I destroyed everything in Esgaroth except for the town guard. Since the Dwarves are too scared to attack(and may not actually be in range), and I have a large army right beside it, I don't see it as being at risk of capture. But ofcourse if the admins sees so I will replay
"No destroying of any buildings if city is at risk of capture" I am in range and can attack it at any point, I would say you cannot demolish the buildings.
Last edited by *Ranger*; January 20, 2015 at 11:07 AM.
I feel like the Dwarves and Dale have a unique position where they can technically attack each other at any point so its hard to say when to use the risk of capture rule.
Well, definition of at risk is ambiguous. I mean, what reason is there to demolish buildings anyways, only get a bit money, but it makes your settlement much weaker.
The only reason in this situation, and in most situations where this discussion comes up, the only reason the player that demolishes buildings is because he doesnt want to give these benefits to his enemy, afraid or certain of losing the settlement at some point in the future. So regardless if this settlement will be lost with certainty or not, in 1,2 or 20 turns, I am not for this.
Especially in this case, a Dalian player would never demolish all his buildings in the best settlement he has. (Arrow could in need of money destroy something, but not like this I'd say).
Just my opinion though.
Most Promising Youngblood TATW: Chieftain Khuzaymah
I'm for it. A two-time-betrayer should get nothing. Realistically however, if the army isn't in range this turn or if Arrow has an army that can stop it. It most definitely is NOT at risk of capture
I'm for it. A two-time-betrayer should get nothing. Realistically however, if the army isn't in range this turn or if Arrow has an army that can stop it. It most definitely is NOT at risk of capture
Please stop...
For those who want to see how I didn't betray him (I betrayed Arrow and hes being very nice about it )
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by themzr
Originally Posted by *Ranger*
Originally Posted by themzr
What posseses you to move forward against me like this? You agreed to peace? *CUT OUT*
You have offered me no incentives not to attack you. Have you made any alliances or provided me with a reason that you would be a credible ally?
*CUT OUT*
Its not too late to convince me. But its got to be good.
1) We agreed to a 15 turn NAP, you are breaking your word
*I'll leave out the rest of the message.. it wasn't very nice tbh (there were 8 points)*
Originally Posted by themzr
Originally Posted by *Ranger*
Originally Posted by themzr
Perhaps a 12 turn NAP? Split the difference?
Oops, sorry forgot to reply to your earlier message.
Sorry, even 12 turns is too long to sign a NAP with a faction. I dont see any benefits in having a NAP with Eriador, unless you know of any?
Sigh... Does ten turns starting from turn one sound good to you? I'm just saying it's nice to have 1 neighbor you can expect to not be sending armies your way
I said no and something like "i wouldn't worry about me attacking you, i have no plans to". I agreed to no NAP or Alliance.
Can you please drop it now?
Moving on.
IMO the rules does not set a time limit, it only says "At risk of capture". I can take it next turn, so I would say that the settlement is at risk of capture.
Ill go with what ever the admin decides, just my opinion.
Originally Posted by Chieftain Khuzaymah
Yeah money.
Well, definition of at risk is ambiguous. I mean, what reason is there to demolish buildings anyways, only get a bit money, but it makes your settlement much weaker.
The only reason in this situation, and in most situations where this discussion comes up, the only reason the player that demolishes buildings is because he doesnt want to give these benefits to his enemy, afraid or certain of losing the settlement at some point in the future. So regardless if this settlement will be lost with certainty or not, in 1,2 or 20 turns, I am not for this.
Especially in this case, a Dalian player would never demolish all his buildings in the best settlement he has. (Arrow could in need of money destroy something, but not like this I'd say).
Just my opinion though.
Correct me if I am wrong Arrow but I think Dale is in the minus and losing money each turn so the 1k or so he would get by destroying the buildings might not be of help to him.
Last edited by *Ranger*; January 20, 2015 at 04:41 PM.
Please stop...
For those who want to see how I didn't betray him (I betrayed Arrow and hes being very nice about it )
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I said no and something like "i wouldn't worry about me attacking you, i have no plans to". I agreed to no NAP or Alliance.
Can you please drop it now?
Moving on.
IMO the rules does not set a time limit, it only says "At risk of capture". I can take it next turn, so I would say that the settlement is at risk of capture.
Ill go with what ever the admin decides, just my opinion.
To use that as justification is a little ridiculous. I could extend that to any number of settlements in any situation. Hypothetically all settlements are at risk of capture.
After looking at the save, my opinion as admin is that Dale should NOT be allowed to demolish any buildings in Esgaroth.
To me, being “at risk of capture” does not necessarily mean being “at immediate risk of capture.” It seems clear that Esgaroth will fall to the Dwarves on turn 9 unless something truly unexpected occurs. This means that Esgaroth is “at risk of capture” within the normal meaning of the phrase. The Dale army to the south will not be able to prevent this (again, barring the unexpected), given the unbalanced AR and the Dwarves’ ballista.
Not all settlements are at risk of capture, I can't take Rhun's capital within a reasonable length of time for example.
Also take into account how close I am to Dale, I would say Erebor is at risk of capture even though my army can stop Dale from taking it. My assumption on the rules were the front line settlements cannot be razed by the owning faction.
Thanks
It was worth a shot Arrow, I would have tried it aswell
Last edited by *Ranger*; January 20, 2015 at 04:53 PM.
To use that as justification is a little ridiculous. I could extend that to any number of settlements in any situation. Hypothetically all settlements are at risk of capture.
This I don't agree with. There is some ambiguity here, but we can also use common sense. The Dwarves here can basically guarantee a capture of Esgaroth on turn 9, which is only one turn after Dale demolished the buildings. How can that not be considered "at risk of capture?"