| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
geofrey 
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
 Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 22:15 |
 Vanerin wrote:
geofrey wrote:
I think GNU's original point is very valid, and that is that right now if an enemy player wants to do military damage to you, it involves the destruction of your city via siege. The destruction of a city is much more of a penalty than what GNU is suggesting. |
I am sorry, but I do not see this as a kinder method of penalty. And to suggest that is just spin. The whole point is to make military more beneficial to the attacker and reduce the cost of war.
If someone would like to put a penalty on a city without sieging it, then there are the options of placing a blockade, sending attacks to kill their troops, or sending diplos. |
Actually I think this puts more power in the hands of the defender. If your city is being subjugated, you have the option to pay the "taxes" on your new overlord while you continue to build troops untill you decide to perform an uprising, or until one of your other cities sends a battalion of troops to clear out the occupation, or until your one of your friends or allies sends troops to attempt to remove the occupants.
Currently if your defending against a siege your options are to destroy the siege ASAP before your city gets removed from you.
In my opinion it both adds incentive for offensive campaigns against opponents, and provides a better option for defending.
|
|
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 22:14 |
|
something has to be done to make the game more fun and to attract more younger players, maybe they can add an escape option from occupation, the sov protection is a very good idea, lets make this game more strategy and not just harvesting which many people find extremely boring...easier warfare without the extreme outcomes is sorely missing from this game, just give us warning, lol most of us dont have armies with the way this game is currently played....oh wait i have to spend an hour sending my cotters, skinners, miners, and erbers out, click, click, click, click, time to kill some more npc animals, click click click, time to send resources to others, click click click....gosh i have to turn my brain back on...unclick....please devs, listen to us
|
|
Vanerin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 20:22 |
geofrey wrote:
I think GNU's original point is very valid, and that is that right now if an enemy player wants to do military damage to you, it involves the destruction of your city via siege. The destruction of a city is much more of a penalty than what GNU is suggesting. |
I am sorry, but I do not see this as a kinder method of penalty. And to suggest that is just spin. The whole point is to make military more beneficial to the attacker and reduce the cost of war.
If someone would like to put a penalty on a city without sieging it, then there are the options of placing a blockade, sending attacks to kill their troops, or sending diplos.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 16:20 |
Innoble wrote:
Conflict does happen, cities do get destroyed, but only rarely and only when people aren't smart enough to work it out diplomatically. Right now you only siege someone when you REALLY don't like them. There
is a serious amount of e-hate required. When you dislike someone this
much, you don't care about whether it is profitable or not to attack
them. You just do it.
|
Not true. I can only speak from my experience. I've only fully sieged an inactive and once more during War, which was destroyed in a mutually beneficial agreement at the end of hostilities before the first bombardment. The city I lost to Aesir was launched on before any declarations and it appeared they did not care to "work it out" nor did they REALLY not like me (having never had contact with the sieging player or any member of Aesir that I can recall, I am assuming so,) however I can assure you they don't like me now :D This mechanism would, I believe have altered the outcome in a dramatic way.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 15:47 |
geofrey wrote:
The main complains seem to be that it would be used against players, and players wont like that. I think GNU's original point is very valid, and that is that right now if an enemy player wants to do military damage to you, it involves the destruction of your city via siege. The destruction of a city is much more of a penalty than what GNU is suggesting.
I predict that a subjugation system mentioned would have the following effect:
- Discourage destruction of cities via siege. - Encourage more warfare besides siege reinforcing, and siege busting. Resulting in more military conflicts but less buildings being de-leveled. - More territorial conflicts with not as harsh resolutions. Instead of "we are moving your city for you" it becomes "we are placing your city under our rule." - An actual benefit to military conquest that doesn't encourage players to stop playing. A 10% loss of resource production/harvesting for 15 days is minor compared to the loss of a years worth of building.
|
Agreed. In my experience, siege is used first, NOT LAST. It is not a last resort, no other choice option. Big, "we are the moral compass of Illyriad (you know what I mean)" alliances use it to "put others in their place," which is NOT frowned on by some who would object to this option being implemented. IF this were already an option, the Illy map would look different than it does now. I assume an option that is less costly in diplomatic credibility would be used first in most circumstances. I would be willing to bet that if this were an option, say three months ago, "some things" would be different now. That very reason has me torn on this. Sure, I'd like to see it available, but I would not appreciate having my subjugators still actively persuing "under thumb diplomacy" on my alliance instead of slowly dying as they are now. My view: Without subjugation, lesson learned, end of story. With subjugation, lesson learned, continued oppression.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
TomBombadil
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 15:38 |
^^ I'd much rather be subjugated for a month or two and be forced to pay taxes to my new overlords than have my year-old cities be destroyed in a day.
Granted, city subjugation might become more frequent, but it provides a better alternative than completely razing weaker cities into agreement.
I'd like to see some ways to fight the subjugation though, -perhaps attrition to the occupying forces if they are too far away from home -or (guerilla) forces being trainable to oust the evil overlords when the opportunity presents itself. -And, of course, a relief force of hordes of poisonous crawlers coming to my rescue
Edited by TomBombadil - 28 Aug 2012 at 16:15
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 15:11 |
The main complains seem to be that it would be used against players, and players wont like that. I think GNU's original point is very valid, and that is that right now if an enemy player wants to do military damage to you, it involves the destruction of your city via siege. The destruction of a city is much more of a penalty than what GNU is suggesting.
I predict that a subjugation system mentioned would have the following effect:
- Discourage destruction of cities via siege. - Encourage more warfare besides siege reinforcing, and siege busting. Resulting in more military conflicts but less buildings being de-leveled. - More territorial conflicts with not as harsh resolutions. Instead of "we are moving your city for you" it becomes "we are placing your city under our rule." - An actual benefit to military conquest that doesn't encourage players to stop playing. A 10% loss of resource production/harvesting for 15 days is minor compared to the loss of a years worth of building.
|
|
|
|
Meagh
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 08:29 |
|
taking a walled city should be difficult and should never be a profitable venture. Sun Tzu had it true when he said attacking the enemies walled cities is the worst strategy in war.
Once someone is defeated however, the idea of city subjugation would be interesting - especially since players can't abandon towns... I could see three options: raze | capture | Subjugate. - M.
Edited by Meagh - 28 Aug 2012 at 08:30
|
|
HATHALDIR
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 07:37 |
|
Why not a scenario where all the Sovreignty needs to be taken before its possible to siege a city, makes the game more protracted and another good reason for sov. Would require some monumental battle before a city could be razed
|
|
There's worse blokes than me!!
|
|
Gimli Son of Groin
Greenhorn
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
Location: Cambridge
Status: Offline
Points: 79
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2012 at 06:32 |
|
I would dislike this because people would find another reason to pick on me...
The reasons I don't like it is because, it would unleash the stocked up armies of veterans onto the Continent of Elgea, and we do not want that to happen due to the soldiers lost to it.
As of the moment,resources still have a use. What do you do once you've built everything, researched everything in every town, have max adv resources storage? Then resources become cheap. If someone were to attack a city like that, what would happen? That person, like other people have said, might quit. I definitely would quit if someone razed my capital unless I had a back-up, and so would most of you guys I think.
I vote that we shouldn't have this in the other original server, rather, if possible on another and maybe a transfer of data like cities etc. Because I like this server the way it is, and I prefer it like that.
|
|
“A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien
“I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
Tweet
City Subjugation
