City Occupation
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=1477
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 13:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: City Occupation
Posted By: Smoking GNU
Subject: City Occupation
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2011 at 23:12
|
I've come to the conclusion that we need a few more ways to assault cities above and beyonf the "attack, raid and siege" options. Attacks and raidssteal res and kill soldiers, but do little else to adversely affect the enemy city. Sieges kill cities, which leads to people quitting the game, which is not good for anyone. I suggest a way of attacking a city which negatively influences it for a period of time while still keeping the option open for the affected individual to shake off the affect. Namely, city occupation (or subjugation). You send in an army to "occupy" (or another researchable stratagem) for a lenth of time, with the max limit being 15 days. if it wins the battle, it occupies the city. The armies then proceeds to disrupt the economy of the city, namely: All resource production is halved (except food) (if this is possible later on, then you could send caravans to the occupied city if you are doing the occupation to "steal" the res not being produced for the city), mana production is halted and all spells cancelled, any positive gold production is sent to the occupier, any non-warrior prod item production time is slowed down and any war item (armour, weapons, saddles) ar halted completely. No diplo or Military unit productions will be possible, but you keep your diplo units) The person being occupied will then have the option of kicking off the enemy army from his city from his other city garrisons (if he has any). If these are not available to him, an option like "sally forth" in nature may be available to him. "Popular uprising" or something similarly named could be employed, or in other words the general population rises up to attack the introders. Lets say that the pop of the city woud equal the "upkeep" of the revolting army. Then this upkeep will be randomly distributed in units of the city races soldiers (say, if 300 pop, then it randomly separates the 300 upkeep in random dwarf units, if youre a dwarf). Depending of the random "army" generated, you can either kick the offending occupier off or the revolt can be crushed. This can be done once every 12 hours. To avoid someone occupying someone else constantly to prevent them from there would be a 1 week gap from the end of one occupation till you can send the next army, and only 1/2 of the cities of a person can be occupied at any one time (minimum of 1 city) Any other suggestions? |
Replies:
Posted By: Zeus
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 01:33
| I like it but instead of 15 days you control the city. Now you may only take 2 citys but if you lose those citys then you can retake them however many times you want. If the previous owner revolts then there are different soldiers and classes. The previous owner chooses the make up but there are restrictions like it takes a while to make army and all the units are very basic with few being advanced. And they can do this only twice before they lose that city. Now you can do raids in the city to try and put down the revolts before they happen. After they revolt twice or lets say 20 days the city is yours and you can do all you want to it. Your first city can only be held for 10 days or not at all. |
Posted By: some random guy
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 01:57
|
How about the city is completely under your control except for unit production? The old owner couldn't send caravans to or from their (former) city, but they could still make diplomatic and military units. The production page would have 2 options at the top: 1Hide, and 2Fight. When a new military unit is made, if it is in "fight" mode it automatically attacks the occupying army with 2 times its normal stats. If it is in "hide" mode it is added to the unit pool, and armies can be organized as usual. When an army is ready to be used, a sally forth can be used, and again the units attack with twice their normal stats. If a city has been occupied for 30 days, and the capturing person has sufficient population to get another city, they may capture the city. ------------- Soon, very soon, my name will become synonymous with chicken alfredo.... mmm.... chicken alfredo.... |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 03:01
| +1 (to GNU's idea, not so much the alternations) |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 07:48
Second ^^. |
HonoredMule wrote:Posted By: flipper
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 08:24
I like it Smoke - I always knew you were more than a pretty face (for a dwarf at least). 
|
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 08:33
| In addition I think the 'Occupation' concept provides the opportunity to resurrect/explore the 'Blockade' and 'Blockade Running' features which are currently basically dormant. |
Posted By: Smoking GNU
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 08:36
| You mean like you blockade the Occupying army (in the city) so it won't get reinforcements or send in caravans to steal the res? Maybe even prevent the gold from being siphoned off. |
Posted By: Sgt..Shanks
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 09:28
|
And Hey, were there options like this, Cyan amongst others would still be playing!! Def. needs looking into since its almost impossible to defend from a siege... (unless you are some kinda part robot,  super human)
|
Posted By: Drejan
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 12:17
| Nice idea! Force, forcing people to leave should be last resource. |
Posted By: Smoking GNU
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 12:45
|
The GMs would ESPECIALLY want to impliment this, i think, since people leaving because they were siege can't be good for the game reputation. *nudges SC* |
Posted By: King EAM
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 12:54
Great idea!!! If the GMs do make it an option I think it should be researched near the same level as sieging since this would be a powerful thing. ------------- "It's hard to know until you're a Crow" |
Posted By: Lionz Heartz
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 13:31
|
Should there also be a cooldown on that occupy a city idea?
