I agree in theory, but in practise, my walls do get converted when leaving my territory (yes, this means they become detached from my root, and you can then see that as the actual reason), that's what I meant with: And my first observation was that I think this won't happen anymore with your fix. A detail: there are exceptions to "they decay if not connected to a root", like garrisoned buildings, and docks (which don't even decay in enemy land). And maybe it's not that the wall really leaves my territory, but that each block has it's own small territory, and the enemy's land expansion makes each of these to detach from root, but still, that's a difference between what exactly happens in theory, and how it looks like in practise.    This is different and has been clear all along. But I'm not sure if you understood my first observation (which I just clarified), and nothing has been said regarding my second one.    @Atrik I edited some things to be more concise and clear, just in case you already read a previous version.

"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."   @ffm2 I think its fixed now, when enemies start building your units automatically moves away

Buildings don't decay because they are outside your territory (in 95%+ of cases, they sit on their own territory influence), they decay if not connected to a root. This would be unchanged. Territory ownership and connection to territory root are two different things. So nothing will change if you capture a CC and opponent have no other root attached to buildings => all buildings will decay. Your opponent will still own the "blinking" territory until the buildings are decayed to a new owner (unchanged and unaffected by proposed modification).

Your misconception here is to think I'm imagining something I'm not. I'm just trying to mentally emulate the consequences of the fix and point out anything unintended, given that you said "maybe I'm overlooking some potential drawbacks of doing so.. Anyone can think of one?". And I'm thinking of a couple of things, as I'll mention (I guess related to your "buildings are reasonably spaced" observation). Indeed "you cannot own a building but the land is to someone else" (except if they are decaying because of that). "There will be no more territory lines crossing buildings" is indeed the direct consequence of the fix, as is "buildings in the territory won't decay unless the CC is totally enclaved", that was your point all along.   I see now why there won't actually be "self-sustaining" territories: their footprints are not root, so they should decay if detached from root territory. But I was also thinking about this situation: I've had the issue that part of my walls would decay if the enemy territory expands. If I'm not wrong, this won't be the case anymore, since the fix wouldn't allow anymore for only a part of a long wall to decay. I don't have a problem with this, in fact I think the present behaviour is a problem (because my towers get distracted shooting the converted walls I want to gain back!), and your fix might have solved this. But considering all that, and, again, if I'm not wrong, it would seem that the fix would make buildings not "reasonably spaced" way harder to convert just by territory expansion since, given that "there will be no more territory lines crossing buildings", one would have to detach a whole not "reasonably spaced" group of buildings from the root territory. Maybe this is preferable for some, but seems a bit of a drawback for me.

Why do the spammers keep doing it? Does it actually work?