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 Update

Unknown Player
Interesting. So any settlement can be conquered just by destroying most/all of their holdings, or only *abandoned* settlements?
Bob
Unknown Player
Interesting. So any settlement can be conquered just by destroying most/all of their holdings, or only *abandoned* settlements?

In essence, yes. Any settlement can be forced to shut down by destroying enough of their holdings to knock their DI down below the minimum requirement. If they stay shut down too long, the settlement will be considered abandoned. At that point, any cooperating group of companies can take the settlement over by surrounding it with a full complement of holdings and outposts.

Relatively inactive settlements are the most susceptible to this, as they're unlikely to replace their holdings each time they're overrun. It would be much more difficult to do this against a relatively active settlement, since it's not that hard to keep putting up holdings in random parts of the map. Even if those holdings got knocked down during the next PvP window, they would have generated sufficient DI to keep a minimalist settlement going. However, continually replacing holdings would get to be pretty expensive, and defending them would get difficult when running at a low settlement level, so those players would probably be better off abandoning the settlement, negotiating a surrender, or finding new allies to strengthen their position.
Bob
Bob
Any settlement can be forced to shut down by destroying enough of their holdings to knock their DI down below the minimum requirement.

I rechecked my math and realized there's an exception to this. A settlement could potentially keep meeting its DI needs through infrastructure buildings alone if it had just a keep and maybe a couple other structures. We may want to change the DI generation rules to say something like "On any day the settlement has no holdings, no DI is generated, not even from Infrastructure."

For the moment, I don't think this is a huge issue, as I doubt many settlements have a ton of infrastructure and few other structures. Most settlements would have to tear down some structures to make this work, which doesn't seem like a great tradeoff.
Bob
Made a quick edit to the Settlement Warfare rules in the section on abandoning settlements to clarify that the "settlement vaults" that will be emptied and moved to the founding company's vaults are specifically the Settlement and Settlement Upkeep vaults. All other vaults will be left intact.

Also added a note to the original post saying that updates are now being handled on the Settlement Warfare page.
NightmareSr
would the company vault be accessible if the new owners of the settlement blacklisted the old owners or something similar? Just wondering if someone came back after a long absence if it is possible they might be cutoff from their stuff.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Bob
NightmareSr
would the company vault be accessible if the new owners of the settlement blacklisted the old owners or something similar? Just wondering if someone came back after a long absence if it is possible they might be cutoff from their stuff.

Yes, the company and personal vaults in the settlement are all still accessible, but you'd be reduced to Withdrawal Only access. In addition, any crafting projects and auction offers/bids will still finish up in the background and get delivered to the appropriate vaults. Of course, that doesn't mean the new owners are going to make it easy for you to get to the bank, but you can probably sneak in and get your stuff. Or show up in force to steal back your stuff.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post