Inactive Topic Block Support!

DeletedUser

Guest
square4king said:
About the idea, is anyone forgetting that you lose control of a city under siege? So disallow blocking support in an under siege city.
Click to expand...

There technically is no parameters or game logic that deals with conquest worlds and city takeovers outside of a CS landing in someones harbor and having to remain there for an amount of time based on game speed (24, 12, or 8 hours). In the lead up to the capture, implementing that would not only be difficult, but it would go against the OPs idea which is to stop people from stacking defense after a CS lands in a conquest world, which would ruin a players ability to capture a city off a player who knows what he or she is doing.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
- Horus - said:
It is called raiding and looting an enemy city, everybody did this at some point in history.
Click to expand...

Yeah they raided the city to gain resources etc.

However they did not raid the city for the purpose of capturing it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
WAVEBREAKER said:
Yeah they raided the city to gain resources etc.

However they did not raid the city for the purpose of capturing it.
Click to expand...

Armies have never incited rebellions before against their overlords? Interesting point wave. :p

Putting that aside, the realism point shouldn't be flouted too often and for good reasons.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No mostly conquering armies make people unite against them.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
WAVEBREAKER said:
No mostly conquering armies make people unite against them.
Click to expand...

Like I said; realism point, it has its limits. If the game adhered to that argument, there would be next to no difference between conquest and revolt. ;)
 

DeletedUser14492

Guest
Wave, your looking at it wrong in my opinion. Forget about whole "revolt" thing. Effectively you are attacking a city until it is at a point ready to fall... you have to continue to attack it so they cannot rebuild and regain strength... you must then make a final push to actually storm the city and take it before too much reinforcements arrive or the cities regains its ability to defend effectively.

"holding" the city against its previous occupier, does happen, cos now they must attack YOUR city and weaken it to a point ready to conquer.

Thats how I see the revolt system.

Im not sure there are actually too many examples in history of storming a city then holding out under seige against the orginal owners... if you can show me some I may view your argument in a better light.

But this conquest vs revolt thang can never be won anyway cos each to their own and whatever floats yer boat :)

Ev

ps, apologies for going off topic :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
*Cough* Guys, Let's get back on-topic please! :) I'll start deleting posts that are off-topic from now on... :)

~ Lane
 

DeletedUser30838

Guest
thanks everyone for your advice and comments, i now know this idea is a bust. but right now my main goal is to get my idea for the upgradeable agora implemented in the game! while i know theres a small chance of it happening. everyone has been contributing ideas and helping the idea grow!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
WAVEBREAKER said:
That may be a great addition to Grepolis following the current theme that IG are going for.
Click to expand...

We'll call it Morale 2.0.

-------------------

Come to think of it, I am surprised this thread is continually being bumped despite the proposal being very flawed. :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Can you imagine ... you see incoming waves of support, wait until the CS is nearly at your door and click cancel on the support thats would land after the CS lands. Round time eliminates them from being involved in the battle and your allies just send navy to wipe out the CS ... everyone is happy! Except for those that want to play in a Conquor environment. Now the idea is starting to get threw my skull ...
**** Repeatively bangs head against wall **** Out, get out evil ideas, out I say! :)
 

DeletedUser20429

Guest
a pebble said:
lol...great...now we're giving them ideas they might actually implement
Click to expand...

Hey I was kidding! Jeez! They can't actually implement it without asking first. If they did then I bet they would have NO players whatsoever. Bye bye money...... :D
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So how long do these tripwires stay in your harbor? Can't you get the cleaners in to tidy up?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I think that it would be valid to allow players to turn around incoming support from players that are in your alliance or pact to the alliance that you are in. However it would be difficult to impliment that, it would be just a small butten change, but would require sub-routines designed to check whether each incoming player is associated to you or not. Off hand I have no idea as to the lag affect in the game from doing this, but I doubt that it would be a small change to avoid the lag affects of doing this.
Also would have to decide how far out you can turn them back ... 10 minutes from a city is how far a city can communicate with them, which would make the change pointless! How does an extra 20 mins help for all that programming and possible lag?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top