| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Zangi 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
|
 Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 18:16 |
|
Allow a check box with occupier and city owner.
'Brutal Occupation' and 'Viva La Revolucion'
Normal Options:
Mage Tower is fully in occupied control. Kill/Fear glyphs won't work on
occupiers, unless they send in more troops of their own...
Diplomats are fully in occupied control. (Seeing as their business is
skullduggery after all....) Basically, 9 or 12 hour cooldown on actions
like assassination to own city...
Saboteurs who can temporarily halt trade functions for occupier...
Thieves who can 'return' items sent via caravan back to the city... while caravan is leaving.
Brutal/Revolucion either drops City production/tax to 1/4 and halts item making capability.
Revolucion denies the occupier access to many city functions. Also chance of blockading goods leaving the city.
Enhances diplomat functions from within own city.
Brutal occupation limits effectiveness of the Revolucion... but, it
doubles upkeep of occupying troops. (Or maybe reduces defensive
effectiveness of troops against attack, since they have to keep the
population in line...)
Also, getting access to the vault / item trove / trade functions...
should take time. Not instant access. The occupier can only unlock
each of them one at a time.
For example:
Taking control of trade functions should take 12 hours. The occupier
then can immediately ship out basic resources. But, items and gold
cannot be taken yet since the occupiers do not have access yet.
Vault, would take 36 hours for control. After that, the occupier can
send gold from the city back via caravans. (But, need to control trade
functions first.)
Items, would take 24 hours for control. After that, the occupier can
send Items from the city back via caravans. (Need control of trade
functions first.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the otherside, peaceful occupation and non-resistance check-boxes.
Both players have to check for this to work.
1) Occupier cannot ship items out or take control of trade functions.
2) City production/tax is at 95% efficiency.
3) Occupied cannot build any more troops.
4) Occupied cannot send diplomats anywhere from this city.
5) Occupied Kill/Fear wards do not work on occupier troops and blights/combat spells cannot be cast.
6) Basically, this is a way to keep the player/city out of the war... (This alone should be the main use for long-term occupation... to ensure the player does not contribute to fighting, but still be allowed to play/grow.)
7) Occupier troops get a further defense bonus to hold the city... (Or halved upkeep?)
EDIT: Yea, basically a rough draft...
Wadda ya think?
Edited by Zangi - 26 Jan 2011 at 18:35
|
 |
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
|
Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 19:17 |
Well, I now found a even simplier idea in this mess called my head  Occupation of a city paralyces everything in there (like the people doing civil disobidience, not wanting to work for the aggressor). The attacker would have to transport away all those res by own caravans/thiefs/armies sent there for "plundering". well, add a time span, until the soldiers want to go home (so perhaps max 5 days), and a cooldown of perhaps 10 days, where noone can occupy (to prevent 3 occupiers taking turns), and that's all.  That stratagem can then by combinated with (the already meantioned) "Plundering", or even an additional siege, if you really want to burn down one or two buildings, too  That way small players would be save, as they aren't worth the effort (one attack would suffice), and bigger players could annoy other big players without destroying buildings (as was GNU's target idea). kindly Hora
Edited by Hora - 26 Jan 2011 at 19:21
|
|
bartimeus
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Right behind U
Status: Offline
Points: 222
|
Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 19:45 |
+1 for Zangi's idea to unlock progressively the vault...
-1 for the "Brutal/revolution" idea (does it really bring enough fun to be worth the complexity?)
-1 to Hora's cooldown periode: after an occupation, the defender would be empty on all rescources, so he wouldn't be worth hit again... if he is hit again that would be because the attacker do it as a punishment, not for gain... if you add a cool down, he will get seiged which is what we want to avoid.
Also, it would make sense that an occupation is easyer than a seige since it inflicts less damages to the defender... why would attackers choose to occupy in an unfavorable condition when they can simply seige him?
making the attacker use his own caravan is (as far as I know) more complicated because there is no current "Go pick up those resources at this city" function.
