Capturing

[WhiteTreePaladin]

I agree, and it should work the other way, too, you can't just destroy a recently captured building if you haven't built up enough loyalty.

Should probably still be able to destroy a structure you own even if it is damaged; happened in war all the time where the defenders would sabotage any resources they had to keep them out of enemy hands. Also, repair shouldn't be required just to destroy it afterwards. Just bringing this up since it was mentioned that damaged bulldings should be easier to capture. I think a way to handle it would be to increase the capture rate based on the current health, so the lower the health, the faster the loyalty points drain. This would apply to territory loyalty decay also. Edited April 1, 2015 by WhiteTreePaladin

[historic_bruno]

Should probably still be able to destroy a structure you own even if it is damaged; happened in war all the time where the defenders would sabotage any resources they had to keep them out of enemy hands. Also, repair shouldn't be required just to destroy it afterwards. Just bringing this up since it was mentioned that damaged bulldings should be easier to capture. I think a way to handle it would be to increase the capture rate based on the current health, so the lower the health, the faster the loyalty points drain. This would apply to territory loyalty decay also.

I don't see your concern, the ability to destroy your own building wouldn't be based on it's damage. We are talking a new concept of loyalty/capture points. If you aren't in control of a building, how can you sabotage or destroy it effectively? So you would need to anticipate losing that control, and act quickly, which I think is even more realistic than not. It's a difference between having a burned out shell of a building that you control vs. having a pristine new fort that is being captured - one you can easily destroy, the other not so much. And just because a building is damaged, that doesn't mean it is actively being captured, if you defeat all the attackers or they are mostly siege, you are fine from this perspective, no matter how damaged it is.

[auron2401]

Well, you CAN sabotage something you don't own completely, but it would be a bad game-play feature.

People would just click the button before it's captured, and all that capturing time would be wasted.

So anyone with quick micro will be able to fight potentially good gameplay features. ;(

[WhiteTreePaladin]

I don't see your concern, the ability to destroy your own building wouldn't be based on it's damage. We are talking a new concept of loyalty/capture points. If you aren't in control of a building, how can you sabotage or destroy it effectively? So you would need to anticipate losing that control, and act quickly, which I think is even more realistic than not. It's a difference between having a burned out shell of a building that you control vs. having a pristine new fort that is being captured - one you can easily destroy, the other not so much. And just because a building is damaged, that doesn't mean it is actively being captured, if you defeat all the attackers or they are mostly siege, you are fine from this perspective, no matter how damaged it is.

Quite possibly I misinterpreted what was said earlier. Seems that as long as you officially own it, you have control to delete. The moment it switches, you don't, which makes sense.

Was just responding to this:

Destroying buildings should still be possible (f.e. you reached the tower limit, and you want to build more towers towards the enemy). However, it shouldn't be possible to destroy a building right before it's captured. So I propose only if the owner of the building also holds the majority of capture points, he would be able to destroy the building

I agree, and it should work the other way, too, you can't just destroy a recently captured building if you haven't built up enough loyalty.

I think it would be pretty confusing not to be able to delete a structure just because another player had more loyalty points. It's possible that they could be so close that the bar could look evenly split among multiple players. At what point would a player get control? At greater than 50% loyalty? at two-thirds? I assume that defense arrows would still be fired until the conversion was complete.

Edited April 9, 2015 by WhiteTreePaladin

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

guys keep simple.

Just dont let owner delete when in process of being captyired by enemy.

[Stan`]

Well if a unit is garisonned in it seems logical that it is able to sabotage it

[auron2401]

Yes and no.

If it were a modern military game, Shurr.

It's kind of hard to blow up a building in the good ol way-way-way-before-gunpowder-ages, though.

And torching it might be a bit difficult. They'll just douse it.

(Are you T.N.T?)

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yes and no.

If it were a modern military game, Shurr.

It's kind of hard to blow up a building in the good ol way-way-way-before-gunpowder-ages, though.

And torching it might be a bit difficult. They'll just douse it.

(Are you T.N.T?)

T.N.T ( or other kind explosives) is not needed, they can use other flammable materials like oil that are use to enlighten oil lamps to sabotage.

But I don't see how can work that well, or see a gameplay worth.

[Stan`]

Cause I'm T.N.T. I'm dynamite ... /offtopic

[historic_bruno]

I think it would be pretty confusing not to be able to delete a structure just because another player had more loyalty points. It's possible that they could be so close that the bar could look evenly split among multiple players. At what point would a player get control? At greater than 50% loyalty? at two-thirds? I assume that defense arrows would still be fired until the conversion was complete.

The same argument could be made for other gameplay behaviors, like ejecting garrisoned units on damage, but we do have to choose arbitrary cutoffs. I haven't heard of garrison ejection being especially confusing, though it's a behavior carried over from AoK and capturing is not, maybe we're used to it.

guys keep simple.