As in a player can only occupy a town 14 days out of the month I can still see players quitting over not being able to take control back on their town. However, I am all for this feature compared to sieges because people do quit over it Hmmm... and maybe when a player does take over another player's town for 14 days, the player that took it over will then be able to tax the player's city at 25% for another month. I like the idea of a city revolt based on pop size... being able to use this just like a sally forth with the same cool down. But, instead of needing say 28k army to fight off a revolt from a 25k city, a city can only use half of its city population as a military force. I feel it would be hard to take over a town that has 20k plus pop over a period of time. So from 20k pop to 10k pop, and the 10k military can sally forth the occupied armies. Also, only one player from an alliance or one player's military can occupy a town. I do not like the idea of more than one player sending troops together to occupy a town for 14 days. I also feel this game should give alliances the power to force taxes on other alliances. They must agree to pay taxes up to say 5% from each of their member base. This would be automatic once the alliance leader accepts these terms from the alliance forcing a gold tax on them. This idea has a nice empire feel to it. Back to your idea... Instead of only being able to take over one town per account with this occupation idea... Players should be able to take over every town but the players capital. However, like I said above, it would be only for 14 days out of the month with a 25% gold tax for 30 days after the occupation of a city for 14 days as a reward of being able to occupy the town for that long. |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 14:25
|
+1 for the idea :). new means of pressure on a player, instead of a siege, is always a good thing. about the gold unkeep on the occupied player. i think that the best would be for the one who has the control on someone to receive hourly a part of his max gold production (without sending caravans). say for example 1/4 of his max gold/h: so the occupying player would receive hourly the equivalent of the population of the one he is occupying. i propose that, because if the occupied player put his tax at 0%: no gold unkeep for the attacker. ( after you send cavs or anything if you want to steal ressources or weapons in the occupied city) an other solution would be that as long as the player is occupied, his city stays at 100% tax. then: ressource production would be alredy slowed down. and as food production would be negative, you just need to steal it (with caravans if it is allowed) and the player wont be able to produce weapons. and if you want your gold unkeep you must send 1 of your caravans, with the order of take the gold only. you must take your gold yourself, because maybe the on who is occupied has no caravans, or he could destroyed them. about the blockade ideas, totally agree. i precise that i think that the occupying army automatically does a blockade on the occupied player, if he trys to send ressources elswhere. also we could imagine that we could add a "saly forth" for the allies (of the occupied one) who are blocading. maybe the one who initiated the blockade could send all the allies units present on his till to attack the occupied city
that's a great idea to help the smallest cities. but if a city with 26 000 pop is occupied... if the pop equals the upkeep of the revolting army... then that could make the equivalent of 6 500 knights attacking every 12 hours... seems a bit too much for me. the revolting system is a good thing, but must chose well how many soldiers would be able to attack in fonction of the city's pop. or only, mabe only allow spearmen and archers to revolt. or create a special war unit for the occasion: "armed cityzens"? (*Edit: which would have a medium attack... or mabe his attack will depend on the pop of the city) also we could imagine that the occupied one, even if all the other spells are inactive, could use only one spell. this spell would be a corruption spell. then it has a chance to control the mind of a part of the occupying army (i dont really like this idea but im here to launch various ideas.. so :p) also, if the occupied played has a very friendly hub next to him, the faction could send regularily some units to help. |
Posted By: Smoking GNU
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 15:38
|
Good points. But say the occupying army had 5K trueshots, and the revolting army, as you put it, had 6.5K knights. Now, concidering the type of terrain the city is on, you'll have varying degrees of a result for example, if the city is on a Large mountain, the Defending trueshots would still win (defending archers get large bonus, attacking cav get large penalty) |
Posted By: SirTwitchy
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 15:50
|
my 2 cents, first off the Occupied city should have an attack advantage over the attacking army, simply because they know the terrain better and have better access to the supply chain, Also the time for occupation should have a "cost" associated to it for the attacker. In order to occupy the attackers should have to spend more gold/food than normal, simply because they are attempting to coerce/occupy a unfriendly/hostile city. Inflation of goods in time of war or occupation is not uncommon. Production during occupation should also be slowed, 10-50% depending on size of occupying army. Also a population uprising/subversion research could be added with a % based on size of population vs occupying army size figured into the equation. Another thing to consider is Diplomats in all of this. How about being able to sway commanders from one side to the other. ------------- please disregard the twitch, the meds haven't kicked in yet... |
Posted By: Babbens
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 15:51
| Good idea, it should make the gameplay more interesting. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 15:56
| They would win the first time, but the remnants would easily fail the second time. That's ok though, because a city that large should be that difficult to hold. Overall however, I think the defender would enjoy too much power. I think having an attack power equivalent to the population or some small factor on it (like 2-3x) would be more reasonable. The occupying force would still take expensive casualties every 12 hours. |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 18:34
+1, totally agree. the only thing about a randomly chosed army is: from where are comming these experienced soldiers? if citizens and farmers armed with the first weapon they found, where comming from all around the city to defend it, that would be more realistic. that's why i talked about those "armed citizens". the only thing to clarify would be if they get bonus depending on terrain or not.
