| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Vanerin 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
 Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 22:24 |
The choice to lose a town or pay the demands belongs to the player. Subjugating their city to take resources by force because "its best for them" doesn't really make sense to me. If they were willing to part with the resources to save their town, they would do so. It is not a matter of giving them a way out of a siege (that already exists but is sometimes rejected), instead this is about profitable conquest.
Here is a crazy thought, what if it was really expensive to do subjugation? To the point doing it would always end up costing you more gold than you would ever make from the action. Would you still be in favor of it?
|
 |
TomBombadil
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78
|
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 11:22 |
A demand for X gold and Y resources can be refused. Demands that you should exodus can be refused. Many people irrationally refuse demands they consider to be wholly unfair.
If a demand to exodus is refused with the obvious consequence of that city's destruction, I doubt the same person that refused to exodus will change their minds if you only threaten to blockade, raid and thieve them into submission.
I generally dislike razing cities to the ground if I have another option. But as there is no way to force down these demands when refused the only option left is razing the city to the ground.
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 07:26 |
 Hadus wrote:
Oh, I guess my system was just misleading. I was trying NOT to make it unprofitable, while posing an alternative that does not require the destruction of cities. |
Again is there really a purpose to it? I have stated this a number of times as have others and it really boils down to making it profitable. Everything the idea brings to the table can be dealt with by means that already exists. Lets use an example... You and I fight and lets say you won. Lets say said issue was over the placement of my city to add a few elements to it. Subjugation is designed so you don't have to take out the city... so instead you get X resources from it. So in our agreement perhaps the payment was X gold and Y advanced resources. At this point we fulfilled what you would have achieved from subjugation without the need of a siege. The alternative could be that because it was a land dispute as mostly mentioned in this thread it leaves my town demolished. Subjugation being the alternative being option 3 if added... it has no additional function and doesn't add anything to the game. If you can do it through a demand of X gold and Y resources how does it actually differ? So it likely means that it will be more a source of income... subjugate as many as you can and your empire will be far stronger... however you wanted to add another element to it like a time table (to keep it a temporary thing). How does this benefit the player compared to just demanding the resources? So unless you can explain how it differs at all or adds an actual new element to the game I can see it as nothing more than simply making war profitable in the game.
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 07:14 |
hellion19 wrote:
Hadus wrote:
I think dunoob has a point that being subdued and ruled over isn't exactly going to help the game; after all, I don't think anyone joins the game so they can have some feudal overlord take their cities over. That's why I wouldn't go so far as to let players control other's cities. Restricting them and taking res is less pervasive option. In addition emphasis should be placed on the intention of subjugation being a temporary strategy rather than a permanent claim. |
Even if placed in as a temp solution it would be anything but that in majority of the cases. Lets say that we put a 48 hr time frame on it before it got removed automatically... what is to stop just redoing it once its in place? With the addition of this idea I imagine those that are being subjugated either will be told to let it happen otherwise worse things will happen or would be receiving it as punishment for other reasons. Though there may be a few that might have their primary account do it to their secondary account.
As it stands there is no real valid reason to add it other than to make war profitable simply put. In doing so all the complaints you get about the server having bullies and being at times cutthroat is going to grow somewhat exponentially as they have a valid reason to do it outside of just bad feelings for someone else. Don't get me wrong I don't mind making war profitable but illyriad will no longer be illyriad but rather just a copy of many of the other games people left when they came here.
So again regardless of how you cut it the goal of the idea to turn a profit out of fighting and calling a duck by its only the name it should be... a duck. Its why the idea is ultimately going to go really really bad...
|
Oh, I guess my system was just misleading. I was trying NOT to make it unprofitable, while posing an alternative that does not require the destruction of cities.
|
|
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 07:02 |
gameplayer wrote:
sounds like they should just make raids more destructive, with the addition of quicker march times a military player could hit a castle over and over basically ruining a castle over time, the quicker march time the new crafting has will provide this plus the addition of spells will make placement of ill advised castle a liability but with the current gameplay in illyriad no one is aware of the great war tools the devs have already provided us, the devs just have to change other aspects of the game to make military more of an accepted part of the game....speed building times, get rid of or limit naps and confederations, and a new server to get rid of the hierarchy that is on the current server, certain people are god like here
|
I am starting to feel as though you play this game with a tin foil hat... Even if they got rid of Naps/Confed it doesn't mean they can't exist. Just because the game put it in writing somewhere doesn't mean that because Illyriad placed it there that without Illyriad said agreements would of never came to be. If you do feel this then it is quite apparent that you have never played a game without hardcoded politics where said agreements still exist.
