Supporting Villages

Status
Not open for further replies.

meralikon

Guest
Proposal:

Villages should be supportable by players so that their enemies may invest more effort on farming them. This way players will kind of “have villages under their thumb” Each village will be farmable only by one certain alliance/player. If a player or an alliance want/need to farm a village, apart from braking its defenses they will also have to brake the support that an enemy may have sent there. If they do so, then the player that was previously farming that village will have to brake the base defense of it again, or just the support their enemy has sent to it after conquership.


Have you Checked the DNS and PSI lists in the Archives? Is this idea similar to one that has been previously suggested?

I did check as much as I could (at some point I got too tired with it). Didn't see anything similar. If anyone notices anything, I apologize in advance.

Reason:

It brings more realism to the game. Fighting over resources is already done be fighting and farming enemies' cities. Why not villages, too? It also brings a more tactical element to the game. One may hide his/her troops by supporting a village, and if somebody wants to cut off the resources of an enemy, then he/she will have to step foot on their island first by conquering or colonizing a city on that, before attacking their enemies villages in order to affect their resources. This way the game becomes more tactical too. One may hide his/her troops in a village (unaffected be sea raids) as well as return these troops home, thus leaving the village unattended and defenseless to be taken by another player...


Details:

I would suggest that war over villages would be excluded during beginners protection but that is upon discussion.

Allied players will not have to brake supporters' defense as long as this support comes from their own allies but they will have to brake the base defense of a village in order to farm it (as was previously done).

I don't know about pacts though... Should pacted allies fight over villages or not? What is your opinion? If not, then pacts will be more practically involved in the game by allowing players to farm the same villages (at the moment a pact is just a diplomatic declaration, an agreement between players that may be broken anytime for any reason)

Then again, pacts may not influence that new aspect of the game. Thus, if a player attacks a pacted alliance's village (assuming that they can't farm a village even if they are pacted with the alliance that farms it) then that may be a reason to brake their pact (or not, as that will depend on the defenders reaction). Pacted allies may inform each other which villages they have under their thumb so that they may avoid conflict.

Will a player be able to know if a village is supported by another player/alliance otherwise than having a pact, or how much support by another alliance/player exists in a village?

I want your opinion on that, too. Maybe just with espionage (it will make espionage more important, too) Or maybe not. Let them be surprised...

In any case in order to send support to a village, you first have to conquer it/own it (brake its base defense)


Visual Aids: I'm thinking of just adding a circle with the support choice whenever you click on a village. The same choice there is with all cities.


Balance: Will this idea require adjustments or changes? Well... I don't know. Can anybody help me on that? What may the side effects of such an idea be?


Abuse Prevention: I cant think of how a player could cheat by supporting a village. Maybe one could dominate so much the villages of an island that the rest of the players may have no places to get resources from and will have to move on other places in order to survive/expand. Thus it may create the need to move outwards, away from the core and colonize or conquer more. It will definitely make the game more competitive, but isn't it already? Good players already know how to dominate in many ways, well this is just one more. And in any case, rules are the same for everybody.

Maybe there should be a cap on how many villages one could conquer/own on an island (lets say5/8) or maybe villages should become more (what about 10, so that the ratio of villages/cities is ½). Still it will make the game more interesting. And I'm sure that if this idea is to be implemented it will be thoroughly tested.


Summary: This is a cheap and simple idea that will make the game more competitive. Villages apart from being places one can get resources from, will now transform into battlegrounds. Sweet? Or maybe not? I'm waiting on your feedback...

Well the paragraph above was propably no summary, but I cant go all over it again (certainly not in fewer words). English is not my native language, so it is quite hard already... also excuse the many mistakes I most propably have done...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

meralikon

Guest
Quite simple, too.

Now what about... villages being more in numbers (lets say 10) as well as being farmed by just one player at a time. Something like "owning them". If a player wants to farm a village they have to conquer it. If they do so, the previous owner loses it. Whoever owns a village has to support it in order to keep it under his/her own control. Otherwise they lose it.

Simple as well.
 

Corinthian II

Guest
I like it, it would be nice if players had to compete for farms. Would be nice to share an island with your enemy and have to fight for control of them. However, difficulties would arise when there are several players on an island in the same alliance.

Perhaps if farming villages were alliance-controlled? That way, several players on the same island who are in an alliance together would be able to benefit from controlling the villages, but they would have to defend them from any enemies or non-ally members who occupied the same island.
 

meralikon

Guest
Now think about that: Lets say you attack the enemy that occupies (supports) a village. Then he may withdraw support from the villages to defend his city and thus make them more volnerable to be taken. This way villages become more tactically involved in the game!
 

Corinthian II

Guest
You'll probably need to outline the idea using the format shown here, for it to be considered.
 

meralikon

Guest
...I'm very new to this thing. That needs time to be put down the proper way but I will try to do it as soon as possible. Thanks for the support!
 

Corinthian II

Guest
Excellent, looks good. As far as pacted alliances fighting over farming villages, in my opinion they probably should have to. It would either encourage diplomacy (alliances splitting farming villages evenly on shared islands) or encourage fighting (alliances conquering the villages of others).
 

noahsummers

Guest
no, there is a problem. the strongest people on the island will just send a nuke of support to the farm, and then nobody will get to farm. big no!
 

meralikon

Guest
Unless you want to leave your city with no deffence then yes, you can. You will also have to have five or four cities on an island (which is stupid) to say, sacrifice a citie's nuke on permanently staying on a village to be destroyed or attacked or anything... You can always use that nuke for sth else, lets say conquest. It' will always take some population space anyways. Thus its your choice what you do with your nukes... You will just defend your ground when defending a village. It's like claiming a village's recourses for just your own but you can always lose it, its war after all. And you still will have a big defending loss when it comes to your own cities defence. Its kind of lose/win situation.
 

noahsummers

Guest
mind you, it's mighty fine the way it is now, with everyone getting thier own share. No.
 

legolover26

Guest
I do not really like this idea, because it would make it far harder to grow. But I agree with CorinthianII. A village should be alliance owned if this idea goes through. Otherwise, a lot less resources would be contributed to World Wonders on WW islands.
 

meralikon

Guest
Alliance owned it is. I've got my one-man alliance anyways... :p. I agree. Alliance owned! It would make it harder to grow if you are weak, it will make it easier to grow if you are strong! It will make it overall more competitive, I say.
 

Hagop abroumian

Guest
No please this will make the game more complicated. Many people are trying to give ideas to make the game simpler and this idea will make the game harder so a big NO.
 

Ford Prefect

Guest
Sounds good, but basically what it will do is make life easier for stronger players, and harder for those who aren't so successful. As far as I understand, Inno tries to avoid this sort of thing.
 

meralikon

Guest
I don't think it would make the strong players life much easier. I will repeat that what may seem as an advantage is also a disadvantage as troops that will support a village will not support the city they come from. Thus a city that sends troops to support a village will be more vulnerable when it comes to defense.

Furthermore there are 8 villages on each island. And virtually nobody uses all of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.