Capturing

[quantumstate]

I think a stamina bar is the most important after health. It will be a core combat mechanic.

Some C&C games use a blink for loyalty, though they make the entire unit flash, not just the bar.

[Sighvatr]

I only like the ides of capturing buildings and livestock.

I dont agree with the capturing of female citizens, because I can instead produce military units to work instead. That way I know for sure that they wont be converted immediately.

I dont like males to be converted either, because they may change loyalty if I invade an enemy town, and the enemy may have a greater or stronger force. Therefore my units will kill each other off rather than attack the enemy. I would be more afraid of attacking the enemy in fear of losing units to loyalty, and would play a turtling game.

Im perfectly fine with boats and siege equipment capturable.

[Jeru]

Some C&C games use a blink for loyalty, though they make the entire unit flash, not just the bar.

You could also have an outline around a unit/building appear and flash when it's about to be converted.

[quantumstate]

I dont agree with the capturing of female citizens, because I can instead produce military units to work instead. That way I know for sure that they wont be converted immediately.

I dont like males to be converted either, because they may change loyalty if I invade an enemy town, and the enemy may have a greater or stronger force. Therefore my units will kill each other off rather than attack the enemy. I would be more afraid of attacking the enemy in fear of losing units to loyalty, and would play a turtling game.

These arguments don't seem persuasive to me. How is it different from replacing the words capturing with killing?

I don't agree with the killing of female citizens, because I can instead produce military units to work instead. That way I know for sure that they can fight back against attackers.

I don't like males to be killed either, because they may get slaughtered if I invade an enemy town, and the enemy may have a greater or stronger force. If my enemy outnumber me then they take fewer losses. I would be more afraid of attacking the enemy in fear of losing units without killing the enemy, and would play a turtling game.

For female citizens if they are captured rather than killed then you have a chance to get them back since you can kill the enemy raiders to recover them. The raiders will have to go at the slow pace of the females to protect them.

I think the idea is that capturing would be harder than killing for military units so you can only afford to capture units when you have overwhelming force. So i guess it si harsher punishment for tactical error.

[Sighvatr]

My argument is simple. I would rather my units be killed off than captured. If my units are captured, they could be used against me. Killing and capturing have two separate meanings, I prefer one over the other.

I am surprised that we would propose a loyalty system over a morale system? I would think that if a large force of great strength approaches a greatly smaller and weaker force, the smaller force would retreat. Say an opposing hundred elephants approached my ten or twenty or so civilian foot soldiers, they would immediately turn and run. Not instantly converted into enemy units that would in turn attack my own city?

I would like to take back on what I said about the female citizens from being captured.

[leper]

Just curious, but where did the idea of capturing military units come from? (I didn't find anything related in the ticket, nor the design document, and not even this topic before post #52.)

[Pureon]

I'm not sure. I always thought it would be limited to buildings, female citizens, and animals.

[Pedro Falcão]

@Sighvatr Morale was postponed to part 2, IIRC, and i think loyalty is only being added because people didn't want so see swords damaging a fortress... And anyways the possibility to use the building against the builder adds a whole new level of strategy to the game, it will be interesting to see where, when and how people will build things...

[Lion.Kanzen]

@Sighvatr Morale was postponed to part 2, IIRC, and i think loyalty is only being added because people didn't want so see swords damaging a fortress... And anyways the possibility to use the building against the builder adds a whole new level of strategy to the game, it will be interesting to see where, when and how people will build things...

I Agree, its a New level of RTS Gameplay, I propose the Building to be Captured, (Think in a Fortress) have a low HP or Healt about 40%, and units to take it maybe like RTW have to Garrision to Star a bar of Capturing 0% to 100% .

Now we had a Problem what happens with Ally(ally to Fortress in this case) Garrisoned unit, may be can be Expulsed if the are a 1/3 of Attakers numbers.

For example 3 Defenders against 9 attakers.

[Pedro Falcão]

Now we had a Problem what happens with Ally(ally to Fortress in this case) Garrisoned unit, may be can be Expulsed if the are a 1/3 of Attakers numbers.

IMO, garrisoned units should influence the rate loyalty decreases just like units outside, but with the bonus of being protected inside and firing arrows, and only when loyalty reaches 0 the units are expelled.