And I personnaly like the idea of drainning a city of it's resource with it's own caravans... 
|
|
Bartimeus, your very best friend.
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 20:19 |
well, i see that there are many different ways to think about the city occupation feature. Personnally i find that all the ideas given, from the most simple to the most elaborated, are good and can work. after that just depends on the real aim we would chose concerning the city occupation. so that's a question of point of view about the subject. about Zangi's cooldown idea
 Zangi wrote:
Taking control of trade functions should take 12 hours. The occupier
then can immediately ship out basic resources. [...]
Vault, would take 36 hours for control. After that, the occupier can
send gold from the city back via caravans. (But, need to control trade
functions first.)
Items, would take 24 hours for control.
|
im not sure about this idea.. maybe there could be a cooldown, but 36h to wait before being able to steal the gold is a bit too much for me. if you wait 12h before being able to steal every kind of goods would sound better for me. dont forget that the defender could already have the time to ship his goods out, if he saw the attack comming in time... if you add 12h of cooldown for the occupier, he has 12 more hours to send thieves to save some ressources and ask his friends to send theire thieves as well. so, well, maybe, but for me 12h would be a maximum. 36h would be too much anyway, because we talked about city's autodefence: every hour, the occupiers would be automatically attacked by a revolting army. this idea is important justly to make the occupation difficult (and dont forget that the occupier would have city wall defense bonus!). so if this idea is keept, 12h is ok but 36h is very too much to wait. About the 2 different occupying options, that adds some complexity as bartimeus said. But the advantage of this idea is that the attacker could chose a brutal or peaceful option, depending on his intentions. maybe he just wants to grab some ressources, or maybe he wants to hit his opponent hardly (without destroying his building anyway). so, personnaly is say why not, because as i said, many different ideas could be good, depending on the aim of the city occupation.
bartimeus wrote:
-1 to Hora's cooldown periode: after an
occupation, the defender would be empty on all rescources, so he
wouldn't be worth hit again... if he is hit again that would be because
the attacker do it as a punishment, not for gain... if you add a cool
down, he will get seiged which is what we want to avoid. [...] making
the attacker use his own caravan is (as far as I know) more complicated
because there is no current "Go pick up those resources at this city"
function. |
agree with these points. for the caravans, using the occupied ones follows HM's trade control idea, which seems more simple and better than creating new caravans abilities.
Edited by Mandarins31 - 26 Jan 2011 at 20:21
|
|
Zeus
New Poster
Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 38
|
Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 20:47 |
Createure wrote:
I think you misunderstand what seige does:
Once a seige has killed 75% of a city's population the seiger gets a choice between razing or capturing a city. The only way to capture a city is through seige.
|
I thought there was only capture. Isnt that what we are talking about. Instead of "killing" a city we can capture it.
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 21:17 |
|
no, we are more talking about an alternative of a siege. if you occupy a city, as we described it, after the occupation, whatever happened, the occupied player will find again his city with all its buildings.
with the actual siege stratagem, if the siege is successful, in any case the defending one will lose his city: or his city is totally razed, or it lost 75% of its population and has been taken by the attacker... but the result is that you lost your city anyway... and if it is a big city... or if you lose all your cities... you may not have the courage to begin the game from the begining, mostly if you are playing for 1 year... ... ... have you ever heard some old stories about a certain alliance.... which name begins by'"[Wh" and finishes by "ite]"?
Edited by Mandarins31 - 26 Jan 2011 at 21:19
|
|
kicking5251
Wordsmith
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 139
|
Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 21:32 |
I think this would be a great idea
the only thing I can see that I don't like is that the occupied person has no way to fight back... revaluations would solve this.
when in one the peasants are at risk if they die then your pop is reduced for a while until some more drifted back. the thing defining a battle are below..
There are 3 things that I think that should matter in this.
1 pop: the more pop you have the more rebels you can get and the ones you get come quicker.
