Drejan wrote:
Hadus, people can be gentle and spend real time to scout message and answer to the average of 10 message the player will send you becouse he think to be right. But the fact is that you have no right to place that army there and when you send the army you should expect to loose it, someone can argue i can ask you the resource lost attacking your troops too. In a real world wars have started just becouse of troops placed near someone territory. You are focused on the right to claim a land but what is your right to send troops far away or to claim sov?
Anyway again you say you do not want to ruminate on your personal view and keep enforcing your view to anyone else.
Edit: sorry maybe you are not the same person |
Drejan wrote:
What you say is everything more than 3 square is free for all becouse you want to harvast all the possible territory in the map.What we say is what is near our lands is our or of our nightbours, not free for all. |
No no no, I'm miscommunicating my message to you still. My only point in posting the principles, and read the next sentence carefully, is this: Players need to differentiate between "Player X is deliberately trespassing on my land and needs to be punished" and "Player X does not realize I consider that square my land, I need to let them know." Here's a scenario that will illustrate how many ways conflict can be avoided in a situation if people are simply more aware and cautious: Player A believes any player can claim land within a 5 square radius. He sees a rare herb spot 7 squares from a city. If the city is in an alliance, one option is: a. Check the player's alliance page to see what their alliance policy on land claims is. If he does this, he should be able to figure out the other player's policy. But lets assume the city is not in the alliance, or that Player A is fairly new/out of the loop and doesn't know to check player's Alliance profiles for land claim policies. There are two more options: b. Recognize that some players claim a larger radius than 5 squares and ask the player before sending an army or harvesters. c. Impose his beliefs on the other player and send harvesters/an army without asking. If the Player A chooses b. both players will know exactly what each other believe regarding land claims. But let's assume he picks c. Player B's alliance claims all land within 10 squares. He logs in and sees an unknown army (Player A's) within 7 squares, harvesting on the rare herb spot. Player B hasn't sov'd or put an army on it, but considers it his. Player B can: a. Contact the player via IGM and explain his land claim policy, asking them to leave. b. Assume that everyone already knows his personal policies on land claims (which is absurd) and, in order of least to most aggressive: 1. bump the units and send a message explaining his personal policies. 2. bump the units and don't send a message. 3. kill the units and send a message. 4. kill the units and don't send a message. If Player B chooses a. or even b.1., they avoid many of the potential conflicts by leaving the units intact and making their policy clear and obvious. If they choose b.2-4., they are still getting their point across, but also opening themselves up to further conflict in the near or far future. Do you get my point now Drejan? It is folly to go around assuming everyone is going to know what your policy on land claims. Stating "If they come in our land we will kill them, no questions asked" only applies in the situation Salarius brought up below, or when dealing with repeat offenders. Take the time, make your intentions on land as clear and obvious as possible, and if they refuse to comply, then you bring out the troops. Now let's look at Salarius' case.
Salararius wrote:
Actually, there is a reason although you may not agree with it. There's a pretty good chance that the entire existence of a camp and removal of resources will only take 2-3 hours. It takes 2 hours to harvest animal parts and some herbs/minerals are as quick. In 2 hours 4 human cotters can take 84 hides IIRC (over 300K gold in value). If I pop in here (Illy) and see a transgressing army there's a possibility that in the 10-15 minutes for my scouts to get there (5-7 squares) the offender will simply leave. Let's say that doesn't happen (there's probably only a 10% chance of missing them entirely) I still have to wait 10-15 minutes to learn anything and if I wait until later to read the scout report the offender will likely have already left (with "my" resources). I put the odds at 90%+ that if you return in only 90 minutes that the offender will be gone. Maybe I don't have 10-15 minutes to play Illy, in which case my only options are to send troops, do nothing or beg for the return of what (if my scouts got their names before they left)? The offender can always claim they were bumped or even killed by someone else. Who's to say at that point? What if they simply don't respond? Do you attack their city? That's a pretty poor option when you could have got them red-handed, in the act and exacted a minimal punishment (the loss of whatever troops they chose to risk). |
A great point Salarius. In this case, yes, killing the units is the only way to go. It should be noted though, that there are many ways to soften the blow of this action while saving your resources: 1. Send a message at the same time you send the attack, explaining your personal policies on land claims. 2. Explain that you only killed the units on the square to make sure the spot didn't go extinct. 3. If you really want to show benevolence, offer to give the the res needed to rebuild the units.
Edited by Hadus - 07 Sep 2012 at 21:59
|