Valid Land Claims in the New Era

Despite numerous "discussions" concerning the validity of certain land claims, the Illy community does not seem to have an authority or even an common understanding on what is and what is not a valid claim to land.

The purpose of this post is not to merely ruminate on my personal views on land claims, but rather to start a discussion of whether, as a community, we can come to SOME common understanding of what is and what is not appropriate (civil) means to claim land.  I believe this issue is ripe to be re-visited given the obvious implications of rare resources.  

After speaking to many players, there seems to be TWO in-game mechanisms for claiming land: 1) claiming sovereignty on a particular square, OR 2) occupying land with military troops.  As I'm sure we have all experienced at one point or another, players and alliances claim ownership or right to land beyond these two methods....  

Example 1: "You may not settle/exodus a city to any land within X squares of my cities." 

This seems to be a fairly reasonable request (especially in less densely populated regions of Elgea) and widely accepted by the Illy community.  There seems to be no doubt that it is considered poor form (and probably seen as hostile) to settle a city adjacent to or one, two, three, four, and in most instances five squares from another city.  Some alliances have suggested more than 5 squares (8 and 10 square radii come to mind) but often these are alliances/players who have intentionally situated themselves in the vastness of Elgea to avoid such issues.  I'd prefer not to bicker over whether 8 squares is valid or not - I believe it depends on just how remote the region is - but it's hard to think anyone would contest that intentionally settling a city within 4 squares of an existing city (in ANY region) is not acceptable.

Example 2: "I claim all land within X squares of my cities - do not settle do not claim sov., and any stationing of troops will be seen as hostile."

This is where, in my eyes, we begin down the slippery slope.  Settling a city within an area is one thing (it inherently limits the in-game mechanisms for claiming land via sov.), but does occupying a particular square really constitute hostile action?  One can only launch a hostile military action from that army's home city - so occupying a location, despite its proximity to another city, does not pose any direct military threat to that city (unless it is a siege or blockade obviously).  So the only hostility from a player occupying a square near another city would be, 1) usurping an already validly laid sov. claim, OR 2) denial of resources on that square.  1) is clearly hostile... but 2) raises the question: does a player have an automatic right to resources simply by virtue of it being NEAR their city?

which leads to . . . .

Example 3: "I own anything and everything within X squares of my cities, regardless of whether I have claimed sov. on the squares - any troops or harvesters are trespassers on MY land is hostile and any resources near my cities are mine and no one else's."

I think this is a blatant over over-reach.  Let's go back to probably the most widely-accepted principle: there are two in-game mechanisms for claiming land (sov. and military occupation).  The reason these are almost ubiquitously accepted as valid is because it puts other players on NOTICE that the land is spoken for - its a matter of practicality of enforcement and respect.  But what is also important about these methods being seen as valid is the player must proactively DO something to lay claim to land - they must expend resources and time to gain the benefit of owning the land.  It seems unreasonable to proclaim that any and all land within whatever area you decree is automatically yours.  You have DONE nothing to claim this land, you have expended no resources, time or energy... you've simply waived your wand and said it's so.  This seems equally unfair as it does impractical (especially in densely populated regions like Norweld, Lucerna and other regions of the "newbie ring").

This fact is even MORE true now, with the release of advanced resources that are meant to cause territorial friction and often require protection to ensure enough time to harvest and to prevent over-harvesting and extinction.  To expect the entire community to only harvest from resources that are not within 5 squares of ANY city but their own or no city at all is silly.  If you'd like to claim a rare resource as your own you're going to have to DO something to reap the rewards of exclusively owning it - namely, the two in-game mechanisms discussed (sov. and military occupation).

Recap:

- X square radius settlement prohibition - REASONABLE, generally accepted.

- X square radius military occupation prohibition - UNreasonable, unless the occupation is a siege, blockade, or is on your sov. square.

- X square radius harvesting prohibition - UNreasonable, unless you have sov. on that square.

Does anyone disagree with these principles?  Let's get a discussion and perhaps even a debate going so we at least know where the rest of the community stands on this issue... cuz it's not going away.

 

I disagree with the last two principles. I am a proponent of "You have what you can hold." If you have the ability to prevent anyone else from claiming or using a piece of land at ANY distance, it is within your right to do so. It is also, however, within everyone else's right to do so. If you claim a space with a rare herb spot 2 squares from a smaller player, it's your right. They, in turn, have the right to ask you to move, and if you don't, they have the right to get help and forcibly remove you.

 

I support this because sovereignty and occupation are both costly to upkeep. These limitations create a natural safeguard against unreasonable claims, as sov and occupation become more costly and inconvenient at greater distances. Both are also able to be countered. Applying a further ruling whereby players are not allowed to informally claim land is redundant and cause for conflict.

Lemme think....

Yes, i do disagree. For one an occupying army within 10 squares of my city could be claiming sov (up to Sov 5) which would circumvent the exodus 10 square limitation, and he could park what was a HUGE city right on my doorstep.

So no, i do not like troops camped that close to my city if they're not alliance or confed troops.