| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Aurordan 
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
 Posted: 16 May 2013 at 03:59 |
|
I would like to see it harder to defend than just plains, personally. It makes sense that a narrow strip of beach should be harder to hold on to than a solid square of land anyway. This seems like a fair compromise between completely impassable and fully open too.
|
 |
Llyr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 267
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 04:02 |
|
Personally I don't care, but keep in mind that a major change of this nature in the game mechanics (almost) always annoys more people than it pleases. And the annoyed ones will be louder.
|
|
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 04:04 |
|
I would tend to say give it the same defensive stats as plains, or perhaps even worse. Then give attackers an even bigger advantage. It should be pretty easy to shoot swordsmen wading through shallow water, for example.
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 04:35 |
 Llyr wrote:
Personally I don't care, but keep in mind that a major change of this nature in the game mechanics (almost) always annoys more people than it pleases. And the annoyed ones will be louder. |
Weirdly, I think more people will be supportive than not. But I'm willing to be corrected.
Now, if we start playing with the defensibility (plains vs a new "beach" terrain-type) then I think you're spot on with your analysis...
Again, totally willing to be surprised on that too.
SC
EDIT: Bearing in mind that any moves towards a "beach"-type terrain would not just be limited to these squares in question - they'd be applicable to all coastline sov, including existing.
I don't want to derail the discussion though; it seems to me like there's two questions here:
1. Should Ocean Coastline, Lakes and Lochs be open to armies in occupation 2. Should all coastline behave differently from Plains in terms of terraintype
EDIT2! In case it's not clear, right now in this thread I'd like to focus on question 1 above! Please start a new thread for Question 2!
Best,
SC
Edited by GM Stormcrow - 16 May 2013 at 04:51
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 05:17 |
1. Yes - with plains as the terrain type to begin with.
2. Maybe - needs some serious thought.
3. Would be great to do something more than Fishery with water squares...
KP
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 05:36 |
I say go for it.
Whether you choose plains or some special beach terrain they will still be easily massacred. So for the city itself while it doesn't have perfect defense it still has awesome defense. And the ability to add say 40% food outweighs.
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 06:33 |
Random thoughts on point 1...
This wouldn't impact the defensibility of inland areas much: 'zero-squares' tend to be scattered, so enabling them for occupation would result in a small relative increase in the number of squares that may be occupied by blockade/siege, but (as already mentioned above) the city would gain the squares' potential for sov building.
I don't think it's worth discriminating which unit types may occupy zero-squares; we assume that siege engines can be floated.
Perhaps there should be an attack penalty for all-water terrain, especially for cavalry, unless such squares are deemed "to have a loch in them" rather than being "totally loch" for example.
The biggest change would be for those who settled adjacent to coast, especially tiny islands or peninsulas. Maybe look at those cases.
Are island cities currently useful? One might think they (with 4 or less sov-claimable squares) are currently 'last bastion' strongholds, or even that having many such cities makes a player indestructible, BUT such a policy cannot work long-term for a player, because it would severely limit their population count for settling new cities. I therefore don't think it's much of a loss to disturb the security of these cities.
Also, take Pathfinding™ into consideration. Opening zero-squares to occupation means that they can also be traversed, assumedly at a high weighting cost (therefore slowly). If a city may use catapults as outward-facing weapons to take pot-shots at hostile armies, AND armies risk bombardment if they stray into sovereign territory within range (distance<=1), THEN we create a new game dynamic by opening up zero-squares to occupation.
Sov buildings: Perhaps there should be a cost for building on these tricky squares, say a hefty research item ("Deep pile foundations"), or double the building time and cost and maintenance? If you like, this tech could slightly reduce the probability of a siege damage for inland cities.
|
|
|
|
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 523
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 09:16 |
Since many people have settled next to coastal ocean squares and claimed food sov on them, I think they should be allowed to continue. If they weren't supposed to be sov-able, they shouldn't have been given food values in the first place.
As for impassables, I'm less convinced. Perhaps, if there were new researches to make it convincing, I'd be happier with the idea.. but are we later going to do the same for volcanoes and fiery mountains? Seems like one rule for one, another for others. Some people will benefit, others will feel they have been discriminated against because their impassable tiles are still impassable.
|
|
Yhina
Greenhorn
Joined: 04 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 61
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 09:55 |
|
I believe they would enjoy an extra sov. Most people had to choose the lake penalty because there was not much else to choose from. Either way, whether you have 7 or 8 siegeable tiles doesnt make any serious diference . It did when it was either coastal or not (for tiny island that were no siegeable), but its not like towns are going to be full surrouded by lochs/lakes ,are they?
Plains+ sov penalty is quite harsh already, and as SC mentioned, the terrain modifiers should be addressed in a diferent topic.
And if the loch is hard to defend, no worries, they ll pick any of the other 7 available tiles... it's not like they don't have any choice ...
|
|
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
Posted: 16 May 2013 at 11:03 |
|
Sov option without doubt.
Ultimately I feel that "unsiegable cities" are a luxury which Illy can't well afford in the long run. Undermines the game and seems irrational.
|
|
"FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP
|
|
Tweet
Forbidden Sov - Oceans, Lakes & Lochs
