IMO nomad games are even earlier broken by too near set CCs. The barracks are just one hack. Too often 2 ccs foundations are set too near without intention. The barrack hack is then often executed with the help of team mates that sponsor the early barrack. A minimum radius to between cc foundations would be a cleaner solution. Even without barrack hack too close CCs ruin games early on. Another interesting thing is this capture doesn't respect the ceasefire but captures even during it. Noteworthy other mention: CC denial through units on the foundation. If one is lucky, one can put their cavalry on the enemy foundation during ceasefire and the enemy can't start their foundation because the cavalry won't move.

@LienRag Maybe logs would give people a chance to look into this.

I installed Alpha 28 on my computer and it launched, but then no action was recognized; even just clicking on "OK" in the intro menu had no result.   I tried both through the Snap and through the Backports of Debian Trixie, both had same results.

I´ll do my best!

I do encounter 4 5 times the situation, my believe is that what we call barrck exploit should not occur, simply cause the recipient is not the emitent of the inflicted concept [ ownership]. so, adressing it as exploit/bug/hack it fair act by me, on contrary, deployed values as equal oportunities became a nonfucntional fair game rule [ is non understable why CC does not recover ownership, or why then, in case of CC captured, the recipients -containers of ownership does not recover adiacents - its simply a garbage bug, a shiet exploit] .  good point adressing the issue, hope you will adress other garbage things too.