The only real options for city warfare are either Blockading the city (only affects caravans and so on) or sieging. Sieging might be a great mechanic and all, but it enables one to inflict TOO MUCH damage on another person, who spent MONTHS working on that city every chance he/she got. The investment is too big and the loss is too easy to sustain, even with the restrictions on the siege encampment.

What i propose is a form of city occupation, where one can attack a city and "take over" the city for a while. Your army is parked in the city and enjoys the defense benefits from it's wall. Also you get 25% to 50% (may have to rely on research here to determine the level) of the various incomes from this city, as in basic res, tax income, mana and research (would be transferred to the city where the occupation army originates). If there was advanced res being created, 1 in 5 of these would be siezed upon completion by the occupying army (if he has caravans parked in the city with the army).

Crafting items would not be affected (too precious, would be squirreled away in underground vaults upon completion or something)

Now, in order to NOT make this too overpowered, this SUBJUGATION of a city would only succeed  for 1 in 4 attacks (25% chance of it occurring) when employing this specific method of attack. Also, troop production in the subjugated city would still be allowed (underground resistance of a sort) and you'd be able to make troops in 2 ways, 1) the troops being produced are normal but take 3X as long, or 2) the troops take their normal time to produce but are only 1/3 as good as normal troops. Also, you can attack the subjugating army with these produced troops, and seeing as these troops are already inside the city and attacking, this would negate the wall defensive bonus for the players city troops only.

This stratagem would, in any case, only last the 15 days of any other "stay on this ground here" stratagem

And yes, wars ARE too costly. The devs want conflict, but they're not getting it because ppl are hesitant to attack each others A) because it could be too costly and B) people who loose cities entirely due to siege usually just quit the game out of frustration (due to months of effort lost)

At the moment we can either completely destroy a city (which is highly undesirable unless you just want to see the whole world burn)... Or we can blockade/raid/annoy someone's city with high risk to our troops and minimal gain.

Being able to invade and occupy a city, demanding it to pay tributes or agreeing to certain terms, can be a very effective tool. Until of course the natives drive out your troops or you start taking too much attrition... or someone sends a relief force of thousands of poisonous crawlers.

I have not seen the devs say they wanted more conflict. (They might have and I just missed it) But I have heard them say they wanted more opportunities for friction. But this is totally not the same thing as what you said.

I am not saying I disagree with your proposal (I have not decided yet), but I think it is important to keep this distinction.

For now i think the devs have enough to come up with but I do like this idea.   Also how come attacking doesn't bring back gold?   Attacking NPC's brings back gold attacking a city does not??

The devs have mentioned that the battle when attacking the city, takes place in front of the walls, and the basic res taken is that which is outside the walls and the enemy army never actually makes it into the city.

What i'm suggesting is some sort of "trojan horse" stratagem (as mentioned above, only has a certain probability of working, perhaps depending on population levels and/or troop counts) for the army to slip in a back way or someone opening the gates for them.

Good questions raised none of which I can answer.. I blame the FSM >:D  Now I will stop trolling and add my tuppence worth to this awesome thread.

 I like the occupation idea - I think that all the caravans from the player should be disabled for a week or so and that every day 10% of the adv res and gold the player produces are shipped to the conquerors' town SIMILAR TO Alliance tax (cursed be that tax..)   On leaving the city (unless it is recalled via messenger in which case the % should be smaller) the occupying forces takes some  basics and unthievable items with them.

I think something like this is a great idea and would give more reason for mild hostilities aswell as reward for succesfully overpowering the enemies encampment. 

A few modifications on your subjugating: 

- Subjugation is a military maneuver, similar to blockade/raid/attack/siege. 

- To subjugate a city your forces must attack the city, defeat 100% of the hostile forces, and then maintain an occupation within that cities walls. (NAP rules apply)
- You can only subjugate an enemy town for as long as you maintain a garrison capable of controlling the town. 1:1 troop/population ratio.  

- Eats up gold/hour to subjugate another city. The farther away it is from one of your towns, the more expensive it is to maintain. 

