[The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

[Ventos Mustel]

By that reasoning literally nothing counts as a warzone unless they're two tiles apart like east and west Osgiliath in TATW, because everything else could theoretically have a fort built to separate them. As it stands the only thing potentially blocking Wayrest from touching Helgen this turn is the Skyrim army's presence, and they couldn't be there in the first place without the trade already having gone through.

[Captainnorway]

I’ll look at the saves tomorrow, and if there are in fact armies/units within reach. I’ll simply move the armies back.

[Jadli]

Lol, so the rule you guys assumedly followed may not be sufficed either?

There was no hlaalu fort on Skyrim turn, and Skyrim couldnt have built one, without doing the trade first, so that doesnt rly count... How does one even check the army tho... its blocking the path of the cav from Pale Pass... however Pale Pass garrison can likely defeat the lone Hlaalu stack, and hence it can reach anyway... etc... its all pretty complicated

Anyway, we werent supposed to be following such a rule in the first place (at least we werent as per the precedent)... might be better to stick with the oirignal anyway, cause considering how many armies and units are all over the place (while in the OB HS, ppl specifically cant have so many units around, as there is a special upkeep for that, to limit amount of OBs), checking each trade could become very complicated (as you can see rn).

Of course, another common version of the rule out there that could be used in the future is that you cant trade if an overwhelming enemy force is in range...


EDIT

I was already playing the Forebear turn, but will wait for you to check it out first then (or I guess you can do it at the end turn as well

[PercivallKorrupt]

I find it very unlikely that Helgen was in a warzone of any kind after it had been taken and never found it debatable as the armies in the area could not reach within a turn.
Definitely at least, no normal army could reach.

Never thought it questionable nor debatable in any manner and was even surprised to read in the HS it's become a stump.
Riverwood could possibly be considered a warzone but with almost no army in the vicinity and basically abandoned, it was more a warzone than Helgen if it was.

Whiterun and the castle west of Whiterun are undoubtedly a warzone. But would that consider Falkreath a warzone?

Pale Pass is now the warzone with Hlaalu pushed up definitely and the only reason y'all are trying to debate this is to have an advantage pressing your own agendas so that Hlaalu and my forces wouldn't be able to push forward.
Helgen is not a warzone nor did we even consider it to be debatable. I motion to move the campaign forward and end the bickering over trivial matters.

[Jadli]

I find it very unlikely that Helgen was in a warzone of any kind after it had been taken and never found it debatable as the armies in the area could not reach within a turn.
Definitely at least, no normal army could reach.

Never thought it questionable nor debatable in any manner and was even surprised to read in the HS it's become a stump.
Riverwood could possibly be considered a warzone but with almost no army in the vicinity and basically abandoned, it was more a warzone than Helgen if it was.

Whiterun and the castle west of Whiterun are undoubtedly a warzone. But would that consider Falkreath a warzone?

Pale Pass is now the warzone with Hlaalu pushed up definitely and the only reason y'all are trying to debate this is to have an advantage pressing your own agendas so that Hlaalu and my forces wouldn't be able to push forward.
Helgen is not a warzone nor did we even consider it to be debatable. I motion to move the campaign forward and end the bickering over trivial matters.

Our cav generals from Pale Pass can reach it, so that interpreation of no hostile units is range is not sufficed either. Also the fact that it was literally just taken a turn ago suggests it must be within some kind of a warzone.

I dont particularly care about this specific situation, but would nice to clear this out, since our side has been apparently doing it "wrong" all along, to the great disadvantage of Pelletine for example.

Option 2 for me. I like it the most. I argue that Reaktorkern did not set a precedent, barely even suggested it based on that single picture alone.

I raised my concerns about this move in our own chat, though the others were quite unanomus about it being allowed. I will make sure to throw a big tantrum there next time if a grey move is being played without consulting the admin first

If that helps

And yes, please do.

Assuming something is allowed because a rule is unclear, or just straight up using an interpreation/rule from another hotseat to justify a move is absolutely not how things should work (and the latter is nonsense). Such cases must be discussed/confirmed with an admin. (which is how it works in literally every normal HS out there lol)

[Captainnorway]

I have now looked into the saves, and it is clear that Helgen is a warzone.

It would be considered a warzone by any measures since it shares hostile borders as well as being in range of hostile units.

If they wish, the turn can be replayed, else I'll teleport the armies back to their original positions and Helgen has to be traded back. The latter option is made to save time on playing this hotseat.

[Mergor]

I write this with sadness rather than anger (as I cannot really argue here), but I think I've lost my joy in hotseat, so I think I will be leaving. Please, do not try to change my mind, demonizing me in this hs has been enough

[Jadli]

Why? Apparently the admin follows a similar interpretation of the rule as you (and not like us), so the (current) interpretation of the rule is as you wanted it. You just forgot to check mp range of enemy units.

