Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Cities Next to Tounament Squares
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Cities Next to Tounament Squares
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Poll Question: Cities moved directly next to Tourney Squares, fair target or not?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
20 [38.46%]
3 [5.77%]
5 [9.62%]
1 [1.92%]
1 [1.92%]
1 [1.92%]
8 [15.38%]
0 [0.00%]
13 [25.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Diva View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 416 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Diva Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 16:17
Originally posted by Seadog Seadog wrote:


Personally I would like to see new tournament squares for each tournament. I understand that this would involve more work from the developers and is unlikely to happen. Random placement of the tournament squares would mean that any advantages of being close to certain squares would not be carried over to the next tournament. It would also give us different terrain types each time.

Different eyes see solutions. This is a good one. 
Though exodus or settle still might happen, it's a partial one so far. Positive will always have a negative or a way around it. 

There's a way though, just haven't seen it posted yet.. LOL  :/
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
Back to Top
Seadog View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Location: Shardlands
Status: Offline
Points: 16 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Seadog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 15:18
I certainly feel that placing a city next to a tournament square is against the spirit of the tournament. This is particularly the case when the tournament square is held by a different alliance than the one placing the city. If a tournament square is considered to be a strategic resource and there is value in settling near it, surely whoever is currently occupying that square has a claim to it? What would be the position if a city exodused next to an occupied mine or grape plot?

Personally I would like to see new tournament squares for each tournament. I understand that this would involve more work from the developers and is unlikely to happen. Random placement of the tournament squares would mean that any advantages of being close to certain squares would not be carried over to the next tournament. It would also give us different terrain types each time.
Back to Top
Diva View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 416 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Diva Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 14:12
Now that Tourney squares are permanently marked, is there going to be a rush as to who is going to exodus, settle a city near 1 or 10? 

As for anything else, the cotters from that city are making a boon collection. Fortunately, I have found that some alliances will be generous to return some gear.

I'm not for the city placement next to a square if you wanted just an opinion. I couldn't find that one in the poll.




Edited by Diva - 08 Jun 2016 at 14:15
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
Back to Top
Arx View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 3 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 13:40
Originally posted by Jadefae Jadefae wrote:

I do agree that moving a city next to a tournament sq goes against the nature of the competition.  There definitely should be something in place to prevent this.


Plus one. Personally, I'd like to see a limit on how close a city can be placed to a tournament square - being able to place one directly adjacent seems like it reduces a lot of the competition to a race to put a city down there first.

I guess I'm also in the camp that says it's against the spirit of the thing. I like the idea of relocating towns to be close to the action - that's a good play, but it's a commitment. If you want to commit to the tournament, that's great! Moving a city directly next to the square smells a little too much of exploiting the ten-square exodus rule, though. Specifically, it's a way of gaining a very strong advantage that can't be assailed without breaking courtesy. That seems discourteous, to me.

Your mileage may very, caveat lector, in my opinion, etc.
Back to Top
TheBillPN View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2014
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 305 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheBillPN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 12:22
Cities next to a tourney square is perfectly valid. If you were to introduce a limit, say 25 squares or so,  to how close a city could sit next to a tourney square, the closest person outside that limit would then become the one with the advantage on that square. 

It would make no difference, except for the fact that a few other towns could be as close, and then it would become a game of who is either the best at military, is on the most often/has most sitters in different time zones, can replenish troops faster blah blah blah. The one who won out in the end, and it would happen pretty quickly, would then have control over the square, and would only need to send regular clearings to the square, in case the others managed to build up their troops again.

This is my first tourney, and I'm sure the City-next-to-square tactic was used in the other ones. If you want that square, then exodus some of your own towns as near as possible and fight for it.

Attacking cities is a declaration of war, tournaments are not war. There was a hunting tournament a while back that has nothing to do with the squares, so maybe they could be made to happen more regularly, if you think that would be fairer.
Back to Top
Jadefae View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 74 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Jadefae Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 11:41
I do agree that moving a city next to a tournament sq goes against the nature of the competition.  There definitely should be something in place to prevent this. Whether it be siege or the inability to move a city during tournaments, that is not my call.  However if by siege, everyone that participates in that action needs to be prepared for the consequences.

