Moderator: Clan Directors










No not really. Victory over Lords are part of the game. You also gain other things potentially from it (gold, diplo, kidnapping / ransom etc) where as barbarians don't really advance anything else game wise.TX AG 90 wrote:Why is Victory over a Barbarian worth 2 Fame and a Victory over a Lord only 1?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Makes sense - Thanks!IcePack wrote:No not really. Victory over Lords are part of the game. You also gain other things potentially from it (gold, diplo, kidnapping / ransom etc) where as barbarians don't really advance anything else game wise.TX AG 90 wrote:Why is Victory over a Barbarian worth 2 Fame and a Victory over a Lord only 1?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
It doesn't bring you closer to taking down a house, or siege a castle etc so there's a small incentive to be the one that clears them from your area. But it's a risky proposition so it's not just +1 w no other potential rewards, I've made it +2.


Each house gets one permanent replacement for free. I'm hoping we can keep it at that as I want to limit the # of times Lords are swapped out for fairness purposes to other clans Intel / research etc.josko.ri wrote:Can the exception be made when a player (Lord) goes Freemium and do not want to renew, that only in this case he can be exchanged by other player for free?









This should be reconsidered for future versions. Part of the purpose of a siege is impart pressure in Diplomatic Negotiations. Without the ability to end the siege whenever they desire, the attacking army loses a huge negotiating tool.2. You can come to a diplo agreement at any time. The siege is still considered ongoing for game purposes (can't spawn there, can't move in / out of castle) but of course part of the diplo agreement can be whoever wins releases the lord involved / losing without ransoms

I'll add it to the suggestions list. Just another thing that would make it harder to track for me which is why its set up this way. When games complete, guys can release the lords as discussed etc but I do see the point you're making, so I'll add it to the to be considered lists for v 2.0 that keeps on growingTX AG 90 wrote:This should be reconsidered for future versions. Part of the purpose of a siege is impart pressure in Diplomatic Negotiations. Without the ability to end the siege whenever they desire, the attacking army loses a huge negotiating tool.2. You can come to a diplo agreement at any time. The siege is still considered ongoing for game purposes (can't spawn there, can't move in / out of castle) but of course part of the diplo agreement can be whoever wins releases the lord involved / losing without ransoms
Otherwise, it's just a conquest attempt.

IcePack wrote:I'll add it to the suggestions list. Just another thing that would make it harder to track for me which is why its set up this way. When games complete, guys can release the lords as discussed etc but I do see the point you're making, so I'll add it to the to be considered lists for v 2.0 that keeps on growingTX AG 90 wrote:This should be reconsidered for future versions. Part of the purpose of a siege is impart pressure in Diplomatic Negotiations. Without the ability to end the siege whenever they desire, the attacking army loses a huge negotiating tool.2. You can come to a diplo agreement at any time. The siege is still considered ongoing for game purposes (can't spawn there, can't move in / out of castle) but of course part of the diplo agreement can be whoever wins releases the lord involved / losing without ransoms
Otherwise, it's just a conquest attempt.

Yeah, I agree. It adds a potentially lengthy step for me because right now I just search for completed games and deal with those that are completed. Having additional steps / checks and balances and having to follow ongoing games as well, and then ignoring them later when they complete can get a bit confusing / difficult when theres so much info to process. As is, even without extra complexities there have been a few corrections I've had to make every turn so far even with the "simplified" version, which is taking 1-4 hours now to complete. (Turn 7 for example, took 4.25 hours last night and still got notified today of a mistake).nvanputten wrote:IcePack wrote:I'll add it to the suggestions list. Just another thing that would make it harder to track for me which is why its set up this way. When games complete, guys can release the lords as discussed etc but I do see the point you're making, so I'll add it to the to be considered lists for v 2.0 that keeps on growingTX AG 90 wrote:This should be reconsidered for future versions. Part of the purpose of a siege is impart pressure in Diplomatic Negotiations. Without the ability to end the siege whenever they desire, the attacking army loses a huge negotiating tool.2. You can come to a diplo agreement at any time. The siege is still considered ongoing for game purposes (can't spawn there, can't move in / out of castle) but of course part of the diplo agreement can be whoever wins releases the lord involved / losing without ransoms
Otherwise, it's just a conquest attempt.
I really like TX's idea. It adds a lot more dynamic strategy to the siege. Instead of just "attack and hope you get a good drop/play well" it can be "play for an advantage and then negotiate from the lead" etc. Also allows the option to avoid a really lengthy game that ties up both Lords.



Should thid not read as :Q: Are there any neutral or unfilled cities on the map not associated with any clan?
A: No, all Castles will be associated with a Clan. No empty neutral castles will be placed.

Sorry, castles or cities both. Neither will be empty if they are unassociated with clans.ElricTheGreat wrote:Please verify the following item found in the FAQ
Should thid not read as :Q: Are there any neutral or unfilled cities on the map not associated with any clan?
A: No, all Castles will be associated with a Clan. No empty neutral castles will be placed.
A: No, all Cities will be associated with a Clan. No empty neutral Cities will be placed.