- While under your rule, the town can be forced to pay you taxes in the form of production per hour. This would apply to harvested resources, resources/hour, and crafted resources (example 10-50% of every item produced/harvested gets sent to you). 

- The player being subjugated by your forces is capable of building military units and an army in his subjugated city. They are safe from attack, but the player can choose to build an army and then have it attack his own city in an attempt to liberate his city. 

Those were basically the points i was making, except for the troop numbers must be equal or higher than the city population point. That would basically put 7 food plot cities out of reach of everyone except orcs, and even then they'll loose most of their army attacking a well-defended city and not have the troops to hold it. It's a bit extreme. I'd say 1 troop per 5 citizens would be good, if on the high side. 

What Geofrey suggests with the cost to occupy a city would be similar to sov right? I camp an army and pay extra to get goodies from a square, sounds similar in this scenario!  I guess this would fall under the Military tree and/or Sov research tree.

SUGGESTION/QUESTION

Could the occupier cast a spell or have to spend more mana on the city they have occupied to stop it casting spells?

I'm not sure about geofry, but that's not what i had in mind/suggested at all. Nowhere di i mention in any way that magic or sov played any role.

 

I wonder: where will the resources go? If you can force res and taxes from the subjugated city, will it just go to the city whose forces have subjugated it?

 

I think one option is that the city produces res and gold normally, but you gain control of the cities caravans and can send goods to your own cities. Thus capturing and subjugating a trade city is more valuable profit-wise since you will have tons of caravans capable to exporting, while taking over a military city would be benefitial because it prevents that city from producing troops.

 

Also, if you send thieves into a city you have subjugated, then automatically succeed, giving you another option for taking res from the city.

 

Nice idea though.

Mmmhm, that's a nice idea

And gives the player a chance to hurt the subjugator. If the guy doing the subjugation has to use the cities caravans to transport the res he steals/taxes via caravan to his city, a blockade might then conceivably be utilized to try and block this.

A simple attack and win leading to lose a city is even worst than a siege, especially because of the surprise factor (direct attack are way faster than siege). So we should try to find a way to make the success of the maneuver not that high... May be spies or saboteur inside the city could lower the success chance....

It have to last only a limited time, and I also would add some chance to "free" the city, using may be saboteur (wow) or spies.

Finally I think the city should not be damaged in any way, but the stored advanced resources should be partially lost in favor of the invader (percentage also depending on some of the internal diplo). All defending diplo are not lost in the process , as they go stealth immediately after the invasion.

I agree with this statement through and through. 

I predict that a subjugation system mentioned would have the following effect: 

- Discourage destruction of cities via siege. 

- Encourage more warfare besides siege reinforcing, and siege busting. Resulting in more military conflicts but less buildings being de-leveled. 

- More territorial conflicts with not as harsh resolutions. Instead of "we are moving your city for you" it becomes "we are placing your city under our rule." 

- An actual benefit to military conquest that doesn't encourage players to stop playing. A 10% loss of resource production/harvesting for 15 days is minor compared to the loss of a years worth of building. 

Granted, city subjugation might become more frequent, but it provides a better alternative than completely razing weaker cities into agreement.

I'd like to see some ways to fight the subjugation though,

-perhaps attrition to the occupying forces if they are too far away from home

-or (guerilla) forces being trainable to oust the evil overlords when the opportunity presents itself. 

-And, of course, a relief force of hordes of poisonous crawlers coming to my rescue

I am sorry, but I do not see this as a kinder method of penalty. And to suggest that is just spin. The whole point is to make military more beneficial to the attacker and reduce the cost of war.

If someone would like to put a penalty on a city without sieging it, then there are the options of placing a blockade, sending attacks to kill their troops, or sending diplos.

Actually I think this puts more power in the hands of the defender. If your city is being subjugated, you have the option to pay the "taxes" on your new overlord while you continue to build troops untill you decide to perform an uprising, or until one of your other cities sends a battalion of troops to clear out the occupation, or until your one of your friends or allies sends troops to attempt to remove the occupants. 

Currently if your defending against a siege your options are to destroy the siege ASAP before your city gets removed from you. 