Just dont let owner delete when in process of being captyired by enemy.

I like that less, but it's a possible solution. My concern is purely that players can't avoid capturing by destroying a structure without risk, because it's going to be a very important part of gameplay. What I mean by risk: if it's going to be captured in 2 seconds, there is zero risk in destroying it now in fact there is only a benefit to the defender. If it's going to reach 50% loyalty in 2 seconds, there is still much risk in destroying it, because you lose production, territory and a defensible structure while you have time to sway the loyalty back above 50% with reinforcements.

This goes not only for the initial defender, but the attacker upon capturing will essentially become a defender themselves, because it's possible to win the structure back if they don't have enough units to hold it. With your proposal, the building may not be in the process of being captured by the enemy for a time, yet with a low amount of loyalty, the new owner could destroy it and I'm not sure I like that for the above reasons.

Well if a unit is garisonned in it seems logical that it is able to sabotage it

See Enrique's comments, garrisoned units might be ejected when loyalty drops below a certain point, or they may take damage.

[niektb]

[...]

This goes not only for the initial defender, but the attacker upon capturing will essentially become a defender themselves, because it's possible to win the structure back if they don't have enough units to hold it. With your proposal, the building may not be in the process of being captured by the enemy for a time, yet with a low amount of loyalty, the new owner could destroy it and I'm not sure I like that for the above reasons.

[...]

In that case the attacker could've better destroyed the building right away instead of trying to capture it?

[WhiteTreePaladin]

The same argument could be made for other gameplay behaviors, like ejecting garrisoned units on damage, but we do have to choose arbitrary cutoffs. I haven't heard of garrison ejection being especially confusing, though it's a behavior carried over from AoK and capturing is not, maybe we're used to it.

Yeah, I still find that confusing even now. I tolerate it because of AoK, but it's not my favorite feature for sure.

See Enrique's comments, garrisoned units might be ejected when loyalty drops below a certain point, or they may take damage.

I guess that's a reasonable compromise. If we ungarrison for damage, then doing the same for loyalty points perhaps isn't too terrible.

Edited April 10, 2015 by WhiteTreePaladin

[Karamel]

I've read most of the topic and I fear capturing to become overcomplex to use. So here is a suggestion from what I read with minimal action to take to order captures.

About capturing buildings: soldiers can't destroy a building, so merge capture behaviour with standard attack. Soldiers must make an entrance (reduce health by attacking or use siege weapons for it). Once health is maybe 70% or anything infantry can invade. If the building has no garrison, it is disabled while the player has soldiers in it (because in enemy teritory; it can also glow like when in neutral territory). If it has garrison (owner or ennemy), they will be ejected one by one say for every 200 damage; the battle is in fact happening inside. Owner cannot put units in garisson when invasion is in the way, that is infantry attacking the building with health below the threshold.

Thus capturing requires no micro, once soldiers are in the building its up to the player to dismantle with the actual "destroy" button which can be start decaying until destroyed, or keep it until the CC is captured or territory expanded. Ranged units won't shoot useless picks on buildings but go melee to capture them but their weapons are less suited for indoor/siegeing fight.

Unit capturing, except for tamered gaia could work automatically about the same way. Once the unit is about to get killed it may surrender according to it's surrounding. If a soldier/female is alone in neutral territory surrounded by 10 ennemy soldiers, he/she is likely to surrender and be converted as a unarmed slave. If in own territory with fellows all around he/she is more unlikely to surrender and be killed in the way. It's just a matter of what happens when hit on low health. Loyalty/morale thus works like an aura from nearby units and buildings. No micro, no UI, it just happens. For CPU usage it can happen maybe only once on a unit every 10 seconds when hit. The aggressive stance could also say "no mercy" and disable surrending.

Slaves could be brought back the same way, and retrieving it's original weapons from fellows.

For capturing raids, 1 female citizen could be transported on a cavalery unit, but then it won't be able to attack.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Karamel

[niektb]

[...]

About capturing buildings: soldiers can't destroy a building, so merge capture behaviour with standard attack.

[...]

For the sake of modability, I think you should allow units to destroy buildings from a technical POV (I suppose that a WW2 soldier with a Panzerschreck should be able to choose between destroying and capturing a building)

Edited April 15, 2015 by niektb

[Enrique]

For the sake of modability, I think you should allow units to destroy buildings from a technical POV (I suppose that a WW2 soldier with a Panzerschreck should be able to choose between destroying and capturing a building)

I agree. The more choices the better. I guess Ctrl+right click for capture, simple right click for attacking. It makes sense since for allied buildings is garrisoning, and it's more or less representative of how the building is captured (by trying to go inside)

[sanderd17]

You can also take capture points back from your own or allied buildings. So binding it to ctrl will be hard.