As far as scouting armies.  I 100% believe they are fair game.  If you were at war (and tournament is mock war) and someone were to place scouts right outside, the scout armies would die be killed.
Back to Top
Gragnog View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Gragnog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 10:57
You want to play tournaments you stick to tournament squares and scouting armies. You want to play war you take on the city. As most in the game are terrified of war I suggest you stick to tournaments or accept the consequences of your actions.
Kaggen is my human half
Back to Top
TomBombadil View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TomBombadil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 09:16
Originally posted by Benedetti Benedetti wrote:

5 squares out is ok, but 4 squares is not? A couple of cities combined can block the area out just as effectively, so 1 city is ok (per player? Per alliance?) but more then 1 is not? So the first 4 alliances moving on a square are in luck, the rest are SoL? Moving a city during the tournament is not ok, but having it there before the tournament is? 1 week? 2 weeks? How long before the tournament should it be there?

More question like this please!

Originally posted by Benedetti Benedetti wrote:

I do think that this tactic of having/moving a city close to a tournament square is showing a eh... vulnerability in the current tournament set up. King of the hill simply is not the same when people have a city on that hill. However, i do not think attacking people will be the answer to this. Where exactly will it end?
Some tournament squares are also smack in the middle of alliances clusters and land claims, but that doesn't stop anyone else from building their own alliance cluster around a tournament square or claiming the land around it. If you are dedicated enough to build a thousand cities around a tournament site perhaps you deserve to win it. Sieging all those cities away would take a thousand times more effort than just competing over the tournament square itself. Sieging a single city directly next to a tournament square however is fairly easy and provides a big benefit.
It does bring politics into the tournament however, which can have a considerable effect on its outcome. Perhaps the devs meant it to be this way?
Perhaps such actions will only end when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, and the honey badgers come out of their holes to play their bongo drums, or however that saying goes.



Originally posted by Benedetti Benedetti wrote:

You kill scouting armies because they are in your view (and not without reason) part of the tournament. I might be tempted to siege some cities because i think that sending troops to a tournament square makes them a valid target. They are participating in the tournament, and the game allows it, so surely it's ok?
Killing a scouting party is easy, you need only a handful of troops to do it. Sieging multiple cities requires more troops than it would take to take and hold a tournament square in the first place, with sieging a city far away providing little to no benefit at great cost, unless that city has its own mammoth training grounds or something. I doubt the large scale destruction of cities would at all be an efficient tournament strategy for anyone.

Originally posted by palmz palmz wrote:

However I feel both go against the good nature of competing in these tournaments. If that a good spot for your city so be it. (without the square being there) But I would like to say those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, once a line is crossed it is hard to re-draw it and say this is the new line.
Lines have likely been crossed in every tournament so far in one way or another. Which is why I'd like to find out where everyone considers the line to be or where it should be drawn in general.



Edited by TomBombadil - 08 Jun 2016 at 09:19
Back to Top
palmz View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jul 2015
Location: BL
Status: Offline
Points: 58 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote palmz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 06:34

I feel just putting a city next to a tournament square is a valid strategy and so is dealing with it! 


However I feel both go against the good nature of competing in these tournaments. If that a good spot for your city so be it. (without the square being there) But I would like to say those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, once a line is crossed it is hard to re-draw it and say this is the new line.
Back to Top
Kazuli View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 05 Apr 2016
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kazuli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 02:20
The concept of pre-emptive strike as a defensive strategy has been well used in history.

Can you:
- attack units that are scouting the tourney square but not on it
- attack cities that have exodus'd to a location specifically to give them advantages associated with the tourney square
- attack any city that is producing and sending troops to the tourney square
- attack / raze any city that is closer than yours to a tourney square
- initiate total war against any alliance that dares to send any troops to your tourney square

Once you open up attacks / actions beyond those on the tourney square, it becomes a slippery slope on where you draw the line.

Personally, I am ok with attacking any assets that have been placed specifically to provide an advantage in taking and holding a tourney square, as long as those assets were moved during the tourney and the player is actively participating in the tourney (by having their alliance attack and/or occupy the tourney square).
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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