Suggestion A Tweak to Territory Policies

[Defgnww]

We should make the system work to where if the Capital of Loka loses every single one of its territory generators, it loses its ability to hold its current policies. This means that policies could be removed by wiping out a town's territory.

Obviously this idea does stem from current events in Loka territories, but I think this change would be beneficial in the future and add a new and interesting mechanic to the game. It would allow for more strategy and competitiveness, keeping territory battles alive all throughout the month to keep your policies, instead of all the fights happening days before the next Capital is chosen.

The one thing I am not sure on yet is what happens after the Capital loses its policies and before the new month. Does the alliance who took out the most of their territory pick (least favorite idea)? Does the Capital move to another town in the same alliance? Do policies just disappear until the next month?

Leave any discussion and feedback you have.

 

[Skipio]

I certainly agree...

 

[Artagan]

If you made it so that the Capitol's policies were undone when their alliance lost all of its territory, I think that it would be best if there weren't any policies at all until the Capitol was determined for the next month. Otherwise the alliance with the most territory after the fall of the previous Capitol's alliance would have to have their policies implemented immediately, which might be inconvenient or confusing for some. Perhaps every alliance could set up their desired policies beforehand somehow, and those would be automatically implemented if their alliance suddenly became the new Capitol, but that would be an extra layer of complexity that would require more work on Crypt's part for not much payoff.

 

[MasterAegon]

If you made it so that the Capitol's policies were undone when their alliance lost all of its territory, I think that it would be best if there weren't any policies at all until the Capitol was determined for the next month. Otherwise the alliance with the most territory after the fall of the previous Capitol's alliance would have to have their policies implemented immediately, which might be inconvenient or confusing for some. Perhaps every alliance could set up their desired policies beforehand somehow, and those would be automatically implemented if their alliance suddenly became the new Capitol, but that would be an extra layer of complexity that would require more work on Crypt's part for not much payoff.

No policies would come into play if the capital fell. So when something like this happens, the policies are rendered null and there are no bonuses or penalties for the remainder of the month. I think it sounds pretty fair. If a capital gets wiped a week into their month of choosing policies it doesn't seem like their strength, or lack thereof, merits being able to maintain the policies they've chosen.

 

[mopb3]

ye dis

 

[Leasaur]

Maybe if this is going to happen, we should reduce the time between choosing a capital to a fortnight instead of a month.

 

[MasterAegon]

Hrm, I think a month is still good. This would just give the capital incentive not to let every one of their territories to be wiped out...

It would be interesting to see policies change proactively, albeit a nightmare. If alliances were in a close race then the policies would be changing almost daily.

 

[Cryptite]

Agreed, reducing it to two weeks basically halves the importance and gravity of of a month-long campaign.

My guess is this won't happen very often except when capital towns completely stop playing.

 

[Defgnww]

Looks like we should implement it then...