Until a city is settled on the spot such an occupation can be considered nothing but an occupation defending that specific square.

However the difference in this is if the occupier has the agreement for them to settle from all cities within 10 squares of the site, in which case those cities should stand against any conflicting occupation in that area.

As with most things, such action must be considered on a case by case basis.  But to say 'I have an army there, so no-one else can settle within 10 squares is pretty ridiculous, after all I have 10 cities, so whats to stop me doing that to fifty 10 square areas of the map.

This has been discussed previously, but I will reiterate my opinion because it's been a couple of weeks since anyone has trollishly mocked me on the forum and some people have apparently begun to doubt my existence. 

If a player sees a marking army within 5-10 squares of where he/she desires to place a city, it is prudent to contact the owner of the army to ask if there is something going on there, particularly if one is planning a Tenaril move.  Otherwise, you may Tenaril a city adjacent to a square to which someone already has a city Exodusing or settling, and that's a giant headache for all involved.  It's usually better to try to negotiate the space BEFORE you have 3 cities all hoping to claim the same high-food square.

A marking army is thus a point at which to begin negotiations.  The nature of those negotiations will likely be determined by the relative power and interests of the parties involved (such as proximity to an alliance hub, previous history between the players in question, blah, blah).

Edited to add: The practice of placing a marking army in no way relieves the person of an obligation to contact neighbors (usually within 10 squares of the city) to discuss the imminent arrival of a city.  Placing a marking army within 10 squares of a city is NOT the same as notifying or consulting with the potential neighbors.  This sort of consultation should occur before the city is set in motion and a marking army is sent.

There are certain sections within Illy who assume that because this is a policy that they approve of then the rest of us are under some obligation to know about it.  You can't just make up a rule and place the onus on all other players to know YOUR rule....

There is only one alliance that I know of (I accept there may be others) who publish anything about this on their profile page and even then it only becomes clear after being redirected to their public forum.  So even if you scout an army and see who is occupying the square, most of the time you are left guessing as to the true purpose of those troops.

Just my two cents.

And then you raze the town, so your actual city can land on the sq.  So yes there is significant time where it would need to be marked.  

The rule is very simple the same way people mark cities they intend to siege with armies.  I'm guessing if you don't accept one you don't accept the other. 

Just be ready to fight for it, and don't cry bully when the person's marking army you just wiped out is actually 10x as big as you are and wipes you out.  Because if I went found a nice spot marked  it with an army, maybe made it better via teleport.  Then someone else comes along wipes out my marking army and claims it as there own.  You can bet i'll turn around and raze their city so I can settle whats rightfully mine.

Once again if you have noticed that a cav army can be 10x (not joking) faster than a siege army then you wouldn't understand marking cities because the siege army won't get there very soon.  On a similar note also possible the player is claiming the city but not quite ready for the new city.  

Because people who terraform repeatedly don't use their alt's 2 pop city instead they use a captured city that they probably marked with an above mentioned marker army.

According to the original post he never mentioned treating it like a city.  Merely respecting the claim to to a sq the army is one and area around it.  As per my original post, you can do whatever you want if your willing to fight otherwise you better play nice.  

1. The "sign" of having an army mark a square is not really without ambiguity. In most cases parked armies are used to secure rare resources. Quite clear for minerals/herbs, but it´s also done for animal parts, and if they are harvested, you can have an army standing in the middle of nowhere without intending to sign the interrest for planting a town there... 

And as was said before, not all are/were aware of this, I can imagine especially newbies aren´t, and at least I haven´t read ( or forgotten it^^) of this practice in the newbie guides, so if we really want to make it more practicable it should be promulgated more clearly, especially for the new players in their guides. I think I know the incident Angrim is referring to. I looked at the site of the new players city (after he had planted it), saw the army, and was wondering, what it was doing there. It just made *pling* in my brain as the player said that a new town popped up really near to him, that was the moment, when I though of the army as marking a space for Exodus...

2. It could lead to quite unclear situations, especially if not both sides use armies to mark squares. Player A can see the spot first, send his settler, then Player B sees the square a short while later, sends the army to mark it. That could lead to a situation where B could say he has the "right" to the square because his fast army arrieved before the slow settler, though Player A saw the place first and acted directly (and if it was his 2nd town he maybe even wasn´t in the posessions of any troops whatsoever to be able to mark it in advance). But that may be quite hard to proof (well, would at least require to make some math with movement-speeds)...

