| A Call for an Injunction | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 29 2008, 06:16 AM (299 Views) | |
| The White Bull | Sep 29 2008, 06:16 AM Post #1 |
|
(Note I have made an accompanying post to this in the Purchase Battalions section making largely the same point.) See my post in Help dated September 3rd titled "A Question on Besieging Important." and Athidoc's corresponding response. What the hell is the point of besieging someone if they can just send all of their gold to an ally, have that ally then purchase troops for them, and send those troops back to them. As far as I know and had understood this was the case. If I had known that the loop-hole had not been removed I would have sent a trebuchet at one of Cenedil's cities. I don't mean to sound sour, but this is clearly an issue that I had thought of, and I believed had been resolved. |
 |
 
|
| Athidoc | Sep 29 2008, 06:35 AM Post #2 |
Lord of Harrenhal
|
If I am reading this correctly, the solution we were putting into use was that tributed troops could not be used to defend a city under siege, but could be used otherwise. I have an idea for a solution, but it wouldn't help the current situation much. Instead of paying double price for troops while under siege, we could simply halve that player's income. It would theoretically resolve the overall problem, but, like I said, would not resolve the current dilemma. I'll think on some sort of compromise. Until I/we can come up with something, is it all right if we put the related battles on hold? Edited by Athidoc, Sep 29 2008, 07:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Sep 29 2008, 07:23 AM Post #3 |
|
As I think about it, it probably won't end up mattering too much. So lets just go ahead, allowing things as they had been in prior seasons. If I need to buy troops now, I'll just tribute money to Turncloak and she can purchase them for me. I would prefer this to suspending the other two battles as both of them are now up to six days, and so responses are due today. I didn't want to cause a huge problem, and it will most likely be irrelevant shortly. So in short I won't ask for the injunction, lets just move ahead as is. |
|
|
|
| Chugman | Sep 29 2008, 11:11 AM Post #4 |
House of Black
|
Well my view on the matter as a whole is different.Besieging should not cause the besieged economy to be damaged so much. Seeing as only one place is suffering it would seem that the money generated by the Besieged spot should disappear, and the cost to get troops there should be tripled. |
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Sep 29 2008, 01:10 PM Post #5 |
|
I hear where you are coming from Chugman. I guess my suggesstion is that we finish this season out with the current rules and/or eliminate besieging as an option, which I am fine with. We can then worry about how we want to handle besieging in the next season. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
| Turncloak | Sep 29 2008, 05:04 PM Post #6 |
|
Wasn't this issue addressed already before? Anyways, we could have it effect any ally or partner of said player....say fifteeen perfect less income? Maybe if we incorperated actual materiels like lumber in to the game, that's the whole point of beseiging isn't it? To delay the enemies production? Edit- Athidoc, then they;d just tribute cities. Edited by Turncloak, Sep 29 2008, 05:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Athidoc | Sep 29 2008, 07:51 PM Post #7 |
|
Lord of Harrenhal
|
Let's just keep the change we had: no tributed troops in cities under siege. As for next season, I'm sure Gunslinger and Acheron will come up with something, if they haven't already. |
|
|
|
| Cenedil | Sep 30 2008, 05:17 AM Post #8 |
|
On a slightly off topic, I wish we could hear from them. |
|
|
|
| Turncloak | Sep 30 2008, 05:05 PM Post #9 |
|
hmm...where ARE they? |
|
|
|
| The Gunslinger | Sep 30 2008, 07:11 PM Post #10 |
|
Administrator
|
Long time no talk. Glad to see a few of you have still stuck around. As for the new board, I still can't release a date for its release; it's a work in progress, and Acheron and I are taking our sweet time to make everything is enjoyable as possible. I suppose we deserve the nickname 'Blizzard Entertainment' (or rather Activision Blizzard, as it is now). A small update as to where we are at, however. Technical rules have all been sorted out, and right now we're working on game...flavor, or whatever you want to call it. One of the problems I see in this game is there is very little interaction outside of battle. This doesn't really feel like Westeros...just a game that uses a map from it and factions of the same name. There's also basically no chat outside of the game; I come here and get the feeling that we're all Stannis Baratheons. We get on, do our duty (post in battles/trades/purchases), then log off. Nobody really gets to know each other, or just spends some time relaxing. Chugman's 'Who would win?' topics were nice, but I want more. Of course, you all talking outside of the game is never something I can make happen. However, making it more Westeros attuned is something that both Acheron and I would love to see, and something that we both agree can be done. Some time I'm going to get around to emailing GRRM, and get official permission to have this game up and running; I'm not to sure about copyright infringement and all, but if I had to guess I'd say this board is illegal in one way or another. Even if it's not, it'd still be great to have his approval (woe to use if he says no). As for making it more in line with Westeros, I have a few ideas on the matter. However, I'd like to first hear your ideas, so that none are influenced by mine. Feel free to suggest anything; we're doing our best to tailor this game to the best interests of everyone, but that's hard to do when we get so little feedback. ~The Gunslinger |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · In-Game News · Next Topic » |
7:04 PM Nov 23
