Cities Next to Tounament Squares

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   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?

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?

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?

Once we start killing/razing outside the tournament square, I doubt there will be a clear concensus on where this killing/razing should stop. Said diplomatic incident you dont want to discuss currently has a StA city under siege, with perfectly logical reason. *That* is where this will end, if we do not stay on the tournament squares.

Oh, and before the warmongers in this game say it: no, there is nothing wrong with a tournament ending with a server war. Just as long as people know what they're signing up for at the start :D

Edited by Benedetti - 08 Jun 2016 at 02:15

Poll Question: Cities moved directly next to Tourney Squares, fair target or not?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Yes, they should totally be a target during a tournament!	20	[38.46%]
Yes, but only if they are within a certain range.	3	[5.77%]
No, destroying cities is bad!	5	[9.62%]
Depends on how much I hate those guys?	1	[1.92%]
No, but I want to place my own city right next to it!	1	[1.92%]
Yes and no, it depends on the situation.	1	[1.92%]
Yes, but only if you are willing to go to war over it.	8	[15.38%]
Don't siege it, but force it to move.	0	[0.00%]
This is a bad poll and should not exist.	13	[25.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Benedetti Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Greenhorn Joined: 08 Feb 2016 Status: Offline Points: 47	Post Options Post Reply Quote Benedetti Report Post Thanks(1) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 02:13
	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? 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? 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? Once we start killing/razing outside the tournament square, I doubt there will be a clear concensus on where this killing/razing should stop. Said diplomatic incident you dont want to discuss currently has a StA city under siege, with perfectly logical reason. That is where this will end, if we do not stay on the tournament squares. Oh, and before the warmongers in this game say it: no, there is nothing wrong with a tournament ending with a server war. Just as long as people know what they're signing up for at the start :D Edited by Benedetti - 08 Jun 2016 at 02:15

TomBombadil Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Greenhorn Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Status: Offline Points: 78	Post Options Post Reply Quote TomBombadil Report Post Thanks(1) Quote Reply Posted: 08 Jun 2016 at 00:52
	Firstly, I'm not talking about cities that just happen to be settled in the vicinity of a tournament square or cities that have been founded to be permanently settled in the area. I'm talking about cities, packed with hundred of thousand of troops, exodused directly next to a tournament square when the tournament begins. This gives this city's alliance a major advantage by allowing said city to clear the tourney square within minutes with its built up troops, and then occupying the square with only a token force. Losing virtually no troops on defence and killing any occupying troops within minutes, rinse and repeat, disallowing anyone else to gather any meaningful time holding the tournament square. This strategy I am not against and would in fact advise everyone of using... However... due to the good old 10-square rule no other alliance will be able to use the same tactic unless it is in a CONFED. All other competing cities would have to be placed further out, due to a restriction of the game rules and not the tournament rules. As such I consider it unsportsmanlike and unfair to do since you are preventing others from using the same strategy/advantage by making use of the game rules. Should such a city be subject to destruction, by a single party that takes offence or even by all other competing alliances ganging up on it? Should the destruction of said city be considered fair? unfair? I-have-mixed-feelings-about-this-but-I'll-see-what-the-server's-status-quo-is-fair? Note, however, that cities placed a tiny bit further away do not give the same unfair advantage to a single competitor, i.e. cities placed 5 or more squares away from a tournament square. They still give a massive advantage, but since they do not prevent another competitor from moving another city to an equal distance from the same tourney square, it does not prevent another competitor from gaining the same advantage you have. Secondly, this poll is not meant to discuss any specific diplomatic incident caused by the sieging of cities next to tournament squares, but to discuss the issue in general and prevent further such incidents. PS: Before anyone says it, yes, I have killed some scouting armies next to tournament squares. Why should your scouts sent directly at the tournament square be allowed to die but the ones next to it not? Surely they are both participants in the tournament and there for the same purpose? I understand that you don't like seeing your troops dying, but right next to them you are sending thousand of their brothers and sisters straight to their deaths. Edited by TomBombadil - 08 Jun 2016 at 01:12