So I hope those instances (of course not implying above mentioned one was such a case!) will be dealed with in a more pragmatic way than the much clearer instances regarding the 10-square-rules of already existing cities etc. (doesn´t imply the big ones necessarily have to give in, as their claims and aims are of course legitimate too, but they can make it easier for the smaller ones involved than in instances where the 10 square rule was clearly broken). 

With a certain tred to territorialization of alliances, especially after the war, those instances might arise more often now, so a clearer promulgation and a certain mildness in dealing with them might make it a lot easier for all involved in my humble opinion...

A thread to collect "hot" areas that are "claimed" or intended to be claimed by alliances may be helpful too and may avoind instances where players directly jump into recently appeared gaps that are within such an territory...

The alternative was two cities showing up in nearby or on the same location (causing the second to bounce), diplomatic conflicts and all matter of problems or in the case of marking cities, two alliances sending siege armies to the same city.     It's an easy solution to avoid conflict.

This pracitce works, as Director of a large alliance, we have fewer diplomatic incidents because we mark the location or the city AND we communicate.      The key is communication.   If you are moving into a new neighborhood, contact your future neighbors, inform they of your plans, the city site and your intention to honor their alliances sov/gathering rules.   Sending a marking army without communication, especially if you are moving near a military alliance, may cause concern, contacting them gives them a heads up that you have no ill will and you want to join the neighborhood.   You'd be surprised how many players will be welcomed to their new area and in some cases, receive help from those players that currently reside in the region.   

Of course, common sense prevails, if you are planning to move into the middle of an alliance hub, you may find they do not want you to move there.

the distinction trying to be made is placing a 'marker' army for a 'future' settlement (and one that is not currently in motion or potentially going to be any time soon).

With regard to eCrow though, and in all fairness,  their marker armies are a bit.. hmm..  different than what others do with them. For them, if they have a marker army down, they lay claim to all surrounding tiles, up to 5 squares. Effectively giving their 'marker armies' the same rights that is 'typically' understood for an actual town. Now understand this too.. if they have an army on a mine or herb patch or whatever.. that constitutes also a marker army and thus their rule of having control and ownership of the surrounding 5 tiles is in effect as well. 

Now the above should not reflect the sum total of their view and policies, only a quick overview of one aspect that took me by surprise, and even in the quick overview.. I do not speak for them as even I could get it a bit out of whack, so I will let them speak to their policy - if they so wish to continue it.

To me, again me, this is problematic on many levels.. but I will step off. It was an interesting diplomatic mess that made me aware of this policy.. and eCrow was kind enough to walk me through their views. While I don't agree with some of them, we tried to work it out.. and from what I know.. I think the issue settled itself... at least I haven't heard anymore on it.

Aristeas wrote: And as was said before, not all are/were aware of this, I can imagine especially newbies aren´t, and at least I haven´t read ( or forgotten it^^) of this practice in the newbie guides, so if we really want to make it more practicable it should be promulgated more clearly, especially for the new players in their guides.

agreed, which is why our site now has an explanation of the practice.  as i have said, at one time it was well known and well understood.  t2 resources have certainly made the map more cluttered, and the large number of vets who have left over the last several months may have caused a break in illy's oral history.

Aristeas wrote: It could lead to quite unclear situations, especially if not both sides use armies to mark squares. Player A can see the spot first, send his settler, then Player B sees the square a short while later, sends the army to mark it. That could lead to a situation where B could say he has the "right" to the square because his fast army arrieved before the slow settler, though Player A saw the place first and acted directly (and if it was his 2nd town he maybe even wasn´t in the posessions of any troops whatsoever to be able to mark it in advance). But that may be quite hard to proof (well, would at least require to make some math with movement-speeds)...

to begin, if both sides use markers, then Player A sends a marker first and there is no issue.  i have been in several discussions where two contenders arrive in nearly the same place and alliance leaders must work out whose arrival was first.  they are, from memory, always sorted far more amicably than if both players had sent settlers.

Aristeas wrote: So I hope those instances (of course not implying above mentioned one was such a case!) will be dealed with in a more pragmatic way than the much clearer instances regarding the 10-square-rules of already existing cities etc. (doesn´t imply the big ones necessarily have to give in, as their claims and aims are of course legitimate too, but they can make it easier for the smaller ones involved than in instances where the 10 square rule was clearly broken).

even the 10-square rule is applied quite flexibly by most alliances with which i am acquainted.  the overriding concern about proximity is long-term growth.  the more willing two players are to cooperate, the more closely they can coexist.