Whats the nonsense with "demonizing" again? Ppl make various mistakes all the time in a hotseat, nothing do with your reputation in the community... its just a hotseat, chill lol (I could complain about the same, since on the last 2 pages I was called many things once again for no reason, but I just try to ignore it, since it seems you guys are apparently just super enthusiastic about the game)

I have now looked into the saves, and it is clear that Helgen is a warzone.

It would be considered a warzone by any measures since it shares hostile borders as well as being in range of hostile units.

If they wish, the turn can be replayed, else I'll teleport the armies back to their original positions and Helgen has to be traded back. The latter option is made to save time on playing this hotseat.

May I suggest next time you look into a save before making any judgement?

[jimmy_dude]

EDIT: Read through the discussion on forts, and yeah, I suppose the cav units at PP can reach Helgen if nothing stands in their way. Didn't think that would count as the skyrim/hlaalu armies were blocking anything from realistically getting up there (and as I mention later the Hlaalu army can be placed in a way which denies any possibility whatsoever of the Wayrest generals reaching Helgen even at the start of the turn when the trade happens, so there isn't a realistic way for Wayrest to siege Helgen even with just one unit).

Though I will say, if we knew this beforehand, we would have just had Skyrim capture an empty Helgen from Hlaalu rather than trading it in order to pass, so I don't support also having to trade Helgen back. We probably would just have to stick around Helgen this turn in order to re-establish the alliance, but that would be it. Our plan would instead have been to leave it empty to allow for the trading to just be done by capturing it rather than diplomacy. This turn, both the Hlaalu and Skyrim armies would have been moved west of the fort via this method. If you want to teleport the Hlaalu army 3 tiles west and one tile north of the fort, and the Skyrim army 2 tiles west, that would be sufficient and the turn could continue. The alliance would be re-established immediately next turn via protectorateship so keeping the alliance intact wouldn't affect anything, and any money we are making this turn from trade with Hlaalu/Skyrim would be lower than the sack money for Helgen anyways. Or alternatively, we can just replay from the Hlaalu turn, but I imagine this is a bit of an inconvenience for everyone.

Additionally, with the above placement of the Hlaalu army, even the Wayrest generals would be completely blocked from reaching Helgen, even at the start of Skyrim's turn, so something else to consider as well since then you can't even claim it was in enemy range at the start of Skyrim's turn when the trade occurs.

[Ventos Mustel]

Arranging for an ally to capture one of your settlements like that still counts as a trade.

[jimmy_dude]

That's a new one, what is inherently wrong about doing something like that?

[Jadli]

Whether taking an allied settlements is considered a "trade" is definitely more blurred here, not given (BTW, pretty sure that sacking settlements of allies also generally considered against the rules? I guess only occupying would be "fine" when allies "trade" settlements this way...), would be up to admin I suppose... Definitely its not allowed to do so to generate missions, gain money, rebellions, etc etc

Anyway, the rule by Mergor in ASOS (as I assume we are still referencing that one) clearly said in the post when it was implemented, that its for hostile units before the trade could happen, not at the end of your turn (obviously/unsurprisingly). And the wayrest garrison of Pale Pass very likely can defeat the lone Hlaalu stack, therefore the generals could reach it. Ofc, the rule didnt go into such details, like if you put the main force just out of the rnange of the main force, so only the cav could reach the army, and hence not defeat it etc... its a bit confusing rule in this regard.

Well, you would have known before hand if you asked, you didnt, so there you go. This is not anything major to gain by this move, you guys cant possibly take Pale Pass anyway, just primarily wanted this clarified for the future, so lets not waste too much time on this please. A tile in that direction or other, to the spot where Hlaalu army could have presumably made it all impossible, etc, I dont specifically care... But admin said his ruling, so probably better to not elaborate this further, and just decide on a better version of the rule for the future. (remember, there was no specific clarification of the rule in the OP than just the bordering regions, so there is not much basis for most of the specific we are discussing right now anyway. )

Admin, so what is the exact version of the rule going forward, or are we still voting on this?

