Paisly gets steamrolled

[BardicNerd]

Abuse of game mechanic?

I'd hardly call doing a TO you don't intend to complete to show that you could do it if you wanted to an abuse.

I wouldn't call it an abuse to do it just to hurt the region, either, though I'm unclear on if it's effective for that or not.

[Allomere]

Abuse of game mechanic?

Yeah you wish.

[Penchant]

Abuse of game mechanic?

I have to agree with the others on this, it doesn't seem like an abuse. I wasn't worried about Aurvandil taking the region anyways.

[Allomere]

Someone should file a report just to be sure. Get it investigated properly and all that. You don't know what those bullying obnoxious out-to-ruin-everyone's-fun Orvandeaux are up to.

I bet they eat babies during turn changes.

[Lanyon]

Someone should file a report just to be sure. Get it investigated properly and all that. You don't know what those bullying obnoxious out-to-ruin-everyone's-fun Orvandeaux are up to.

I bet they eat babies during turn changes.

Hide ya kids, hide ya wife they eatin everybody up in here!

[Lorgan]

Babies taste best during turn changes.

[fodder]

used to be.. failed TO makes the enemy region hate you..

with sympathy TO, would that make region like you a tad more even if you fail?

and if you are into killing stats... well, parking an army there harms morale... at least daily region reports bitch about enemy troops when daimons were in avengmil (that's separate from the bit about daimons scaring the !@#$ out of everyone)

[Darksun]

And that army EATS ALL THEIR FOOD. Quick way to make a city starve.

[Lanyon]

Darksun that's why we've started eating their babies

[Darksun]

Eating their babies is counter productive. That means less mouths to feed.

[Geronus]

Abuse of game mechanic?

...Abusive how?

[Foundation]

You should initiate a takeover only if you intend to take over the region, not for its side effects.  Yes, it's not easily enforcible and people will do it anyway, but that's the idea behind "make game actions as your in game character interprets it", rather than purely for the game mechanics reasons.

Similarly, you wouldn't appoint a lord and say "oh no, it's just so the region stabilizes while we pick a good lord".  Again, this is only to illustrate a point.

[DamnTaffer]

You should initiate a takeover only if you intend to take over the region, not for its side effects.  Yes, it's not easily enforcible and people will do it anyway, but that's the idea behind "make game actions as your in game character interprets it", rather than purely for the game mechanics reasons.

Similarly, you wouldn't appoint a lord and say "oh no, it's just so the region stabilizes while we pick a good lord".  Again, this is only to illustrate a point.

Then how would you suggest an occupation is enacted? The only game way I know of would be to begin a brutal take over then not complete.

Since similar things happen in both an occupation and a take over the difference being occupations are temporary.

[OFaolain]

Then how would you suggest an occupation is enacted? The only game way I know of would be to begin a brutal take over then not complete.

Since similar things happen in both an occupation and a take over the difference being occupations are temporary.

Occupy the region, as with an army?

[Penchant]

Then how would you suggest an occupation is enacted? The only game way I know of would be to begin a brutal take over then not complete.

Since similar things happen in both an occupation and a take over the difference being occupations are temporary.

This isn't answering your question but there no longer are brutal takeovers it just depends how what actions you do on whether or not its a sympathy or fear takeover.