(edited for formatting)

I expect this debate has begun simply because someone lacked the resources to overcome such enforcement.  And as a result they are hoping that by bringing the issue to the forums they may gain new resources for them to counter any further enforcement. 

So they are the same thing in practice and not necessarily a separate subject at all. The principle is separate but the practice is the same and that is why I spoke to it.

The OP is asking about Marker armies, and this is one aspect to which 'markers' are used and thus can be discussed.

On this I disagree. While it 'can' take such a turn, I believe discussing it and letting others know what your policies are, hearing from them.. these allow alliance to make better and more informed decisions on adapting, continuing, or modifying they policies.

The fact is, if you place an army on a herb patch even 100 squares from your city,  you are claiming that land for yourself.  Someone may always dispute your claim though and that is what this is about if you ask me.

For informatioal purposes to others - I'm not belittling eCrow polices.

Angrim - I misunderstood the OP and 'presumed' it was referring to the usage of marker armies (and thusly all aspects to which they are applied).

Since he is speaking primarily to one aspect, that of holding a position for a town, I will of course step out.

From Dlords standpoint, marker armies are fine, if the person understands it can be contested, and as such the contestor should have valid reasons. Now, if a person is using marker armies and no one is contesting fine.. however if I see an army in a place we might like to use but the army is there already, I will message that person to see when their town will be landing, if they can give a definate landing time (and 'typically not greater than 15 days) - great... if not - the location is still free game and the armies sitting there can be removed.

When new players in my alliances need to undertake long Exoduses to get to the alliance hubs, I often advise them to do a "short-hop" Exodus first:  To exodus somewhere within 100 or so squares, which takes under one day, then to do the Tenaril move, then after 5 days send the city on its final journey.  The overall process is more cumbersome, but I think it is more respectful of others and of general conventions that suggest that marking armies are to be used for cities already in motion, not to reserve potential future settlement spots.  

That said, I'm sure everyone is not going to agree to do things the same way; my comments are directed at those practices I would predict would most likely to be acceptable to many in the Illy community.

With regard to the question of whether this is about the "rights" of new players, I don't think that anyone is asking anything of new players that we don't ask of existing players:  That is, in general many people find it unacceptable to attempt to reserve a spot for future use by a city.  This applies both the Tenaril and Exodus moves.  The short-hop Exodus can be used by players who want to be assured an opportunity to Tenaril to a particular location.

If a desired Tenaril location becomes unavailable before a move can be made, that is a consequence of playing a game that has other players in it.  Sometimes someone else gets something you wanted.  New players who have difficulty with this fact will probably struggle with it in other aspects of their Illy career.

Q&S policies are what they are. If anyone has an issue with them, they can mail me in game. I respect the marking armies of other players and expect mine to be treated likewise. The spots we mark most definitely will be settled, the time frame is sometimes dependent on exodus/confeds etc and anyone who has a problem with that is free to scout/mail - just don't ignore them. I can soon tell you exactly how long it will be before that spot is settled and whether exodus is in transit. 

wrong thread.  moved.

Edit:   Deerrrr... I see what you mean Kumo, should have read TD's post first 

 It is VERY easy to find short-hop Exodus squares to match the beginning configuration of human, elf, dwarf and orc cities -- because there are lots of these square types, either once starter cities now abandoned or created by the system to be new city spawns in the future. 

So if a new player has managed not to upgrade more than 3 plots, more power to them, but if they haven't and this is a concern, then it is an easy matter to find a short-hop Exodus square to match their starting square.  The Exo-Tenaril process can be tedious, and there's no need to add extra "rules" to remember like "don't upgrade more than 3 of any plot even if you happen to have them."  (That is a handy suggestion for people who are planning Exo-Tenaril, but when advising new players I try to walk a line between what might be theoretically ideal and what is too complicated to be any fun.

*facepalms* I've never thought of doing it that way round. Well, I feel silly. 

I doubt you're going to change my opinion on terraforming though ;) If newbies don't have the patience for it, they probably aren't much suited to Illyriad and would quit regardless. They can still harvest, build scouts/spies, do their mysteries etc. They have to stick around the newbie ring and stay at lvl 12 for a while, that's all.