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 06:58 |
Hadus wrote:
I think dunoob has a point that being subdued and ruled over isn't exactly going to help the game; after all, I don't think anyone joins the game so they can have some feudal overlord take their cities over. That's why I wouldn't go so far as to let players control other's cities. Restricting them and taking res is less pervasive option. In addition emphasis should be placed on the intention of subjugation being a temporary strategy rather than a permanent claim. |
Even if placed in as a temp solution it would be anything but that in majority of the cases. Lets say that we put a 48 hr time frame on it before it got removed automatically... what is to stop just redoing it once its in place? With the addition of this idea I imagine those that are being subjugated either will be told to let it happen otherwise worse things will happen or would be receiving it as punishment for other reasons. Though there may be a few that might have their primary account do it to their secondary account. As it stands there is no real valid reason to add it other than to make war profitable simply put. In doing so all the complaints you get about the server having bullies and being at times cutthroat is going to grow somewhat exponentially as they have a valid reason to do it outside of just bad feelings for someone else. Don't get me wrong I don't mind making war profitable but illyriad will no longer be illyriad but rather just a copy of many of the other games people left when they came here. So again regardless of how you cut it the goal of the idea to turn a profit out of fighting and calling a duck by its only the name it should be... a duck. Its why the idea is ultimately going to go really really bad...
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 12:40 |
|
sounds like they should just make raids more destructive, with the addition of quicker march times a military player could hit a castle over and over basically ruining a castle over time, the quicker march time the new crafting has will provide this plus the addition of spells will make placement of ill advised castle a liability but with the current gameplay in illyriad no one is aware of the great war tools the devs have already provided us, the devs just have to change other aspects of the game to make military more of an accepted part of the game....speed building times, get rid of or limit naps and confederations, and a new server to get rid of the hierarchy that is on the current server, certain people are god like here
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 08:52 |
geofrey wrote:
Rill wrote:
If you don't like where a city is, why would you want it to grow? That makes no sense. |
It is very unlikely that someone doesn't like where a city is. Most territorial disputes are that one non allied player(player2) put a city where another player(player1) wanted to.
It's not the square the city is on, it's the fact that player(1) doesn't have control over it. |
That's not my experience. At least 50% of city placement issues relate to concerns about future sovereignty claims. The only think that city subjugation does to address this is make it less likely that city (2) will claim sovereignty where player (1) wanted to, but it does not completely prevent it and therefore does not address a large percentage of city placement issues.
|
|
SugarFree
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
|
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 07:36 |
geofrey wrote:
dunnoob wrote:
geofrey wrote:
City Subjugation would add a new layer of debth to Illyriad and would give players a good way to continue casual gameplay if wanted. |
A layer of slavery to get more than ten cities doesn't sound attractive for me, sorry. |
It sounds fun to me. Battling over taxation of a city and it's resources. Much more fun than my cities getting destroyed, or me destroying someone elses cities.
|
you have a point here, i like this. but to keep a town subjugated, you have to keep there an army whit the order "subjugate". if this army is wiped, or the army returns home whit no other army stationed there whit the same orders, the town will be freed from the iron grip. also i would say you can not build or research anything in the subjugated town, also all advanced and basic resource producer safe food should work at a strongly reduced rate. also, the overlord that sends the army shall not be able to set taxation into a % that damages the town.
Edited by SugarFree - 06 Sep 2012 at 07:37
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 06 Sep 2012 at 05:19 |
I think dunoob has a point that being subdued and ruled over isn't exactly going to help the game; after all, I don't think anyone joins the game so they can have some feudal overlord take their cities over. That's why I wouldn't go so far as to let players control other's cities. Restricting them and taking res is less pervasive option. In addition emphasis should be placed on the intention of subjugation being a temporary strategy rather than a permanent claim.
|
|
|
|
Tweet
City Subjugation
