| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Aurordan 
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
 Posted: 17 May 2013 at 20:54 |
 Rill wrote:
Making water square more difficult to attack than plains seems like people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. |
What else would you do with cake when you have it? That's what cake is for.
Rill wrote:
The advantages of being able to claim a previously unsovable square for food (and quite possibly high food at that) probably outweigh the inability to be sieged. And if it doesn't, then the person can move somewhere else that has another type of impassable square. |
Your options for a city surrounded by impassable terrain is basically Ocean, and probably not even that now. There aren't exactly many confluxes of eight fissures on the map. Also, water sov, while great in many respects, is a lot less flexible and reliable than land. You can't use it for any other resources, and you might end up surrounded by three food spaces anyway, because random is random.
Rill wrote:
The main reason I'm making this point is that asking the devs to design a new terrain type and combat type in addition to populating lakes and lochs with food values and turning sov "on" there and in the ocean ... means it probably won't get done. And possibly shouldn't, given all the other priorities. |
This whole topic was posted by GM Stormcrow to discuss what people think they should do, which I think implies they are planning to alter the situation anyway. Why are people not allowed to respond to the thread specifically for that purpose with suggestions? Anyway, it's not a new terrain type. All the squares in question already have types, this would just affect how the system weighs fights on them.
Rill wrote:
I think it would be better to have something straightforward and simple that might actually happen.
Nothing wrong with these ideas, I just don't want people to get their hearts set on them, then rant when they don't get everything they want, which could make the devs wonder why they bother. |
I think you're vastly overestimation the impact of suggestion treads. People can throw out ideas, and then the Devs will do whatever they think is best anyway, and probably the exact same number of people will complain no matter what. I doubt the game will end.
Edited by Aurordan - 17 May 2013 at 20:55
|
 |
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian
Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452
|
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 21:18 |
Aurordan wrote:
Rill wrote:
Making water square more difficult to attack than plains seems like people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. |
What else would you do with cake when you have it? That's what cake is for.
|
This genuinely made me laugh out loud.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 22:17 |
I'm not going to quote all of Aurordan's lengthy response to my comments. Stormcrow didn't actually ask us to invent new types of squares or to propose how we would like this to work. He asked whether people in general would be willing to make the specific tradeoff he described.
Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with proposing other ways that we would rather have it work. I'm just hoping that people will ALSO answer the question that Stormcrow asked, which is whether people would like to see the change that he described implemented (even if they might rather have it work a slightly different way, as they describe).
Edited by Rill - 17 May 2013 at 23:34
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
|
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 23:16 |
|
Allow the Sov!!!
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 18 May 2013 at 02:14 |
|
1. Should Ocean Coastline, Lakes and Lochs be open to armies in occupation
A resounding YES! from a warmonger.
...and being able to sov it is ok too.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
arnesson
Greenhorn
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 69
|
Posted: 18 May 2013 at 20:54 |
|
I agree with Auraya and the others who would retain the status quo regarding the use of soverignty on coastal squares (both fresh & salt water). Too many players (myself included) have invested in the settlement of coastal towns where the only substantial benefit is the food provided by sov'ing nearby coastal squares. If that means opening up other coastal squares for the purpose of seiging those towns, that seems only fair. There is no reason why coastal cities should enjoy better protection than land-locked cities.
|
|
BetaMatt
Greenhorn
Joined: 29 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: 19 May 2013 at 06:51 |
GM Stormcrow wrote:
Hi all,
You can't currently send armies to coastline ocean squares, lakes and lochs, and therefore you can't claim sovereignty on these squares. (yes, we know that people used to be able to on ocean sov, but that was shut down a while back, though there are still a few out there who have them).
I'm really interested in player feedback about opening up Ocean Coastline, Lakes and Lochs to claiming sovereignty.
PRO: More sov (esp food sov) for people bordering these squares CON: People who have settled these squares in the expectation of them being "safe" (ie "unsiegable" from) might object
Do the Pros outweigh the cons?
Answers on a postcard (by which I mean, in this forum thread) please.
Best,
SC |
Please allow the ability to claim this type of Sov.
A CON you did not mention: These squares can ONLY be used to build Fisheries. I enjoy this dynamic while searching for squares to settle a new town. Food Sov is very important but I would prefer no to have the majority of my immediate surrounding sov squares to be limited in this way. It also makes sense to me physically as property near water is desirable for various reasons throughout history and in present day.
A suggestion: Create new military research that is required for armies to occupy and/or attack an ocean square for any reason. I can make an entire new thread on this suggestion alone so I'll stop right now and say that I hope illy introduces ocean warfare some day 
Edited by BetaMatt - 20 May 2013 at 04:41
|
|
|
|
lokifeyson
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 211
|
Posted: 20 May 2013 at 04:34 |
I say go with what makes sense in game, plan ahead and make sure you guys do it for the overall improvement of the game
get some ideas, those squares could add to the game, or the can detract, its up to how you incorporate them, so please look to the future and the overall growth of the game and what makes sense
|
|
|
|
Darmon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
|
Posted: 21 May 2013 at 23:52 |
Personally, I like the idea of sacrificing some very minimal strategic usefulness of these types of terrain in exchange for some significant logistic usefulness. ( Also, I'm sorta hoping it would open the door for making the other impassible squares more useful as well.)
Though...if the goal is just to fix/balance the coastal-ocean-sov situation, wouldn't it be easier to just convert the problematic ocean squares along the coastline into proper less-deep water? I don't know a lot about the oceans, but I'm under the impression there's usually some sort of shelf going on, and you don't usually sink many leagues the moment you step in...
That being said, I'm still in favor of making the impassible terrain more useful/desirable. At the moment, it seems more an obstacle to settlement than a strategic military asset.
Edited by Darmon - 22 May 2013 at 00:22
|
|
HATHALDIR
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 05:00 |
|
If there is a minor penalty, like having to build a port/dock inside you castle sq, then allow sov, that might make up for coastal advantages?
|
|
There's worse blokes than me!!
|
|
Tweet
Forbidden Sov - Oceans, Lakes & Lochs
