Grant Freedom?

[DeletedUser]

I just noticed this is an option for non-HQ territories. Does this do what it sounds like? If so, why on earth is this an option? This makes it soooo much easier for sabotage and I don't see why anyone would ever want to do it for legitimate reasons

 

[BestWarrior]

Or not!! Imagine a strategy made just to break the other guild's territories and if they want to re-conquer those sectors they'll have to spend again a fortune in goods and also loose some time and troops to do it, because a sector with 8 armies takes at least 80 fights, it's a full neighbourhood to battle...

 

[BestWarrior]

I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. You can destroy a siege army that attacks your territories too, how is any advantage gained here? Defending a siege does not raise your siege costs. Attacking a siege on an NPC might though not sure (either way it is no advantage and possibly a detriment). Taking them later will cost a ton of goods & units that you could have saved by not granting them freedom in first place (not to mention missing out on power from sector all that time). NPCs will attack you randomly too, so you are just creating an enemy here.

if the strategy is to break other guild's territories and make them loose lots of troops and goods, you can take the 1st one and then another. After you conquer the 2sd one, you grant freedom the 1st and your costs to set a siege army will not raise. You can do this many and many times...

 

[DeletedUser]

if the strategy is to break other guild's territories and make them loose lots of troops and goods, you can take the 1st one and then another. After you conquer the 2sd one, you grant freedom the 1st and your costs to set a siege army will not raise. You can do this many and many times...

your cost is raising though. You raised it to take it the first time (only to give it away) and then you raise it a second time whenever you decide you want it back. Every time you do it (siege and conquer-only to give it away), you are raising your siege cost. What are you talking about? You are also losing a ton more units this way b/c you are having to fight your own units whenever you want them back. You also seem to ignore the fact that NPCs will attack bordering countries. This means you have just added enemies to your border that don't have to worry about siege costs and will do damage to you every day

Are you talking about doing this with a dummy guild? That is only way what you are describing could make sense. I don't know why they would add a feature that makes the dummy guild thing more viable though

 

[DeletedUser4740]

leeroyj, what BestWarrior is saying, is that this is a strategy where you will not want these sectors back. You just take them from other guilds, then put 8 defending armies in it, and leave these sectors again, so that the other guild would have to re-conquer it....just to hurt the other guild. So, your siege costs don't increase because your siege costs depend on the number of sectors you own or currently have a siege on. If you give away each sector after you conquerred it, your next siege will cost as much as your previous siege. As for the NPC, from what I've understood, they only hurt you if they are not in the landing zone. If they are in the landing zone (like the whole Southern part of the Iron Age map, not just the sectors next to the river), they will be neutral (white) NPC's. So, you could apply this strategy in the whole Southern part of the Iron Age map. And even if you were not in the landing zone and the sector would turn into an aggressive NPC, it would still attack only 1 life per day, right? So, if you are taking and leaving a sector every day or 2 or 3 days, that wouldn't really be a problem. Also, that aggressive NPC would attack the sectors of the other guilds around it, the guilds you were trying to hurt with that strategy anyway...
BestWarrior, I think I understand your point, but I'm still not sure if it's not just better to keep the sectors. Yes, it would cost you more in sieges but at least you'll get the guild level points from it every day. That strategy will also cost you lots of units and goods to unlock defending armies. Maybe it would even be better to use a dummy guild to lay siege at low cost and then hand over the sector to the "mother" guild. I'm also against these dummy guilds but from a ticket I've sent to support, I understand that Inno doesn't see this phenomenon of dummy guilds as a problem...So, we might as well get used to it and take advantage of it ourselves.

 

[DeletedUser]

leeroyj, what BestWarrior is saying, is that this is a strategy where you will not want these sectors back. You just take them from other guilds, then put 8 defending armies in it, and leave these sectors again, so that the other guild would have to re-conquer it....just to hurt the other guild. So, your siege costs don't increase because your siege costs depend on the number of sectors you own or currently have a siege on. If you give away each sector after you conquerred it, your next siege will cost as much as your previous siege. As for the NPC, from what I've understood, they only hurt you if they are not in the landing zone. If they are in the landing zone (like the whole Southern part of the Iron Age map, not just the sectors next to the river), they will be neutral (white) NPC's. So, you could apply this strategy in the whole Southern part of the Iron Age map. And even if you were not in the landing zone and the sector would turn into an aggressive NPC, it would still attack only 1 life per day, right? So, if you are taking and leaving a sector every day or 2 or 3 days, that wouldn't really be a problem. Also, that aggressive NPC would attack the sectors of the other guilds around it, the guilds you were trying to hurt with that strategy anyway...
BestWarrior, I think I understand your point, but I'm still not sure if it's not just better to keep the sectors. Yes, it would cost you more in sieges but at least you'll get the guild level points from it every day. That strategy will also cost you lots of units and goods to unlock defending armies. Maybe it would even be better to use a dummy guild to lay siege at low cost and then hand over the sector to the "mother" guild. I'm also against these dummy guilds but from a ticket I've sent to support, I understand that Inno doesn't see this phenomenon of dummy guilds as a problem...So, we might as well get used to it and take advantage of it ourselves.