In my opinion it both adds incentive for offensive campaigns against opponents, and provides a better option for defending. 

You say it puts "more power in the hands of the defender." But more compared to what? Sieges apparently. Why compare it to sieges when there are plenty of other methods for attack a city?

I certainly see your point on it adding incentive to offensive campaigns, but I do not think that it is a "better option" for the defenders. Better than what? Being sieged? That would only count if this replaces the siege method. But if the intention is to promote more fighting, there will only be additional targets that would have been left in peace otherwise.

Saying this is to encourage more pvp is a totally valid reason. But please don't try to twist it into being a benefit for those that would be attacked.

I believe this would replace sieging for the most part.  I could be wrong, but I think the most common reason for sieging is territorial disputes, and to make the player in question loose something important. 

So lets say there's an alliance out there called Ravens. Ravens don't like other players getting into their territory, but a nearby alliance (lets call bluejays) exodus a town within Raven territory. Right now Ravens would say "I don't think so, let me fix that for you" and siege the  Bluejay city. 

With Subjugation ingame, instead of sieging Bluejays, Ravens would see an opportunity to increase their resources/hour, and would instead occupy the city with military forces and place the new bluejay city under their rule. Now Bluejays have the chance to liberate the city by destroying the occupying forces, and the Ravens have a chance to stack defenses in the city to maintain occupation. The alliance can attempt to negotiate, they can use diplomats or blights, or continue attacking/defending. 

The important thing to note is that Bluejays can continue building and upgrading their city while the Ravens continue to occupy it. 

Whereas with Ravens sieging the bluejay city, Bluejays would have buildings being de-leveled by the hour, and if the Ravens send one of their super catapult armies, that could be 50 building levels per hour. Leaving Bluejays with a limited time frame to save their city, restricting their allies aid to only those that can dispatch armies that will arrive swiftly. Outcome is either Bluejays don't make it in time and the city is destroyed/captured, or Bluejays defeat the 1 siege and Ravens either negotiate peace or prepare siege #2. 

But this is starting to get to the point where it is detracting from the original post. Maybe we had best agree to disagree. If anyone would like to discuss this aspect more, maybe a separate thread should be created.

 

That being said, some valid points were made about the currently proposed system. As a suggestion, what if subjugating a city worked like Sovereignty? In this case:

 

- Players send an army under the command of "Subjugate." The army must destroy the entire enemy defending forces in order to initiate the subjugation . If they succeed, the surviving troops begin an occupation of the city. Battering ram sieges and initial attacks on the city are advised to reduce the defending force first.

 

- Unlike sovereignty, subjugation will not require gold and research upkeep, but the occupying army must remain there indefinitely until the subjugation is forfeited. Another army can be sent to replace the survivors, so long as there is an army there. In addition, higher levels of subjugation (levels I thorugh V) require a minimum number of troops to be stationed, based on the subjugated city's population.

 

- The occupying player can then build "Subjugation Infrastructures" (or a better name).

> Basic resource structures will channel a % of the city's production of that resource (wood/stone/clay/iron/food/mana/research) to the controlling city.

> Gold structures will channel a % of surplus taxes and marketplace sell orders+accepted buy orders.

> Advanced resource structures allow the controlling player to set a queue for a fixed number of an advanced resource, which are sent to the controlling city as they are produced (common ground/book binder/brewery/tannery+leather armourer/etc.). The queue occurs at the same time as the current player's queue, but cannot be canceled.

> Command structures grant the controlling player command of a fixed number of the units type produced from that building, but no more than 50% of the total existing in that city. (barracks/consulate/marketplace/merchant's guild/all cottages/herbalists/miners/skinners). All resources acquired by these units are sent to the occupying city.

> Overseer structures let the controlling player receive spy reports, updated hourly, showing building levels, queues, and tax rates.

 

-Every subjugating structure built has both gold and res upkeep costs, based on 1. structure level and 2. distance between the cities.

 

- The subjugated player still has full control of their occupied city.

