Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will be quick:
1) Settlements have only so much available space and it is impossible to expand this.
2) Settlements can expand their area of influence with POIs.
3) Settlements will be required to "support/train" the skills of the players.
With those facts quickly stated:
If a settlement supports all the classes it can in order to grow population wise, how in the hell is their enough room to fit things like an auction house or a bank?
Will an auction house support some class? Will a bank?
Does Golgotha just need to conquer a settlement in order to split the class training/support so that it can house other types of buildings without worry?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm kind of curious how "conquering" even works exactly. Can you take over a settlement and acquire its structures if you defeat its main hall or whatever, or do you actually have to burn it down and basically wipe the settlement out first? Maybe this is already known info, but I don't recall.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Toombstone and @Deacon Wulf:
Near the end of Gobbocast #13, Lee does briefly mention the Settlement conquering.
Basically, during war any Settlements that are taken are not necessarily destroyed; "winning" Settlements can claim all those hexes as their own (they don't have to rebuild the captured settlement, per se), or they can destroy the Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope GW keeps to it's "You can't be self-sufficent policy", and that a CC can't hold two settlements (even a conquered one)"
Thats kind of funny considering one of the CCs of the settlement just needs to break from the first to take over the second. They would follow the same leadership, it would just expand their nation.
Edit: Came off kind of rude, but the effect remains the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I say CC, I'm referring to any and all personnel from lowest grunt to the top dog, including any council/leadership member relations.
I think you are fooling yourself.
Golgotha consist of so many CCs identified here numerically: 1,2,3,4,etc...
Golgotha conquers Settlement B after marching out from settlement A.
Charter Company 2 detaches from Settlement A and attaches to Settlement B.
The Nation has grown stronger, and Golgotha now in effect has two settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is quite old, and I'm not sure it's still the plan.
You won't be able to take over a Settlement (well, you could take it over through politics and diplomacy, but not through warfare; if you convince the Settlement's current owners to admit you as members and give you voting control of the Settlement Charter, you'll be able to facilitate a non-violent transfer of the Settlement).
Typically a Settlement will be sieged and destroyed, then a hostile force will attempt to build a new Settlement in that Hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Getting slightly off topic. The point of the thread was:
Is the game going to force organizations to expand in the number of settlements in order to meet the criteria of building slots. If this is the case "Golgotha" will become a small nation within a nation. As it will likely require multiple settlements in order to meet the needs of its players.
Either way:
If a settlement has to destroy and rebuild a settlement, or conquer a settlement to meet this need, it shows a flawed mechanic of expansion. Why is it unreasonable that a settlement can expand into its "alpha" hexes, or the hexes bordering the primary settlement hex.
The POI system is nice, but we will inevitably run out of space to build up the settlement. If a settlement was able to expand itself into surrounding hexes it would better mimic the way an actual city expands. Artificial barriers are never good barriers.
It is stated several times that GW wants to see several hundred or thousands of players in a settlement. Under the current system this would mean several thousand of the exact same cookie-cutter people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Settlements don't hold multiple settlements; nations hold multiple settlements. We're already planning to have one military-focused and one trade-focused settlement in our nation. Using multiple settlements to better support a diverse military is the next logical step.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could always convince Settlement B to join your nation.
That's the preferred answer. But if B doesn't want to do business or find terms acceptable, well, I guess that is one of the primary reasons to play the game.
The case and point of Golgotha and Canis is a great example. What if they don't get along. Golgotha should be able to take and use that POI. From my understanding of the mechanics, they can. That doesn't increase the training and support potential in regards to variety. Golgotha would have to conquer Canis and assume control of the settlement hex itself to diversify training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there's at least three choices:
An outside metagroup can remain pure and create new settlements as it requires/desires.
A group of settlements can decide to become a metagroup and/or a nation.
A metagroup can join with other settlements or groups to form a larger metagroup or nation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope GW keeps to it's "You can't be self-sufficent policy", and that a CC can't hold two settlements (even a conquered one)"Thats kind of funny considering one of the CCs of the settlement just needs to break from the first to take over the second. They would follow the same leadership, it would just expand their nation.