i think we are touching the main difficulty of this idea. we must define *very* well the restrictions of the occupation stratagem. actually, i dont have any good idea about how these restrictions would work... and i think that the few ideas already given about that are not very precise. moreover i think that, first of all, we must be 100% clear about the aim of the occupation stratagem: is it more to benefit the one who is occupying, or is it more to put the occupied one under pressure? we are more talking about to put the pressure on the occupied one. but maybe it could advantage the conquering one without desadvantaging the occupied one that much. and if to occupy someone a certain time put him as your conquer, then, more conquers you have, more production rate of anything. so we must be clear about to chose the first or the second option. because, if we really want the occupation to be an important mean of pressure, that's harder to find a good restrictions system. PS: about the conquers idea, that's not incompatable with the fact that the occupation could be a hard blow for the occupied one. maybe as far as the guy is occupied, he has a very low or inexistant production as we say above. and if he is occupied constanly during a certain period (counting in days) he is conquered. so that's not incompatible with the occupation as a hard hit. (* how coud conquer system work* tips: - if you are already conquered nobody else can occupy you ( solves many restricions poblems) - as your town is conquered, it can't conquer an other town - to ask freedom; or you wait long time enough and you will have a rebellion option. or you attack the town that is conquering you, and win the battle) - if a town is attacked, and loses the battle, it lose all its conquers - or mabe it takes time, to let the time to react... could work with HM's non instantaneous battles idea) bam brainstorming :p. no, i lie, in fact i didnt just find this "conquers" idea. this idea is very similar to what you can find on BattleDawn (already talked a bit about this game). but in this game, no occupying possibilities, and you have one town only. but here i propose to occupy a certain time before having someone as your conquer, and also, i add that each town would have its own conquers, and each conqers benefits one town only. |
Posted By: Smoking GNU
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 20:05
|
Good ideas. I was actually keeping Astro Empires in mind for this Suggestion, never played Battledawn before. Except there you have no limiton the time you can occupy someone, and you get a boost to your economy from it. The main reason i suggested this was for someone to have the option of delivering a hard hit to someone and boost himself WHILE not completely kicking someone out of the game, as loosing a city would do, and to make the sieging option the last resort for attackers (you would still want to siege, i guess, especially if you needed a new city or REALLY want someone out of the game altogether) |
Posted By: Zeus
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 21:20
| How about during an alliance war you can conquer a city for good but all its buildings are lost along with tech and half its pop. Have to leave so thats all I can say. Think about it. |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 21:45
1) English isn't my first language, but I'm pretty sure "about during and alliance war" doesn't make full sense. 2) Population is calculated with the food consumption which is calculated with the building you have... you can't lose every building while keeping half of the population. 3) That comes up to exactly the same as being razed after a siege, from the attacked player's point of view. so that wouldn't help as an "alternative to siege so people don't leave the game" . 4) you just described the "capture city" function, which is already available alongside "raze city" after the siege city lost 75% of it's population. (but the attacker gets to keep the tech and the buildings that make up the 25% remaining population) ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: Zeus
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 23:41
|
[/QUOTE]
1) English isn't my first language, but I'm pretty sure "about during and alliance war" doesn't make full sense.
2) Population is calculated with the food consumption which is calculated with the building you have... you can't lose every building while keeping half of the population.