[Lion.Kanzen]

IMO, garrisoned units should influence the rate loyalty decreases just like units outside, but with the bonus of being protected inside and firing arrows, and only when loyalty reaches 0 the units are expelled.

but my point is i don't want works like EE2, units outside.

check this video, they its the wrong way to capture, outside, moving arond.

http://youtu.be/emuOkpUC4aQ

[Pedro Falcão]

That's the point: if you can't capture, then destroy it, so none can use!

[Lion.Kanzen]

That's the point: if you can't capture, then destroy it, so none can use!

but capture is a alternative to siege attack, the way to do must be realistic and best fo gameplay.

[Pedro Falcão]

Well, the realistic way would be to stay camped outside the fortress (out of range) until the occupants' stock of food run out, then slaughtering everyone inside and leaving some troops behind to man the just-conquered building. Or, if you have a ram, destroy the gate and kill everyone inside, no need for long months of siege.

Something like this:

But since we can't represent all that dynamic with ladders and stuff, IMHO this way is the best way, yet. Maybe in part 2 the team decides to put some eyecandy on sieges, but in the meantime... Well, there is a popular proverb around here that says "Do not mess with a team that is winning", and i think it applies quite well in this case.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Well, the realistic way would be to stay camped outside the fortress (out of range) until the occupants' stock of food run out, then slaughtering everyone inside and leaving some troops behind to man the just-conquered building. Or, if you have a ram, destroy the gate and kill everyone inside, no need for long months of siege.

Something like this:

But since we can't represent all that dynamic with ladders and stuff, IMHO this way is the best way, yet. Maybe in part 2 the team decides to put some eyecandy on sieges, but in the meantime... Well, there is a popular proverb around here that says "Do not mess with a team that is winning", and i think it applies quite well in this case.

in that case you are right, but Capturing must be a hard or easy for Attackers (without siege engines)?

[Pedro Falcão]

Did you find it hard in AoK? I used to find it quite easy, depending on how many units you had and their type. And remember some infantry will have the special formations to receive less piercing damage... (Poor Celts, though!)

[Lion.Kanzen]

Did you find it hard in AoK? I used to find it quite easy, depending on how many units you had and their type. And remember some infantry will have the special formations to receive less piercing damage... (Poor Celts, though!)

you can Capturing in Aok?

[oshron]

i think i mentioned it before, but defensive structures should be exempt from capture on the reasoning that, unlike a civilian structure such as a house, a market, or even a barracks, the defensive structures would have soldiers actively stationed in them who are defending it from within. while, realistically, a group of invading soldiers would probably do everything they could to break down the door and capture a fort or a tower for their own use, that's pretty complicated in-game, so its just easier to require the player to topple defensive structures (towers, fortresses, gates), capture the rest of the town around them, and then build their own fortifications. as for barracks being "non-military" buildings even though they produce military units, you could reason that all of the soldiers stationed in there (symbolically) are out in the field fighting rather than manning any defenses and anyone who IS in the barracks is an old, retired officer who just has a desk job. y'know, a paper pusher. after all, the real-world Secretary of Defense may have been a soldier, but he doesn't actively go out into the field to fight when a war arises, and in the context of gameplay, such a thing would be unnecessary; 0AD is a military RTS focusing on macromanagement, so forcing the player to have to think exceptionally hard about such things would just be cruel. actions like that would be relegated to in-game cinematics and the plot of campaign missions rather than regular gameplay, and thats all we're currently talking about, really

Edited January 10, 2013 by oshron

[Lion.Kanzen]

i think i mentioned it before, but defensive structures should be exempt from capture on the reasoning that, unlike a civilian structure such as a house, a market, or even a barracks, the defensive structures would have soldiers actively stationed in them who are defending it from within. while, realistically, a group of invading soldiers would probably do everything they could to break down the door and capture a fort or a tower for their own use, that's pretty complicated in-game, so its just easier to require the player to topple defensive structures (towers, fortresses, gates), capture the rest of the town around them, and then build their own fortifications. as for barracks being "non-military" buildings even though they produce military units, you could reason that all of the soldiers stationed in there (symbolically) are out in the field fighting rather than manning any defenses and anyone who IS in the barracks is an old, retired officer who just has a desk job. y'know, a paper pusher. after all, the real-world Secretary of Defense may have been a soldier, but he doesn't actively go out into the field to fight when a war arises, and in the context of gameplay, such a thing would be unnecessary; 0AD is a military RTS focusing on macromanagement, so forcing the player to have to think exceptionally hard about such things would just be cruel. actions like that would be relegated to in-game cinematics and the plot of campaign missions rather than regular gameplay, and thats all we're currently talking about, really

you Dont Forget about Temples and Big Structures can be defending like a Fort.