That works great on paper, but it never works out in history. After Alexander the Great died all of his generals, who were so obedient and loyal while he lived, immediately fell upon each other and tore Alexander's Empire to shreds. Don't think for a minute that won't happen in the River Kingdoms.
Sun Tzu wrote "The greatest general is the one who never has to fight. Enemies know they cannot defeat him in battle and sue for peace."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there's at least three choices:
An outside metagroup can remain pure and create new settlements as it requires/desires.
A group of settlements can decide to become a metagroup and/or a nation.
A metagroup can join with other settlements or groups to form a larger metagroup or nation.
While it may start out Meta, these will all be in-game mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That works great on paper, but it never works out in history. After Alexander the Great died all of his generals, who were so obedient and loyal while he lived, immediately fell upon each other and tore Alexander's Empire to shreds. Don't think for a minute that won't happen in the River Kingdoms.
I think that's GW's hope, but I think it's only hope at this point. In the multiverse of MMOs, Alexander (character) might die, but Alexander (player) and his generals still belong to the same metagroup. They plan on playing here and in other universes/MMOs for some time. Loyalties outside the game may be more important in the long run than loyalties inside any single game.
Alexander's generals were playing a much different game, one in which there was permadeath and if you died you could never play another game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That works great on paper, but it never works out in history. After Alexander the Great died all of his generals, who were so obedient and loyal while he lived, immediately fell upon each other and tore Alexander's Empire to shreds. Don't think for a minute that won't happen in the River Kingdoms.I think that's GW's hope, but I think it's only hope at this point. In the multiverse of MMOs, Alexander (character) might die, but Alexander (player) and his generals still belong to the same metagroup. They plan on playing here and in other universes/MMOs for some time. Loyalties outside the game may be more important in the long run than loyalties inside any single game.
Alexander's generals were playing a much different game, one in which there was permadeath and if you died you could never play another game.
It occurs to me that "Alexander" leaving to "play another game" might be exactly the kind of thing that brings this from "hope" to "reality".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will be quick:
1) Settlements have only so much available space and it is impossible to expand this.
2) Settlements can expand their area of influence with POIs.3) Settlements will be required to "support/train" the skills of the players.
With those facts quickly stated:
If a settlement supports all the classes it can in order to grow population wise, how in the hell is their enough room to fit things like an auction house or a bank?Will an auction house support some class? Will a bank?
Does Golgotha just need to conquer a settlement in order to split the class training/support so that it can house other types of buildings without worry?
Or you can form a strong bond with another settlement, coordinate what training / facilities both will offer. Only redundancy built in is those that seem to be required for basic survival and self-reliance (no self-sufficiency). In case my definition differs from others:
Self Sufficiency = All that you want
Self Reliance = All that you need
Edit:
Also important to remember:
"Large structures can train three roles
Medium structures can train one role
Small structures can support one role, but not train it"
As a result of the War of Towers, your points will be able to buy a certain type and number of the structures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've already seen one notable "leaders parting ways", even before the game's start.
I hope mentioning that isn't gonna become some sort of Godwin's Law, though.
However, splitting your settlement to get multiple settlements is liable to hurt you, if I understand this right.
The more POIs a settlement's sponsored companies hold, the stronger that POI is. I'm not sure there's a meaningful cap on the benefits a settlement can gain from this.
With that in mind, splitting up might weaken both settlements, producing two settlements that can't train as high as a single settlement could.
I could be wrong here, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, splitting your settlement to get multiple settlements is liable to hurt you, if I understand this right.
The more POIs a settlement's sponsored companies hold, the stronger that POI is. I'm not sure there's a meaningful cap on the benefits a settlement can gain from this.
I assume the most expansionist nations are going to do something like maximize every other settlement hex, leaving a Kuhdorf (translation: one cow village?) between each pair of powerhouses.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
However, splitting your settlement to get multiple settlements is liable to hurt you, if I understand this right.
The more POIs a settlement's sponsored companies hold, the stronger that POI is. I'm not sure there's a meaningful cap on the benefits a settlement can gain from this.
With that in mind, splitting up might weaken both settlements, producing two settlements that can't train as high as a single settlement could.
I could be wrong here, though.
I thought I had read something about limiting one nation from expanding too much but I could just be recalling incorrectly.
