Enabling disloyalty

The specific reason for zeroing out the resource levels is that different tiles have different distribution of resources.  The old resource buildings potentially no longer fit on the new plot.  Another possibility would be if a destination could be claimed and "surveyed" before actual transport, so that resource structures could be built before transferring the city.  This ties well with the idea of keeping resource structure levels attached to the location instead of the city, and opens up possibilities for contesting ownership of a tile while it is under development.

GM Stormcrow wrote: KillerPoodle wrote: One idea I saw and really liked was the option to have a nomadic existence, farming resources etc while settled with similar (but smaller) benefits that a full city has while camped but with the capability to uproot and move on when required. I could see it happening in stages, e.g. it takes a week to transform an established city into a nomadic camp or vice versa and an hour or two to switch from a nomadic camp to a fully mobile caravan which moves at some (slow) speed towards a destination via certain way points. In this way some players could be true nomads plus you add the capability for people to (infrequently) up sticks and move themselves when the political situation makes it desirable. One way to encourage this would be to add something like a distance tax to the new trading system.  That way nomads can buy up goods in a particular area and move them elsewhere to under cut prices by selling locally. The trade side is actually pretty much dealt with in the new trade system  (I realise that doesn't answer much but: remote trade hubs, remote trading, remote storage etc are all planned for the relaunch of trade). However, I do, *very much* like the idea of upping sticks and moving out; and not as something to be taken lightly, and equally not something to enable massive "powerbloc" relocation. How about this, as a slightly more fleshed out version: Packing up a city takes a minimum amount of time, perhaps fluctuating by city size.  2 days + x hrs per Y population size. During the "packing up period" there would be certain very stringent requirements: All production queues cancelled and inoperable All units must be at home, and confined to barracks / consulates No spells in operation All trade offers cancelled Any other city-related function, pretty much, is forcibly suspended during this period Once the 5 days have elapsed, the owner can choose to move the city out in a caravan train, but only if there are *no* incoming attacks from any other player. If there are incoming attacks, they must be weathered, and when a gap is found the player can move out. Players can only send their caravan train out to a square that has *no other* cities within X squares around it (perhaps 5?), and if any cities are settled within 5 squares of the target square whilst the caravan is travelling, a new location to resettle must be provided. The caravan train moves slowly - probably around 5 or so squares per hour. When the city caravan train arrives, it sets up and assembles the city - just as it was with all the buildings and research *except* resource buildings (lumberjacks, farmyards etc) which would be back at level 0, and would need to be levelled up from scratch.  This functions as both a disincentive to casual moving (or moving for purely strategic purposes) - as well as a programmatic necessity for the change to a different set of resource squares on the ultimate square.  So, yes, it'll take a while to get the city back up and running again. Any major holes in the idea? Nice thinking, all. SC

The walls should also then be set to 0, as you can't pack up and take huge stone slabs with you. Also, if you have resources with you, then the caravans that you have act as carriers for these resources, so if you don't have enough space for everything you have to leave some of it behind (would mean you would have to stash some of the excess res somewhere to be safe). Also, you should be able to choosewhich resource the caravans should take first.

Also, making ALL the resource production buildings would not be feasable, i think, especially if you are not moving closer to one of your own cities. farms, especially, shouldn't be leveled completely. Maybe concider the ability for the newly moved populace to "forage" for the food that they need untill food production is again up to an acceptable level (since in a large city you need as many high level farms as possible to keep the food production in the green.

GOLD would alkso be an issue, as you would need to set your tax rate in the newly moved city as low as possible to squeeze out as much res from the new farms/Resource buildings as possible for the city to survive. this would mean that you would have to remove most of your army or risk loosing more of them when the gold runs out, leaving the city potentially defenceless for weeks on end. Diplo units would also be additive to this problem.

To solve the above issue, perhaps all the military might of a moved city is lost when moving the city (you should have prepared a stockpile of arms and armour in the other cit beforehand in order to rebuild this capability) and enable, for the newly moved city "new Player protection" for a week, in order to re-establish itself as an economically survivable entity. (the act of moving a city should also be limited, once a month, or more, so as the protection would not be exploitable) And while under protection, the person is not allowed to attack any other city/NPC in his surrounding (even if he has managed to rebuild at least SOME offensive strenth).