in 70 year AD Romans Fighting into the Sacred Temple with Rebels.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_military.html

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/Josephus/2002_spilsbury_josephus-temple.pdf

Edited January 10, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Pedro Falcão]

I disagree, oshron. I think the forts, civ centers, towers, etc. are the ones that MUST be capturable, for they are fortified, thus are immune to most of normal attacks, and yet they can kill. So instead of damaging the buildings, the soldiers are capturing it. Of course it will take a very long time for the building to be completely captured (you start capturing, when loyalty reaches zero, it turns neutral, stops all actions, expels everyone inside and start channeling back the loyalty, but to the side of the one who's capturing) and maybe some penalty should be added for the captured buildings even when they're totally captured.

Minor buildings like houses, mills, farms, docks and corrals, though, could be destroyed by normal soldiers, for they had a large percentage of their structure made of wood, and fire could burn the wood and weaken the other parts of the structure. If the player doesn't want them to be destroyed, then capture the civic center for it has the ability of capturing the minor buildings. This of course, is my idea of the capturing feature, i have no idea of how the team is planning it to be.

And Marcio, no, AoK didn't have the capturing feature, but you'd destroy the castles with barracks units if you didn't have siege equipment, wouldn't you? I used to send a lot of Champions (they had bonus vs buildings) right behind some 'cannon fodder', any unit with a high amount of piercing armor, or any gold-cheap units (sometimes you run out of it and food is your only option, besides food was an almost infinite resource, in AoK, just like lumber).

Edited January 11, 2013 by Pedro Falcão

[Lion.Kanzen]

And Marcio, no, AoK didn't have the capturing feature, but you'd destroy the castles with barracks units if you didn't have siege equipment, wouldn't you? I used to send a lot of Champions (they had bonus vs buildings) right behind some 'cannon fodder', any unit with a high amount of piercing armor, or any gold-cheap units (sometimes you run out of it and food is your only option, besides food was an almost infinite resource, in AoK, just like lumber).

Edited by Pedro Falcão, Today, 06:21 PM.

In AOK:

i was Barted in Market selling Wood for buy Gold to create Siege Units, never use Barrack to destroys a Fort, maybe a Tower, or wall or gate.

try with Mauryan(you) Agaisnt(Ai) Macedinian in Levente Map, Let them construct all land oppositte at yours and you conquest the other land, and you prepare to defend and later when they fill their land with Fortress try to destroy all.

Minor buildings like houses, mills, farms, docks and corrals, though, could be destroyed by normal soldiers, for they had a large percentage of their structure made of wood, and fire could burn the wood and weaken the other parts of the structure. If the player doesn't want them to be destroyed, then capture the civic center for it has the ability of capturing the minor buildings. This of course, is my idea of the capturing feature, i have no idea of how the team is planning it to be

• Hause is to may destroy all, if a house is burning the next to that can loss hp.(Nobody wants take Houses) but if youy Takee the Civic C all Houses are now Allies.
  
• Docks, and Warehouses Can be added to your own Territory, are uselfull if you can have a Mine or Stone mine resource in that case are more desireable.
  
• Farms must be like Sheep easy to take.
  
• Barack same i suggest with Temples, Fortress and CivCenter Hard to take, same with Special and Wonders.
  

Edited January 11, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[idanwin]

The lower the hp of the building the faster it loses loyalty.

Wonders should be incapturable, as well as some special buildings.

When you capture an enemy barracks, can you make their units or your own in that barracks?

[Pedro Falcão]

Since you only capture the building and the tools, but the materials and men are still your own, it wouldn't make sense to be able to train foreign units there...

[idanwin]

I agree

[Lion.Kanzen]

Since you only capture the building and the tools, but the materials and men are still your own, it wouldn't make sense to be able to train foreign units there...

i dont know you guys, but i would like train Mercenaries, that is my desire

http://youtu.be/6F9teVRmE_M