3) That comes up to exactly the same as being razed after a siege, from the attacked player's point of view. so that wouldn't help as an "alternative to siege so people don't leave the game" .
4) you just described the "capture city" function, which is already available alongside "raze city" after the siege city lost 75% of it's population. (but the attacker gets to keep the tech and the buildings that make up the 25% remaining population) [/QUOTE]
Makes sense just it weird capturing a city for 14 days. How about when you capture a city you reduce the level of all buildings and the pop. Or as this already been discussed? After about 4 days the revolt takes place,if you want it to which most would, and all the units in the revolting army are just one type of unit. There would be a new unit and the unit has very little capibilities but are strong in numbers. Lets say 3/4 of the pop for small cities and 1/2 of the pop for big cities are part of the revolution.
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2011 at 23:54
I follow Bartimeus, this is a No for me as well. why do you absolutely want the defender to lose building? you wont bring siege engines to occupy someon. if you do so that's a siege.
already talked about that
when do we call a city big or small? better to have the same calculation for each city. HM's suggestion is still the best for me.
|
Posted By: Zeus
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 14:17
Ok first if you attack a city and win and occupy buildings will be destroyed and people will die. So the pop would have to go down and the building levels would have to go down but not be destroyed.
You call a city big or small by its pop. A lot of people in it its a big city. This was also already talked about. But I get it I forgot about what HM said.
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 17:03
|
i dont get the point of making the occupied one lose his population. if you want to do so, start a siege. this occupying feature would justly be to avoid people to lose theire buildings and leave because it takes to many time to rebuild. but im repeating what i and Bartimeus already said. So, well, i got you idea, even if im not for it. to reply to Smoking GNU, if your thought was to find an idea to offer a new alternative instead of the siege, then we are talking about a stratagem that hits the ennemy hardly anyway. then we must think more about how would work the restrictions. need to find how to restrict the occupation ability against a player/town. Also, maybe, how to restrict the use of this ability by the attacker. i already gave an idea about that with the "conquered" status:
but this idea may not be enough, because it doesnt say if a player or a town should have a limitation of conquers. if a city has its maximum of conquers, you may need to liberate someone if you want to occupy someone else. i dont have better suggestions about restrictions actually, but im sure there should be many ideas to exploit. PS: please Zeus, make an effort on your writing. As for Bartimeus, english is not my first language and i had some difficulties to understand what you were talking about. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 20:13
|
hmm... as for restrictions... attacker gets, let's say 75% of all res/weapons, and so on (perhaps not money, see later), that are in that city at this point of time (perhaps he has to carry it of by caravan someway...) Then, of everything, that is produced in this city (again not money), the occupier grasps 75%, the remaining 25% are hidden by the local craftsmen and donated to the resistance. The resistance can build units like in the barracks (just with no upkeep), and then wait for a good time to come back. The occupier might of course reinforce along as he knows the resistance getting stronger, BUT he must pay upkeep (therefor no money from the conquered town), so there will be a time, where the occupier is outpowered, the resistance launches an attack. The surviving armies now DO cost upkeep, so those too much will deserteur and go back to be civilians. Actually, the occupier got MANY resources and weapons, while the defender had at least 25 % of res, and built up some army. And if the occupier can calculate, he will have left the city just before the launch...  As for the exact percentages, those might be adjustable, as here the GM's could tune the average occupation time. Of course there would have to be a cooldown of, let's say a month, where you just can attack the other cities of that player (if you really want to be annoying)  |
Posted By: Tolf
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 20:51
The %age could be based on Vault level, making that building a bit more useful. Still, I dont really like the "resistance" idea in general. The point with this whole new stratagem is, stronger people can now hurt smaller people and benefit out of it more than by raiding and attacking. Right now they dont because sieging is too evil and you dont do it for some wood and stone. So the restriction would have to work in a way so that a 50k pop player doesnt "collect" the smaller ones in his area and keep them under constand pressure, with or without "taking turns" with his guildmates. The resistance-thing wont work at all if the smaller player is, well, smaller. So new and independent players will get occupied and farmed. I think this has to be wanted by all of you before we are going that way any farther, no? Or did I miss the point? |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 21:36
|