2 commanders: I think that having a commander skill for this would be handy, something that the more points you put on it the better the commander would be in these situations, for example...
the commanders would make speeches to raise or lower the moral of the city the lower it is the more people would join the rev. the higher it is the less the problems seem important so they don't join
3 moral: as explained above lower moral is good for the defender higher is better for the attacker... the moral would go lower as the list of stuff that was stolen grew higher,also if something major happened (like run out of food) that would seriously lower moral . Though even if your peasants felt like the pits they would wait for your order to attack. If you don't want them to (or you are inactive) then the occupation would go unmolested (I am not sure on this idea so post comments please) and leave... then come back again and again and again...
that about sums it up PS: I am sooo looking forward to when path finding comes into play  |
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 22:07 |
well, lets Quote party!
kicking5251 wrote:
the only thing I can see that I don't like is that the occupied person has no way to fight back...
[...]
1 pop: the more pop you have the more rebels you can getand the ones you get come quicker. |
please read the following quotes, your idea has already been given:
Smoking GNU wrote:
"Popular uprising" or something similarly named
could be employed, or in other words the general population rises up to
attack the introders.Lets say that the pop of the city woud equal the "upkeep" of the revolting army.
|
Mandarins31 wrote:
the revolting system is a good thing, but must chose well how many
soldiers would be able to attack in fonction of the city's pop. or only,
mabe only allow spearmen and archers to revolt. or create a special war unit for the occasion: "armed cityzens"? (*Edit: which would have a medium attack... or mabe his attack will depend on the pop of the city)
|
HonoredMule wrote:
Overall however, I think the defender would enjoy
too much power. I think having an attack power equivalent to the
population or some small factor on it (like 2-3x) would be more
reasonable. The occupying force would still take expensive casualties
every 12 hours.
|
already talked about that. But as you say, putting other variables on revolting army strength than only city's population, is a new idea. |
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 08:13 |
I like the idea of revolution but rather than simple uprisings at certain intervals it would be better if there were many options with varying degrees of effectivness.
Also rather than a set penalty/bonus for a captured city the caputring player can set a tax rat 1-100% however the occupied player recieves "revoltion points" equal to gold handed over times tax rate squared divided by a constant.
These revolution points can be used to: Open the gates (allies attack)
Recruit revolutionaries
Attempting to kill a commander etc
With revolution points being detemined by tax rate squared means that 100% tax gives 10000 times the points as 1% tax (peasants are crushed to the dirt)
|
|
bartimeus
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Right behind U
Status: Offline
Points: 222
|
Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 16:04 |
col0005 wrote:
I like the idea of revolution but rather than simple uprisings at certain intervals it would be better if there were many options with varying degrees of effectivness.
Also rather than a set penalty/bonus for a captured city the caputring player can set a tax rat 1-100% however the occupied player recieves "revoltion points" equal to gold handed over times tax rate squared divided by a constant.
These revolution points can be used to: Open the gates (allies attack)
Recruit revolutionaries
Attempting to kill a commander etc
With revolution points being detemined by tax rate squared means that 100% tax gives 10000 times the points as 1% tax (peasants are crushed to the dirt) |
I like the idea to get your citizen to open the gate for you... so if an attacker occupies for too long, the citizen are fed up with him and the resistance attack become stronger, and the wall doesn't protect them anymore from outside attack because the doors are oppenned...
But No occupier is ever gonna set the tax up: it's pointless, he would gain only a little bit more gold, but it wouldn't be much compared to the amount that have been stockpilled for days by the owner... If I were an attacker, and if you're idea was accepted, then I'd set taxes to zero, therefore I'd get no revolution and I could stay long enough to crack the vault (and get the stockpill of gold). SOOoo , bad idea. I'd stick with the regular automatic attack, and no "revolution point"...
And we actually need the révolution attacks to be automatic, otherwise some player will realise they can bypass the pop requirement by occupying inactives and therfore becoming sitter of their city.
Edited by bartimeus - 28 Jan 2011 at 16:08
|
|
Bartimeus, your very best friend.
|
|
Tweet
City Occupation