| Besieging - Sunspear- Cenedil | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 30 2008, 04:31 PM (314 Views) | |
| The White Bull | Sep 30 2008, 04:31 PM Post #1 |
|
Besieging: Cenedil City Besieged: Sunspear Battalions: 2 X Unsullied 2 X Knights of Flowers 2 X Men-at Arms 2 X Archers 1 X Trebuchet 1 X Ballista 1 X Battering Ram Movement Cost: 60+100+60+60+150=430 Grand Library will be updated for movement cost when defenses are posted. |
 |
 
|
| The White Bull | Oct 3 2008, 09:16 PM Post #2 |
|
Note that none of the troops tributed to Cenedil by Chugman are elligible for this battle as the agreement has been made and confirmed that troops can not be tributed to cities under siege. This was my main reason for attacking his capital, he left it undefended with no way to get troops to it other than purchasing them at double cost. |
|
|
|
| Athidoc | Oct 3 2008, 10:12 PM Post #3 |
Lord of Harrenhal
|
I saw this problem coming, having realized that the amendment was very vaguely worded, and feel like an idiot for not having done something about it then. The original problem was that players under siege would tribute their money to allies, who would purchase troops on their behalf. That was what the rule amendment refers to, tributed troops that were purchased with the besieged player's money. If we disallow all tributed troops, then besieging becomes even more powerful, as it would completely isolate a player. And, judging from the early responses in the Injunction thread (before it became Season 4 discussion) the general consensus is that sieges need to be toned down, not buffed. I know this seems like I'm going back on what I said, but from the beginning my interpretation of the amendment was no tributed troops *purchased with the besieged player's money*. So this leaves us in (yet another) conundrum. If I (and my alliance) had known the amendment would be interpreted as such, I would have either reworded it, or kept it like it was and made preparations for this very situation, seeing as Cenedil's capital was vulnerable. And if I had reworded it or you had interpreted it like I had then I don't think you would have attacked. I apologize, everyone, for getting us in another situation like this, but I really don't know what to do. To concede and keep the rule the way it is would leave Cenedil hopeless, but to change the rule would put the White Bull in an unfair situation. Does anyone have any idea how we can resolve this? Edited by Athidoc, Oct 3 2008, 10:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 3 2008, 10:34 PM Post #4 |
|
My honest opinion is that Cenedil should be hopeless. He made a grave tactical error and should have to pay for it. Cenedil and I had a non-aggression pact, and he chose to break it. I am fine with that as I knew it would happen at some time. The problem is that Cenedil got greedy. He could and should have besieged The Tor. Instead he went for Yronwood because it was worth more gold, thinking he had plenty of time as most of my troops should have been locked up at the bloody gate. He made a signifiant tactical error and should have to pay for it. There are no do-overs, and you can't change the rules just because someone didn't pay attention to them. |
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 3 2008, 10:36 PM Post #5 |
|
Again in my opinion the rules were clearly stated and understood. This has nothing to do with a misunderstanding. Just a flat out tactical error. If Cenedil wants to survive there is always diplomacy. Edited by The White Bull, Oct 3 2008, 10:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Athidoc | Oct 3 2008, 10:50 PM Post #6 |
|
Lord of Harrenhal
|
Cenedil's tactics are not the issue here, the rules themselves are. I am not trying to change the rules to help him, I am trying to correct an error on my own part in not clarifying the amendment. Again, the problem was players circumventing a siege by tributing their gold to allies to buy troops. The sensible solution? Disallow those troops. To disallow troops paid for by an ally, however, would be to destroy the entire point of an alliance-helping with troops when needed. I understand any frustration you may be feeling, as this situation has taken what should have been a relatively easy as well as game-changing victory from you. Then again, your last point is true. If the council goes well, it won't matter in the end anyway. Edited by Athidoc, Oct 3 2008, 10:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 3 2008, 11:02 PM Post #7 |
|
Agreed about diplomacy, but I completely disagree on the rules. The rules were clearly worded and understood. Cenedil (pardon my language) fucked up and should have to pay the price. You can't just change them because your friend is about to be knocked out of the game. This is why I asked about the rules in the beginning, and the rules played a significant role in my strategy. If I had known they were going to change I would have put Chugman under seige as well, I had more than enough troops an siege weapons. |
|
|
|
| Cenedil | Oct 4 2008, 07:07 AM Post #8 |
