournament square, and eliminating those tournament troops is an extension of competing for the square.

If it really bothers you, claim Sovereignty V and move your own tournament city adjacent to the square to neutralize their advantage. I think an argument could be made that violating the 10 squares around the tournament square negates that specific city's rights to 10 squares. Any move made against the city itself could be construed as hostility, so the main factor to evaluate is the hostility of the alliance trying to dominate the square, and their willingness and ability to escalate any response, and your own ability to handle that response.

In short, it gets handled by politics on a case-by-case basis, pretty much like every other issue in Illyriad.

Rill - piss people off???? Checks to see what alternative reality he's wandered into...

I do like the idea of the squares being different each time but to paraphrase Diva - somebody will always find a way to gain an advantage.

A rush to Exodus near tourney squares?  /me looks around Utopia

Edited by Rill - 08 Jun 2016 at 19:05