All righty, I feel ready to make a fool of myself in the forum by suggesting some weird stuff. How about sending an army to occupy a non confederate town makes you the temporary sitter of this city for as long as the army stays there... The legit owner can see everything in his town (including troops number) and can choose when he launchs the revolt (which are unit's that would build up faster if you have loads of pop), but he cann't lauch any new production or building. diplo are unaffected and can still be controlled by the owner (so we can send messenger to get the armys out to come back.) (some solution will have to be found reguarding assassins since it would make smaller city way to easy to keep with comparaison to large "assassins capable" cities... the best thing would be for the attacker to be able to send diplo to defend his army... then occupying would mainly be a diplo thing... as it should be.) the attacker/ now exclusive sitter for this city gets to ship every recources to his own towns. and can delevel/ upgrade whatever he wants, as well as launch a new production queue. What do you think... my main concern is that it would render obsolete the standard raid and attack stratagem to empty someone's resources. ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: SirTwitchy
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 00:44
|
another idea, if the occupation is successful for say 15 days total, the army could then leave and the occupied city would have to pay a tithe to their occupier for a period thereafter. The tithe could be 10-25% of resources produced and this could continue for 2 weeks to a month after the occupier has left. ------------- please disregard the twitch, the meds haven't kicked in yet... |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 01:55
|
@Gnu - Interesting idea, and to be much applauded. Not wanting to steal any thunder, it's related to one that's passed fleetingly across our minds already - the idea of a "Vassal" city of some description. Our vague concept was that - once an alliance had "claimed enough" territory - that players could *choose* to place cities in the territories claimed by an alliance, and pay some kind of 'tribute' for doing so. The flip side of the agreement would be peace/protection etc according to what the "rental" agreement was. We shelved the idea pending the implementation of Pathfinding ingame - a concept that will change the game hugely (introducing risk of interception to unit motion as well as roads, territorialism such as unit/army patrol zones, claimed territory, garrison forts, even bounded areas such as walled empires). What you're suggesting, though, is a more aggressive style of enforced-vassalage. I think it's an interesting concept, though I wonder if it passes our "fun test" any better than being sieged by an overwhelming force does. I guess the spectre of hope is always there for someone 'forced into vassalage', but I wonder if there should be certain bounds (as we're also thinking about them for Sieges) on who exactly can siege whom, whether there should be protected zones for new players ingame etc. Anyway, please carry on discussing - we're definitely interested. Regards, SC |
Posted By: Zeus
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 01:57
|
Another idea would be to change what the seige does. Instead of destroying the city when a seige is over it weakens the city to where its easier to capture. The seige could kill the soldiers in the city but not a lot because that would be unfair. But it instead of destroying the city it would only make it easier to capture. |
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 10:23
I think you misunderstand what seige does: Once a seige has killed 75% of a city's population the seiger gets a choice between razing or capturing a city. The only way to capture a city is through seige. |
Posted By: Smoking GNU
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 22:04
|
I don't want buildings destroyed here! the whole reason for this was to have a way to hit someone where it hurts WITHOUT them loosing lots of valuble pop which will take months to rebuild! |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 23:26
i love this kind of parenthesis :p Well, i must say i dont have new ideas to give for the moment, but im totally agree with Smocking GNU: no building destroyed with the occupation stratagem... in any way. so i dont find Bartumeus's idea of becomming the sitter of the occupied city that weird :p but it should't be possible to demolish the buildings. and for the diplomatics units in the city, for me, the sitter of the city should be able to use them as if they where his diplo units. the advantage of the sitter idea, is that as the sitter will be the master of the city (for a certain period) this is him who will empty the city himself, with his own caravans (and the city's caravans as well). there wont be automatic unkeep, etc... so as he will use caravans to transport the goods from the sitted city to his cities, blockades would become a very intersting stratagem to limit the ressources loses. after, for the general idea i gave about to have someone as one of his conquers if we occupied him long time enough (a conquer that would give some ressources hourly)... i agree that that would encourage stronger players to farm smaller ones. but then, a limitation could be put regarding the population of the attacker/defender... exemple: someone can only conquer or be conquered (by) someone who has + or - 50% of his pop. he could still occupy anybody (or with the same restrictions as the future ones for Sieges, as SC precised). also, there may be zones where you would be able to siege/occupy or not, as SC said. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 01:39
|