|
Woah woah woah! I should have a say in this too. Ok first, yes I fucked up, but not because I got greedy. I forgot you had the Tor when Sunviper left. Second, Bull, don't be retarded. I interpreted that siege rule the same way, so chill out. Cursing and raging against other people never got anyone anywhere, look at today's politics. Anyway, we could suspend this to the end of the council, or we could go ahead and call me screw if your way is the only way. P.S. dude Im not retarded. Im forgetful but not retarded. Do you really think I would have attacked Yronwood if I remembered that you had the Tor. Edited by Cenedil, Oct 4 2008, 07:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Athidoc | Oct 4 2008, 07:12 AM Post #9 |
|
Lord of Harrenhal
|
EDIT: Cenedil posted when I did, so I didn't see his post. So, Cenedil, I ask that you not insult the White Bull either. We can work this out without resorting to immaturity. Original post: Please stop insulting Cenedil, it was me who told him to attack Yronwood, assuming that Chugman and I could help defend his capital. I realize that it could seem like I'm trying to change the rules for his benefit, and I understand why you may be angry. So let's just forget all that for a second. What do we do when there is a problem with a rule? We change it. That is what we did with the original besieging rules, and that is what I believe we need to do now. So, just answer this one question. Of these two rules, which seems the most logically sound when applied to the problem they were meant to prevent? a) Ban all tributed troops from helping an ally under siege, regardless of who purchased them. Does it fix the problem? Yes. However, it also creates another problem, that of an extremely overpowered siege system that completely isolates a player from his allies, thus nullifying one of the main reasons to join an alliance in the first place. b) Ban all troops purchased by an ally with the besieged player's money. Does it fix the problem? Yes, the player cannot get troops of his own without paying double. If he gives his money to an ally, then he cannot use the troops they buy for him. If b seems more reasonable then a, then it makes sense that a must be replaced. This is the same process we have gone by previously, seeing a problem when it arises and correcting it. It often takes a situation such as this to recognize the problem, and it creates a quagmire when fixing the rule may harm one or more players. But realize that accepting the rule change will not mean you are stuck in this fight. What I want is a compromise, but it requires that you recognize the problem and that we agree on a solution. That said, let's just put this on hold and see how the negotiations play out. If they end up in a treaty of some sort then this battle, and thus, this problem will not matter anyway. If the negotiations fail, we can return and attempt to work out a solution. Edited by Athidoc, Oct 4 2008, 07:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| The White Bull | Oct 4 2008, 09:25 AM Post #10 |
|
First I would like to apologize if I have offended anyone, as that was not my intent. It is one thing to critique an action taken by someone and another to critique that person. I think that you both are intelligent people and I respect greatly your roleplaying ability. That being said even the best generals make mistakes, and the have to pay for them in kind. We have seen time and time again in ASOIAF where an otherwise intelligent player in the game of thrones, makes a mistake and pays for it with their lives. I am curios as to what Acheron and Gunslinger's take would be on this as they are both as close as we can get to objective 3rd parties. Secondly, if we decide to change the rules, and that is a big if, I would go with something along the lines of rule B proposed above. But that being said if we go with that I think it shold be modified. The modification I would make is that players only have to pay double for troops they are purchasing to fight at the city being besieged. If they want to use those troops in another battle they don't have to pay double for them. By your logic above, why should I have to pay double for my Knights of Flowers and Battering Ram fighting at Sunspear, if it is Yronwood that is under attack? I think that this makes perfect sense and would also limit the power of besieging which we are looking to do. We also have to keep the rule that you can not send gold to an ally to purchase troops for a city under siege. That being said, my whole point is that the other rule changes we have made have been pro-active and before they came into play. This rule change appears to be re-active and a last ditch effort to help a player who made a mistake. (Again I am not calling you stupid, on the contrary I think entirely the opposite, but hasn't Martin taught us that in Westeros you pay for your mistakes, and when you play the Game of Thrones you win or you die.) |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Battlefield · Next Topic » |
4:28 AM Nov 23