 

- There would be a cheap City research (called "Patriotism" or "Rebellion") that allows players to use their military forces (including ones currently controlled by the occupier) and attack the occupying army. Neither get the benefits of the city wall. Players who attack the subjugated city will attack the occupying forces, never the city's own troops.

 

The benefit of a system like this would be that it is in the best interest of both parties to develop and grow the city. Obviously it would still be a very rare and hostile plan of action, since the losing player loses production rates to benefit the occupier. But if and when the occupying player relinquishes, the other player ends up with, at the least, a city no weaker than when they began.

Or is bumping not allowed?

 

Isn't this counterintuitive? Why would anyone utilize a strategy that provides them no benefit and ALSO allows the undesired city to continue growing? That being said, I understand the point the members above have stated.

 

So here's a different idea for a siege alternative:

 

If the purpose is to provide an alternative to dealing with bothersome foes, what about a form of forced exodus? After defeating and occupying a city, that city goes into a "shutdown" mode. Resources still accumulate and resource/unit queues can be set, but no building queues, research queues, or military/diplo/trade actions can occur, and any building/resource queues in progress are paused.

 

The occupied player can either attempt to build troops and take back the city, or perform an emergency exodus called "Exile." It works just like an Exodus, but if Exodus has not been researched, 50% of the city's inventory is lost, as are any paused building and research queues. The player cannot move within 100 squares of any city owned by the player who occupied them.

 

It's a severe penalty, but not very benefitial to the attacker and not as utterly decimating as siege.

Edit to add:

And if you want to attack and start a fight with someone you want to HURT them, you want them to suffer and maybe even die, that the plan, but siege is heavily frowned upon by farmville citizens so a alternative to be able to get rid of people atleast from your area sounds great.

 

Given the nature of the community yes, for the most part it will likely acquire a stigma similar to siege. But there are a few advantages to forced exodus that could make it more accepted/tolerable:

 

- First and foremost, instead of the attacked player losing months/years worth of time and effort, they lose at the most 8 levels from each building and lots of resources. Still a big loss, but not nearly as devastating.

- It forces one player's city away from the other's, reducing, at least a little, the chance for future conflict.

- If the defender and his/her allies do manage to defeat the occupying force, they will only have suffered military losses and some lost time, rather than de-leveled buildings during a siege.

- Putting a city or multiple cities into lockdown is an excellent way to initiate negotiations and peace talks. Compare this to siege, which is a ticking timer to destruction that forces rushed communication.

 

While siege is often seen as an act of aggresion, in light of these advantages City Occupation might be looked at as more an act of repression, which only escalates if the defending player chooses Exile and loses building levels.

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. 

City Subjugation remedies that by giving player(1) the option to take control of player(2)'s city. To get resources from the city. To tax it. player(2) then has to decide if they are ok with that. If not, then begun the war has, with not as many de-levels as before. 

The important thing is there is plenty of time to work out the details and negotiations for these sort of things. If a player doesn't want to give his opposition time, she can always siege. City Subjugation would add a new layer of debth to Illyriad and would give players a good way to continue casual gameplay if wanted. 

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. 

 

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.

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. 

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.

 

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.

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.

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?

 

Okay, good point. One way it differs: prevents military and diplomatic orders while subjugated. No attack in the game currently restricts troops from being sent out of a city besides perhaps siege. This allows you to "declaw" a city for a while, so the only thing they can do is attack your occupying force. If they want to attack your city in return, they must do it from elsewhere.

I think the OP meant for the subjugation to be quite profitable though.

And this is not possible with thieves and/or blockades?

 

- Steal T1 res (only the Basic 5)

- Interrupt building and research queues

- Deals up to a certain amount of p/h (based on the number of survivors that storm) by de-leveling buildings.

 

It could be thought of as a "light" siege. The stolen res from army attacks never amounts to much in comparison to the units lost in battle, so it wouldn't be profitable. And it isn't like siege, where it continues until the city's fallen. But it certainly is strong enough to send a message to the player.

 

Don't you think the devs are smart enough to come up with strategy-increasing game mechanics that don't revolve around luck? They've said themselves they don't like the random diplo failure anyway.