Ok thanks. I thought siege costs went up for every attempt though, not just for how many places you own.

This is also still terrible math. You spend money on siege to take territory, then just give it up. Just so other guild would spend just as much as you to take it back (and get benefits of owning it)? You are not gaining anything here, it is a zero sum game (except you cheat yourself out of ownership benefits). What is the benefit of taking over a territory then giving it up- If it is just so you don't spend as much the next time, that makes no sense. lets say first sector costs 300 of each good and 2nd costs 330 if you keep first. You are either paying 630 goods for keeping 2 sectors, 600 goods to only keep the second sector, or 600 to keep none. Which is preferable? Seems rather obvious to me. You are also spending a bunch of goods to unlock spots to put 8 armies in there.... Much more than what you are "saving"

 

[DeletedUser4266]

Here's a nice idea: you only have one sector, surrounded by headquarters, and you see in the distance a NPC sector on the river which leads to the bottom half of the map filled with more AI sectors

I think this leads to the question - Can we NOT attack on two fronts currently? We havent thought to even try this yet, but can we not have one group attacking from the river in the east, and another attacking from the sea in the south?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think this leads to the question - Can we NOT attack on two fronts currently? We havent thought to even try this yet, but can we not have one group attacking from the river in the east, and another attacking from the sea in the south?

I actually agree to this a lot! It should absolutely be possible to attack on as many fronts as possible. I'm not saying that it's an adventage of doing it - I'm just saying that it should not be dissallowed It will actually build up one more aspect of strategy, and we want as many of these aspects as possible, right? That is what makes it fun

 

[DeletedUser]

I think this leads to the question - Can we NOT attack on two fronts currently?

Good question, has anyone tried to have two siege armies in place at the same time on the same province?

 

[DeletedUser4256]

...completely possible, now I'm seeing that in Iron Age province.
There is a player who has placed three sieges to the same guild (...his mother guild or a friend guild, I suspect)

 

[DeletedUser1264]

Our guild did that successfully once, quite a while ago, and we won both hexes.
More recently we tried it, and when we won one hex our other siege disappeared.
Naturally, I have no idea which of those outcomes is how it's supposed to work.

 

[conqueror9]

I totally agree. I really don't see any reason at all that we would like to leave a sector!?! Maybe there'll be some kind of strategy with this where a guild can place a trap in a sector and let another guild take the (trapped) sector, or that leaving a sector will give a reward, but why havn't InnoGames explained it? It's just quiet as always and we just feel stupid because we can't understand it... InnoGames??? Hellooo??? Time to explain???

freindly ( or well-co-operated ) ally ( ally from a number of guilds ) exchange sectors......shhhhhhhhhhhh

this is cross-guilds

e.g. Guild A cannot capture sector, Guild B cap it and pass to Guild A
Guild A cap another sector (may be in other Age ) and pass to Guild B

shhhhhhhhhhhhh

Top secret strategy, do not tell others

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[DeletedUser4740]

freindly ( or well-co-operated ) ally ( ally from a number of guilds ) exchange sectors......shhhhhhhhhhhh

this is cross-guilds

For that purpose, you should just delete all your defending armies while your allied guild has your sector under siege. Then the sector automatically becomes your ally's. No need to "grant freedom", as the sector would then become an aggressive NPC (who will attack your ally at daily calculation) and your ally would have to fight the NPC to conquer the sector! It would be silly to make your ally fight for this sector, if you could just "give" the sector to them without them having to fight!

 

[conqueror9]

For that purpose, you should just delete all your defending armies while your allied guild has your sector under siege. Then the sector automatically becomes your ally's. No need to "grant freedom", as the sector would then become an aggressive NPC (who will attack your ally at daily calculation) and your ally would have to fight the NPC to conquer the sector! It would be silly to make your ally fight for this sector, if you could just "give" the sector to them without them having to fight!

hmmmmmm

thanks for the info

how about Landing spot ( 1st sector in the Age province map ) ?

 

[DeletedUser4740]

how about Landing spot ( 1st sector in the Age province map ) ?

you can delete all your defending armies in that sector too. That's what we did: we deleted all our defending armies while our sector was under siege by a friend guild to "give" the sectors to that guild and then we started all over in another place on the map (we did it because we had nowhere to go and were stuck on the map between guilds we couldn't attack (too strong for us)...