I say keep it simple: occupation of a city is the same as occupying a square, except it gives you control of the city's trade and prevents new military units from being recruited. The occupying force then has the ability to manually ship all the resources to other cities (an operation which in future can be intercepted by other parties) and the defending party cannot mount an internal military revolt. However, diplomatic operations continue as normal, and once diplomats can be attached to armies, assassination attempts can be made on occupying commanders. And regardless of any manual intervention, regular automatic revolts make holding a city prohibitively expensive on anything but the very short term. As an added kindness, disallow the occupying force access to as many resources as fit in the vault. Occupation then becomes a favorable way to commandeer economic output, especially lucrative when large undefended stockpiles are found. But defenses include a healthy military that enjoys full benefit of the walls and ability to limit and/or delay the benefit of an occupation. With a mechanism this simple, think of all the means left to the vassal's disposal (depending on varying amounts of foreknowledge, quick reaction, or preparation): ship away all the horses then disband all the caravans before the occupying force arrives (occupation will spend a long time/sustain high losses while facilitating all that transportation); while caravan count is limited, tie them all up in long-distance drops of 1 stone; ship all high-value resources to another location before occupation; keep resource stockpiles at a single city constantly defended by multiple others; intercept (or have allies intercept) caravans sending goods back to the occupying force's home; blockade your own city for the same purpose; tie up all the resources in construction and production queues (which can still be controlled even after the occupying force arrives); ship away all gold then mess with taxation to ensure no monetary profit; attack or have other allies attack the occupation from other cities; and I'm sure there are others... And yet it's still worthwhile a stratagem, because if the target is sloppy and/or loaded, you can get a quick payoff by holding a short term occupation just to clean out the resources. Unprotected gold is an especially lucrative hit-and-run since it only requires a very short occupation and one caravan available. But what you won't do is hold the city over a long-term basis or repeatedly (at least very frequently). Those revolts will trash your troops and give you no experience, and there's nothing to gain by sticking around...especially if the taxation is low. |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 02:45
|
Nice points. the most simple ideas are often the best:) agree that seen like that, that's simple and efficient. well, saying we stay in this idea, i will add some thoughts about technical details. first, about the caravans, you are saying that the attacker will use the caravans he will find in the city he occupies (not his own caravanes). so as you say, if the defender saw the attack soon enough, he could destroy these caravanes not to be stealed. but then, that's pretty easy for someone to protect all his ressources in case of eventual occupations. he would jsut need to put regularily all his ressources in a same city, and always have 0 caravanes at his city. then he has nothing else to do not to be stealed... So, i think that the attacker should have the ability to control the marketplace of the defender, and so he could produce caravanes for his own use (i didnt understand, when you were talking about shippind the horses away if you were meaning that the attacker could produce caravanes in the occupied city) talking about production, the occupied player wont be abe to change his tax as he is occupied, as i suppose you meant. nor the attacker cant change the tax. but the occupied player will still control his advanced ressource production (even if of course that would be weird to start new productions). and if the attacker can control the production... for the short time he would stay, that would be quite useless i think. mabe if the defender has many livestock queued up for exemple, and many bonus on livestock production, he could cancel his sovs to slow down the production, as he would still be able to control his sov squares? also, the defender can blockade his own city as we said, he can attack his own town to destroy the attacker, he will be able to send assassins... so the logic next question is: would he be able to send thieves to steal his own ressources? your idea is the most simple, but there are always some details to clarify that shows this is a bit more complex than it seems to be. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 04:44
|
I guess I wasn't overly explicit about this point, but the attacker would control caravan production. It was implied in that he controls trade. The occupied player still owns the city and can do anything he wants with it except: trade/ship resources, produce or destroy caravans, and form armies. He can even still queue troops to tie up resources--he just doesn't get the troops until the occupying force leaves. Everything else works as implicitly/intuitively defined. The occupied player still owns the city, so he can set taxes, build/destroy stuff (except caravans), queue resources, queue troops, build and use diplomats (including recalling troops in the field which would then attack the occupying forces on return), control sovereignty, cast/recast spells, etc. The occupying player can take liquid resources using existing caravans, or build caravans to do it. You can send already thieves to steal your own resources now, so having the city occupied would be no different. Another point I didn't clarify was attacking an occupying force and how the wall applies, and again, the normal/default behavior works and makes sense...the occupying army gets the benefit of the wall just the same as friendly troops would. |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 08:48
|
HM, you read my mind... this was almost exactly what I was thinking about, but didn't dare to explain like you did from fear my english would annoy people enough not to read it, and also from fear giving out too many specific detail would make people reject the idea "cause it's too complicated"... Just wanted to say; totaly behind you. let's keep it simple. Also, I don't think smaller player would be occupied that much, since they don't have loads of rescources to steal. ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 12:24
He's with H?.  |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 18:16
|