I'll post again if i think of something else.

Any kind of limited relocation capability is probably a good thing.  I do want to note however that the idea I mentioned was focused primarily on social stimulus as well as simplicity of implementation.  When towns are "swapped," you need: to find someone willing to swap with you (selling out his/your power bloc, interested in "networking" or just wanting to be elsewhere); sacrifice your capital to vultures if you're actually leaving that area completely; and deal with new neighbors that may be worse than your old ones if you're moving "offensively" or didn't spend enough time getting to know the new neighborhood.  You also gain ability to make big changes in game experience fairly quickly, which makes more reasons to move valid and sufficient.

Some of those social elements are lost if you can move to a semi-arbitrary new unoccupied location, and more are lost if you cannot tactically make a surprise entrance to "secure" territory earned by back-door dealings.  And the harder it is to move, the less likely people are to do so...especially if significant development is lost.  Less relocation => less meeting new people.

Also, the ability to purchase, via swapping, a town in the middle of a tight cluster would revive the chance of having truly troublesome situations in otherwise impenetrable clusters.  The opportunity to gain an city in the midst of one's enemies that cannot be fully sieged makes for strong incentive to attempt bribery and other direct, personal dealings.

Edited by HonoredMule - 24 Jul 2010 at 20:55

Oh, and one quick item to add...

You can only move cities if you have at least two cities...  Re-writing things to deal with a player who is completely city-less would be a hassle.  So you'd need at least one city that wasn't moving, to move a city.

KillerPoodle wrote: One idea I saw and really liked was the option to have a nomadic existence, farming resources etc while settled with similar (but smaller) benefits that a full city has while camped but with the capability to uproot and move on when required. I could see it happening in stages, e.g. it takes a week to transform an established city into a nomadic camp or vice versa and an hour or two to switch from a nomadic camp to a fully mobile caravan which moves at some (slow) speed towards a destination via certain way points. In this way some players could be true nomads plus you add the capability for people to (infrequently) up sticks and move themselves when the political situation makes it desirable. One way to encourage this would be to add something like a distance tax to the new trading system.  That way nomads can buy up goods in a particular area and move them elsewhere to under cut prices by selling locally.

The trade side is actually pretty much dealt with in the new trade system  (I realise that doesn't answer much but: remote trade hubs, remote trading, remote storage etc are all planned for the relaunch of trade).

However, I do, *very much* like the idea of upping sticks and moving out; and not as something to be taken lightly, and equally not something to enable massive "powerbloc" relocation.

How about this, as a slightly more fleshed out version:

Packing up a city takes a minimum amount of time, perhaps fluctuating by city size.  2 days + x hrs per Y population size.

During the "packing up period" there would be certain very stringent requirements:

1. All production queues cancelled and inoperable
2. All units must be at home, and confined to barracks / consulates
3. No spells in operation
4. All trade offers cancelled
5. Any other city-related function, pretty much, is forcibly suspended during this period

Once the 5 days have elapsed, the owner can choose to move the city out in a caravan train, but only if there are *no* incoming attacks from any other player. If there are incoming attacks, they must be weathered, and when a gap is found the player can move out.

Players can only send their caravan train out to a square that has *no other* cities within X squares around it (perhaps 5?), and if any cities are settled within 5 squares of the target square whilst the caravan is travelling, a new location to resettle must be provided.

The caravan train moves slowly - probably around 5 or so squares per hour.

When the city caravan train arrives, it sets up and assembles the city - just as it was with all the buildings and research *except* resource buildings (lumberjacks, farmyards etc) which would be back at level 0, and would need to be levelled up from scratch. 

This functions as both a disincentive to casual moving (or moving for purely strategic purposes) - as well as a programmatic necessity for the change to a different set of resource squares on the ultimate square.  So, yes, it'll take a while to get the city back up and running again.

Any major holes in the idea?

Nice thinking, all.

SC