Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Settlement Warfare Rules

Bob
All right, looks like this is finally pretty well nailed down, so I'm scheduling Settlement Warfare to start after Daily Maintenance on Monday, January 22. I've edited the original post to reflect that, and I'll get a blog post up with the final rules soon.

I've also made some minor edits to the last bit about claiming the settlement after defeating it. There had been a TBD phrase in there suggesting that you'd have to holding the neighboring hexes with holdings and outposts for a certain number of days, but I've streamlined that so that claiming a settlement, whether abandoned or recently defeated, always simply requires a group (can be more than 1 company working together) having 1 active holding and 2 active outposts in each of the neighboring hexes. The victors from a siege get 1 week where they're the only ones that can build in those hexes, so they have a distinct advantage on making that claim.

Also, if the victors don't manage to claim the settlement within 2 weeks (or just decide not to), then the buildings to be destroyed will be chosen at random, but I'll leave the other buildings in place so that anyone claiming the settlement later can choose to repair them for the same 1 gold coin each, or can just let them fall down.

All that's reflected in the original post and will be included when the blog post goes up.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Bringslite
Will a settlement not be pretty much a level 9 or 10 (for counting building hps) by the time that all the Bulk cushioning is gone and the Structure Destruction phase is under way or does the settlement keep it's level as recorded when the siege started?

All the calculations that use Settlement Level will get recalculated if the Settlement Level drops, and there's a good chance it will start to drop once the bulk destruction phase is finished. However, while the rules for replenishing bulk limit the amount of bulk resources that can be used as part of the bulk destruction phase, there's nothing blocking the settlement from bringing in additional supplies to pay for upkeep. Also, once the bulk destruction phase starts destroying really large amounts each day, it may be in the settlement's interest to remove the last bits of bulk from the upkeep vault so that it doesn't all get destroyed, so that the structure destruction phase takes place with higher defenses.

To be honest, most settlements reaching this point should have seriously considered suing for peace at an earlier stage, or may have already abandoned the settlement and preferred to force the attackers to go through the motions before taking over. If the attackers managed to surround you, and can keep you surrounded long enough to deplete your initial bulk resources, it's going to be pretty hard to break the siege during the structure destruction phase. On the other hand, the defenders can make the attackers pay for their victory, in siege costs, destroyed buildings, and in the gold needed to keep the buildings they preserve, and this seemed like a reasonably balanced way to give the defenders some control over how much that will cost the attackers. In the end, pushing those costs on to the attackers may be worth giving up the potential advantages of a negotiated settlement.
So you are saying that even though the original calculated Bulk totals (+ any extra brought in through times when the "ring" is technically broken) are used up then the Building Destruction Phase begins. However, extra Bulk(uncountable for progress calculation) may be there and still count for Settlement upkeep at Target Settlement level or as close as can be maintained?
In other words, the settlement may reach the Building Destruction Phase but may still be of higher level(for this phase) than a settlement without remaining Bulk reserves… ?

Am I grasping that right? smile
Bob
Flari-Merchant
So you are saying that even though the original calculated Bulk totals (+ any extra brought in through times when the "ring" is technically broken) are used up then the Building Destruction Phase begins. However, extra Bulk(uncountable for progress calculation) may be there and still count for Settlement upkeep at Target Settlement level or as close as can be maintained?
In other words, the settlement may reach the Building Destruction Phase but may still be of higher level(for this phase) than a settlement without remaining Bulk reserves… ?

Am I grasping that right? smile

That is correct.
Bob
I've added a new Settlement Warfare page to use as a central reference point for these rules, and put up a blog post more formally announcing that Settlement Warfare will be starting up right after Daily Maintenance on Monday, January 22.
Midnight
Bob
Apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Between getting EE 14 out the door, all the updates that followed, and the preparation for EE 15, this stayed on the back burner much longer than intended. However, I've now updated the original post with two quick things based on the last round of feedback:

  • Added that the attackers have to maintain feuds against the target while establishing the siege as well.
  • Added a Weekly Warfare Deposit, half of which goes to the victor.

Take another quick look, post any remaining feedback, and then we'll set a date to start this system up.

I feel obliged to point out my usual position that failure penalties are blob friendly.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
Bob
Apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Between getting EE 14 out the door, all the updates that followed, and the preparation for EE 15, this stayed on the back burner much longer than intended. However, I've now updated the original post with two quick things based on the last round of feedback:

  • Added that the attackers have to maintain feuds against the target while establishing the siege as well.
  • Added a Weekly Warfare Deposit, half of which goes to the victor.

Take another quick look, post any remaining feedback, and then we'll set a date to start this system up.

I feel obliged to point out my usual position that failure penalties are blob friendly.
You feel this is because no one will attack the Blob if they might lose and face penalties? Something different then please explain. smile
Midnight
I think the blob has enough advantages, and because of that failure penalties are less likely to affect the blob than those who'd be willing to test the blob. Underdogs are already going to be risking gear and siege engines and are already more likely to lose that stuff and the blob is less likely to lose their gear. The blob doesn't need any further disincentives to being attacked, nor any further rewards for prevailing.

I say this as someone whose coalition WAS the blob to 75% of the playerbase.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
I think the blob has enough advantages, and because of that failure penalties are less likely to affect the blob than those who'd be willing to test the blob. Underdogs are already going to be risking gear and siege engines and are already more likely to lose that stuff and the blob is less likely to lose their gear. The blob doesn't need any further disincentives to being attacked, nor any further rewards for prevailing.

I say this as someone whose coalition WAS the blob to 75% of the playerbase.
Fair enough. There should be a negative result to discourage blobs from attacking everything and everyone though. If there isn't, they will.

I should point out that I am talking about aggressive type blobs here. You could be perfectly blob-ish and not be a threat to anyone.
Bob
The failure penalty in this case isn't really meant to be very significant, since it's at most 15 silver per week, and is far lower for smaller settlements running at lower settlement levels. It's really just meant to be expensive enough to dissuade groups from waging wars just to lock the defending settlement down in some ways (like keeping its PvP windows constant), particularly since half the expense would be handed over to the defending settlement if it isn't defeated.

It also gives the defending settlement a small reward for victory, without being gameable because the reward isn't created out of thin air.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post