Allow a check box with occupier and city owner. 'Brutal Occupation' and 'Viva La Revolucion' Normal Options: Mage Tower is fully in occupied control. Kill/Fear glyphs won't work on occupiers, unless they send in more troops of their own... Diplomats are fully in occupied control. (Seeing as their business is skullduggery after all....) Basically, 9 or 12 hour cooldown on actions like assassination to own city... Saboteurs who can temporarily halt trade functions for occupier... Thieves who can 'return' items sent via caravan back to the city... while caravan is leaving. Brutal/Revolucion either drops City production/tax to 1/4 and halts item making capability. Revolucion denies the occupier access to many city functions. Also chance of blockading goods leaving the city. Enhances diplomat functions from within own city. Brutal occupation limits effectiveness of the Revolucion... but, it doubles upkeep of occupying troops. (Or maybe reduces defensive effectiveness of troops against attack, since they have to keep the population in line...) Also, getting access to the vault / item trove / trade functions... should take time. Not instant access. The occupier can only unlock each of them one at a time. For example: Taking control of trade functions should take 12 hours. The occupier then can immediately ship out basic resources. But, items and gold cannot be taken yet since the occupiers do not have access yet. Vault, would take 36 hours for control. After that, the occupier can send gold from the city back via caravans. (But, need to control trade functions first.) Items, would take 24 hours for control. After that, the occupier can send Items from the city back via caravans. (Need control of trade functions first.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On the otherside, peaceful occupation and non-resistance check-boxes. Both players have to check for this to work. 1) Occupier cannot ship items out or take control of trade functions. 2) City production/tax is at 95% efficiency. 3) Occupied cannot build any more troops. 4) Occupied cannot send diplomats anywhere from this city. 5) Occupied Kill/Fear wards do not work on occupier troops and blights/combat spells cannot be cast. 6) Basically, this is a way to keep the player/city out of the war... (This alone should be the main use for long-term occupation... to ensure the player does not contribute to fighting, but still be allowed to play/grow.) 7) Occupier troops get a further defense bonus to hold the city... (Or halved upkeep?) EDIT: Yea, basically a rough draft... Wadda ya think? |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 19:17
Well, I now found a even simplier idea in this mess called my head  Occupation of a city paralyces everything in there (like the people doing civil disobidience, not wanting to work for the aggressor). The attacker would have to transport away all those res by own caravans/thiefs/armies sent there for "plundering". well, add a time span, until the soldiers want to go home (so perhaps max 5 days), and a cooldown of perhaps 10 days, where noone can occupy (to prevent 3 occupiers taking turns), and that's all.  That stratagem can then by combinated with (the already meantioned) "Plundering", or even an additional siege, if you really want to burn down one or two buildings, too  That way small players would be save, as they aren't worth the effort (one attack would suffice), and bigger players could annoy other big players without destroying buildings (as was GNU's target idea). kindly Hora |
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 19:45
|
+1 for Zangi's idea to unlock progressively the vault... -1 for the "Brutal/revolution" idea (does it really bring enough fun to be worth the complexity?) -1 to Hora's cooldown periode: after an occupation, the defender would be empty on all rescources, so he wouldn't be worth hit again... if he is hit again that would be because the attacker do it as a punishment, not for gain... if you add a cool down, he will get seiged which is what we want to avoid. Also, it would make sense that an occupation is easyer than a seige since it inflicts less damages to the defender... why would attackers choose to occupy in an unfavorable condition when they can simply seige him? making the attacker use his own caravan is (as far as I know) more complicated because there is no current "Go pick up those resources at this city" function. And I personnaly like the idea of drainning a city of it's resource with it's own caravans... ------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 20:19
|
well, i see that there are many different ways to think about the city occupation feature. Personnally i find that all the ideas given, from the most simple to the most elaborated, are good and can work. after that just depends on the real aim we would chose concerning the city occupation. so that's a question of point of view about the subject. about Zangi's cooldown idea
im not sure about this idea.. maybe there could be a cooldown, but 36h to wait before being able to steal the gold is a bit too much for me. if you wait 12h before being able to steal every kind of goods would sound better for me. dont forget that the defender could already have the time to ship his goods out, if he saw the attack comming in time... if you add 12h of cooldown for the occupier, he has 12 more hours to send thieves to save some ressources and ask his friends to send theire thieves as well. so, well, maybe, but for me 12h would be a maximum. 36h would be too much anyway, because we talked about city's autodefence: every hour, the occupiers would be automatically attacked by a revolting army. this idea is important justly to make the occupation difficult (and dont forget that the occupier would have city wall defense bonus!). so if this idea is keept, 12h is ok but 36h is very too much to wait. About the 2 different occupying options, that adds some complexity as bartimeus said. But the advantage of this idea is that the attacker could chose a brutal or peaceful option, depending on his intentions. maybe he just wants to grab some ressources, or maybe he wants to hit his opponent hardly (without destroying his building anyway). so, personnaly is say why not, because as i said, many different ideas could be good, depending on the aim of the city occupation.