EDIT

If this interpretation of the rule is applied (in some way, it apparently already is), I dont have issues with it... but I think for the future it would be better to specify that the range of hostile units should be independent of whatever armies/units you put there in between to possibly block. Because then the rule gets so complicated as you can see, and it may be very difficult to check or decide (plus bonus mp generals, etc), while I would say if its in a possible 1 turn range, it should still count as warzone... and ppl could just trade settlements under the "nose of an enemy" if a terrain allows in some cases, while it would be clearly in a warzone (unless perhaps for cases, when its literally a bridge or something like that). And I assume we want to avoid things like that. + plus it should include at least 1 turn time limit after being taken (if it was taken on the same turn, its clearly still in a warzone)

But maybe it would be for best and most simple, if regions that are "physically" (i.e., its actually possible to move between the regions due to the terrain) bordering enemy regions, shouldnt be allowed to be traded. Cause otherwise checking all the above may be fairly complicated (especially in this HS with many armies and units all over the place)

(Or rather, all this could be combined into one rule to cover all the instances... Cause then if for example there is lone powerful army deep in enemy territory, the latter rule would still allow them to trade settlements...)

[Jadli]

Redoran up! https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...Redoran_79.sav

PICS

Do your magic I suppose captain please and specify what rule we use going forward, so that we are all set and can keep playing

EDIT

I dont have a significant issue with any version of the rule going forward, as long as its enforced and followed equally by all sides (which hasnt been the case). Just get us going pls.

(will add all the rules into the op)

[Captainnorway]

Doing my magic now, following Jimmys suggestion with army movement.

The second option about warzones shall be implemented.

"If hostile units are within range of a settlement, it is considered a warzone"
+ if no one objects (meaning up for debate) "When determining if a unit is within range, foreign forts and armies doesn't shorten their reach. etc, they would reach on a clean map." If we include this second part, we would probably not see many "close" cases for what is considered a warzone.

I am leaning towards taking allied settlements being allowed without sacking, unless some issue about it is brought up (as it could lead to some sort of exploit being implemented).

I'll edit in the save when it's finished, so the hs is on hold for a bit.

Edit:
Here is the save https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkG...ew?usp=sharing

We just have to wait for jimmy to confirm that I've made the right teleports.

[Jadli]

Yea, the + plus part would be better, and make everything much more simpler.

Taking allied settlements: Yea, definitely not sacking lol, but mainly you should emphasize this generally shouldnt be the way of doing things, even if allowed, should be allowed only in necessary instances... as it opens doors for many shady moves, like constantly "trading" settlements between money to generate rebellion armies, misisons etc (even the occupying money is still money)... In general, besieging allied settlements is also pretty shady... for example if Skyrim besieged Helgen castle, due to the stupid game mechanics, we would never be able to besiege it and thus retake it (as you cant join a non ally siege), for the rest of the game (unless we go all the way around)... There are also many other "hostile" moves you can do against your allies to strenghten your position (while nobody might even notice), so in general I would support banning any hostile actions against your allies (unless you of course choose to actually end your alliance )

Anyway, it would be very nice if you clear out whether this is considered a "trade". Cause otherwise than ppl could do this to avoid the hostile units rule (which jimmy suggested to do)... And dont forget there is the limit of only one settlement traded per turn. So I believe this should count towards the limit (otherwise you could "trade" more than 1 settlements in a turn this way).

[Captainnorway]

Taking allied settlements will count as a trade.
Exploiting this for money/missions/generating_armies/other_exploits is not allowed.

Also, besieging a settlement to deny the enemy from besieging it isn't allowed. I believe this is within the Exploit list, if not it should be known a well known exploit for everyone here.

[Jadli]

Taking allied settlements will count as a trade.
Exploiting this for money/missions/generating_armies/other_exploits is not allowed.

Also, besieging a settlement to deny the enemy from besieging it isn't allowed. I believe this is within the Exploit list, if not it should be known a well known exploit for everyone here.

Yea, just making sure, cause you never know nowadays (I believe Ventos called the move "The Lock" years ago, when he came up with it... along with several other moves that are all generally banned nowadays)

will add it all into the OP later today then

EDIT the move I mentioned is not in Mergor's Universal list

[jimmy_dude]

I support considering occupying allied settlements left open a trade in that it counts towards your one trade faction pair per turn rule, but not also having to adhere to the warzone rules for this. I feel like it's just an unnecessary inconvenience which isn't needed, and a lot of the issues that come with trading settlements arise when it's done through diplomacy anyways, so as long as the "allied siege" method is banned I see no issues with allowing this sort of trading. After all, it requires the ally to leave a settlement open, so it's already exposing it to a potential enemy attack in itself.

[Jadli]

Wel if you could just take the sett to bypass the hostile units trading rules, that would kill the point of the rule, wouldnt it?

As you write, its may be risky, thus generally its doable only for allies close to each other in turn order... therefore its basically a turn based advantage anyway?

[Captainnorway]

We continue.

As for taking allied settlements, it is allowed (given it doesn't exploit the game) unless the majority of people dissagree with it.