Can I conquer a Station?

[werothegreat]

See the title.

 

[Lucius_]

I don't think they are conquered, per se. But I do remember something along the lines of being able to attack them freely, without a DoW. Not entirely sure how the mechanic works though.

 

[Seek]

Given the Might virtue that let's you replace a conquered station with one of your choosing, it sure sounds like they can be attacked.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

They only occupy one tile, so even if you can't conquer them, you can fully surround them.

 

[3of5]

Given the Might virtue that let's you replace a conquered station with one of your choosing, it sure sounds like they can be attacked.

you don't refer to the might virtue 5 perhaps? That one only lets you replace outposts (baby cities) with your own.

You can destroy stations, as can the natives and other factions. But destroying a station someone is trading with might incur a hefty diplomatic penalty, i guess.

What i think is problematic is the 3 tiles radius around a station one can't found a city. I get it with two cities having to keep a distance from each other, but 1 tile stations? Feels too limiting.

 

[Deggial]

What i think is problematic is the 3 tiles radius around a station one can't found a city. I get it with two cities having to keep a distance from each other, but 1 tile stations? Feels too limiting.

This.

The very same thing was something, a german game journalist mentioned after playing. Those stations always popped up (and did so very frequent) near places he just wanted to settle. He said, he was almost annoyed by them.

The question is: IS there a diplomatic penalty if you destroy a station or do you only lose a trading opportunity? And does the destroyed station spawn somewhere else so you simply can "chase them away" from your desired territory?

Depending on the answer to this question, a less frequent station-popping and/or a smaler "city-denial-radius" might be recommended.

 

[Seek]

@3of5 - Oops, misremembered that.

I agree the station requiring the same radius as a city is bewildering and potentially annoying. Hope this changes before release!

 

[Inhalaattori]

@3of5 - Oops, misremembered that.

I agree the station requiring the same radius as a city is bewildering and potentially annoying. Hope this changes before release!

I disagree. Its good because now you have to choose if you need that land and destroy them or are you going to trade with them.

 

[Deggial]

Only so long as there is no "station-destroying-warmonger-penalty".

 

[omniclast]

A reduced no-build radius would be nice. One tile maybe? From the VODs they appear to populate pretty densely.

 

[3of5]

A reduced no-build radius would be nice. One tile maybe?

I think a radius of two would be a nice compromise allowing for some stations (somehow populating the map) but still allow some leeway when expanding and not having to curse so much. Weren't stations meant to be less land grabbing than city states?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

A reduced no-build radius would be nice. One tile maybe? From the VODs they appear to populate pretty densely.

I think the idea is that you can never work a station tile.

I'm guessing there would be a diplo penalty with anyone trading with the station, and perhaps some people they are near.

However, because the stations can reappear (unlike city-states) then destroying them can be
1. possible
2. the alternative to conquering them

So instead of city states which you could Only capture, stations could be something you can only destroy

 

[Deggial]

I think the idea is that you can never work a station tile.

Or, what would be an equally valid reason, to prevent too short (and therfore safe) trading routes. With at least 3 tiles between stations and cities, there is always some danger of plundered (by aliens or by enemies) caravans.

 

[Seek]

I'm guessing there would be a diplo penalty with anyone trading with the station, and perhaps some people they are near.

Something like this would be fine, only small warmonger penalty if the station is new especially, for the instances where the station nabs your outpost location the turn before you arrive. As the station levels up via trs with nearby civs it would make sense they would become more attached to them.

Maybe a diplomatic option "please relocate" could be implemented also.

 

[GeoModder]

A nice semi-diplomatic twist to destroying/taking over neighbour stations would be that the perpetrator doesn't have the choice anymore as on the type of stations that settle down near his territory.

I don't get this annoyance some people have with the no-settling area around a station. Just settle the closest you can, and in time all worthwhile hexes will be yours anyway. Stations don't expand borders. They're just... stations.

 

[3of5]

I don't get this annoyance some people have with the no-settling area around a station. Just settle the closest you can, and in time all worthwhile hexes will be yours anyway. Stations don't expand borders. They're just... stations.

watch northernlions vid and you might agree that a 3 tiles radius feels somewhate counterintuitive. Also i'm very picky to where i put my city. with a radius of 3 tiles i almost certainly have to destroy one or even two stations to be able to settle, where i want to. each fracking time.

 

[joncnunn]

What i think is problematic is the 3 tiles radius around a station one can't found a city. I get it with two cities having to keep a distance from each other, but 1 tile stations? Feels too limiting.

I assume this is counting 3 tile radius the same way Civ V does and so that's exactly the same exclusion zone as Civ V cities & city states?
If so, that may be a good value for them IF there's any game mechanic that can turn them into cities. (Such as conquest or equivalent of Austrian UA / Venice UU)

But actually I found in Civ V that under the default rules, the AIs found cities too close together and it has a better settlement pattern if the exclusion zones are increased by one additional tile and its likely the same will apply in BE.

Also, there probably is an advanced setting to change number of independent stations in BE similar to how there is an advanced setting to change number of city states in Civ V that players can can to cut them down from their default ratio to something more reasonable.

It may be an open question is to if you can destroy independent stations at all given that city states in Civ V can not be destroyed but only captured.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I assume this is counting 3 tile radius the same way Civ V does and so that's exactly the same exclusion zone as Civ V cities & city states?
If so, that may be a good value for them IF there's any game mechanic that can turn them into cities. (Such as conquest or equivalent of Austrian UA / Venice UU)

But actually I found in Civ V that under the default rules, the AIs found cities too close together and it has a better settlement pattern if the exclusion zones are increased by one additional tile and its likely the same will apply in BE.

Also, there probably is an advanced setting to change number of independent stations in BE similar to how there is an advanced setting to change number of city states in Civ V that players can can to cut them down from their default ratio to something more reasonable.

It may be an open question is to if you can destroy independent stations at all given that city states in Civ V can not be destroyed.

Given that Stations can be Created (unlike city states) I think it is likely they can be destroyed as well.

 

[GeoModder]

watch northernlions vid and you might agree that a 3 tiles radius feels somewhate counterintuitive. Also i'm very picky to where i put my city. with a radius of 3 tiles i almost certainly have to destroy one or even two stations to be able to settle, where i want to. each fracking time.

I might not agree.
The funny thing about destroying nearby stations is that your own colonists are likely to have founded them. Especially if you had a say in what kind of business they start.

 

[Arkangelus]

It seemed like in one of the videos, a station disappeared - under siege worm attack? There were definitely two blocking off most of the productive river, then later without any explanation there was only 1.