agree with these points. for the caravans, using the occupied ones follows HM's trade control idea, which seems more simple and better than creating new caravans abilities. |
Posted By: Zeus
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 20:47
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 21:17
|
no, we are more talking about an alternative of a siege. if you occupy a city, as we described it, after the occupation, whatever happened, the occupied player will find again his city with all its buildings. with the actual siege stratagem, if the siege is successful, in any case the defending one will lose his city: or his city is totally razed, or it lost 75% of its population and has been taken by the attacker... but the result is that you lost your city anyway... and if it is a big city... or if you lose all your cities... you may not have the courage to begin the game from the begining, mostly if you are playing for 1 year... ... ... have you ever heard some old stories about a certain alliance.... which name begins by'"[Wh" and finishes by "ite]"? |
Posted By: kicking5251
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 21:32
|
I think this would be a great idea the only thing I can see that I don't like is that the occupied person has no way to fight back... revaluations would solve this. when in one the peasants are at risk if they die then your pop is reduced for a while until some more drifted back. the thing defining a battle are below.. There are 3 things that I think that should matter in this. 1 pop: the more pop you have the more rebels you can get and the ones you get come quicker. 2 commanders: I think that having a commander skill for this would be handy, something that the more points you put on it the better the commander would be in these situations, for example... the commanders would make speeches to raise or lower the moral of the city the lower it is the more people would join the rev. the higher it is the less the problems seem important so they don't join 3 moral: as explained above lower moral is good for the defender higher is better for the attacker... the moral would go lower as the list of stuff that was stolen grew higher,also if something major happened (like run out of food) that would seriously lower moral . Though even if your peasants felt like the pits they would wait for your order to attack. If you don't want them to (or you are inactive) then the occupation would go unmolested (I am not sure on this idea so post comments please) and leave... then come back again and again and again... that about sums it up PS: I am sooo looking forward to when path finding comes into play
|
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 22:07
well, lets Quote party!
please read the following quotes, your idea has already been given:
already talked about that. But as you say, putting other variables on revolting army strength than only city's population, is a new idea. |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 08:13
|
I like the idea of revolution but rather than simple uprisings at certain intervals it would be better if there were many options with varying degrees of effectivness. Also rather than a set penalty/bonus for a captured city the caputring player can set a tax rat 1-100% however the occupied player recieves "revoltion points" equal to gold handed over times tax rate squared divided by a constant.These revolution points can be used to: Open the gates (allies attack)
Recruit revolutionaries
Attempting to kill a commander etc
With revolution points being detemined by tax rate squared means that 100% tax gives 10000 times the points as 1% tax (peasants are crushed to the dirt)
|
Posted By: bartimeus
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 16:04
I like the idea to get your citizen to open the gate for you... so if an attacker occupies for too long, the citizen are fed up with him and the resistance attack become stronger, and the wall doesn't protect them anymore from outside attack because the doors are oppenned... But No occupier is ever gonna set the tax up: it's pointless, he would gain only a little bit more gold, but it wouldn't be much compared to the amount that have been stockpilled for days by the owner... If I were an attacker, and if you're idea was accepted, then I'd set taxes to zero, therefore I'd get no revolution and I could stay long enough to crack the vault (and get the stockpill of gold). SOOoo , bad idea. I'd stick with the regular automatic attack, and no "revolution point"... And we actually need the révolution attacks to be automatic, otherwise some player will realise they can bypass the pop requirement by occupying inactives and therfore becoming sitter of their city.
------------- Bartimeus, your very best friend. |