I think that less choice is better in this case. It's not a standard rts feature, and people will start wondering how their enemy can take over their building, while they can only demolish it. Having it as a replacement for the normal attack is a lot clearer, as players will immediately notice that units can't demolish buildings in this game, but they can capture them.

Also note that we still haven't figured out how to switch between ranged and melee attack for those units that can do both. I wouldn't like to make that part even harder.

@Karamel, you say you don't want micro, but yet you add all sort of strange rules. Requiring the health to be less than 70% f.e. well cause players to micro their siege units to hurt all buildings down to 70%, and only then start the capture. By ejecting units one by one, the capturing units will be disturbed every time, they'll have to stop capturing to attack the ejected unit.

I also personally don't think that any of our units are worth the micro to try to capture them. Apart from siege units maybe. So for now, I have no idea how and if we should do unit capturing or conversion.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I also personally don't think that any of our units are worth the micro to try to capture them. Apart from siege units maybe. So for now, I have no idea how and if we should do unit capturing or conversion.

Just like sheeps in AOK. utomatic.

[niektb]

I suppose that there are enough ways to inform the player about capturing (tutorials, game manual, trailer videos etc.). That's better than removing the option to destroy IMHO

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ok I tested the new feature.

My suggestion.

- capturing don't be the main command for the units must be a alternate to attack and destroy. Becase the game becomes to capturing game.

-the capturing points must be different from the hitpoints, example defensive building must be hard to capturing.

-if a building have units inside the capture must be more hard and the units inside must have a influence over capture points

- the monuments must be influence over nearby buildings, may be all civs needs a monuments now. An statue can work fine

-the farms farms and other minor buildins must have less capture points.

- you know this, need an animation

- related to my first suggestion, need a command to capture in the GUI like the other alternative commands and have a a shortcut in the keyboard

-Monks/ priest can capture religious buildings and others similars

-Heroes must have double influence to capturing buildings with double resistance to capture.

Is needed implement resistance to capture for some buildings.

----the other a alternative is the process of capture will be start when a building is damage (60%) or more.

[RoekeloosNL]

Nice new feature but are all units able to capture i hope not. It sould be a special option for only some units so that it wont be a game about who capture,s the most and the fastest. Maybe for some units after the first or second town phase so that its not in the begin of the match about capturing buildings..

And the units that have the ability to capture sould have different upgrades for the capture ability.

Edited April 20, 2015 by RoekeloosNL

[FeXoR]

How hard capturing is dependent on the building and/or garrisoned units in it

This is just the first stage. It has to be tested in-game and balanced.

EDIT: For now garrisoned units "recapture" the buildings and thus slowing the capturing process.

One reason more to put it in now rather than a weak before the next alpha

So you are very welcome to comment on your experience and opinion about capturing here.

(Have in mind to keep it simple though )

Choose between capturing and attacking

For now all non-siege weapons (AFAIK) will try to capture, not attack buildings.

An alternative attack order has been discussed and will likely get in.

Using the same key combination as for attack move would be an option.

(And if a GUI button is added for it one will be enough for those both IMO)

Capturing animation

Yes we are aware of capturing needs a clear feedback.

(Likely an animation, a specific sound would also be nice IMO)

[Lion.Kanzen]

Capturing animation

Yes we are aware of capturing needs a clear feedback.

(Likely an animation, a specific sound would also be nice IMO)

Needs an alert for the other player( text), saying you lost a building. And a sound if you lose a building a sound if you lost a CC( by capture obviusly)

----

The alert message would be:

Your enemy are trying to capture your buildings

The enemy has captured one of your buildings.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Lion.Kanzen

[Enrique]

I tested it a bit. Worked fine so far.

The only thing I noticed was playing romans (I tried them to see how would the army camp outside territory would react) and the army camp loses capture points over time (as I guess it should) but when it reaches zero, it converts to gaia and attacks friendly and enemy units.

Another thing I noticed is that the capture points decreases faster than 3 units capturing (it loses capture points faster than 3 units can increase its points)

The same if the units are garrisoned. But garrisoning several units will make the camp to never lose its owner (unless it is attacked) since the garrisoned units are constantly recovering its capture points.

Also units can't be garrisoned unless the building is 100% owned by the player, but the already-garrisoned units can stay inside the building until the loyalty reaches 0

[sanderd17]

Ok, seems like the general concensus is that people also want to destroy buildings. I'll try to bind a CTRL+right_click action to the default attack without breaking the AI too much, or the default UnitAI handling.

@Lion: Capturing is just a different attack form. So you should get the normal attack message for it (though I notice that doesn't work currently).

I tested it a bit. Worked fine so far.

The only thing I noticed was playing romans (I tried them to see how would the army camp outside territory would react) and the army camp loses capture points over time (as I guess it should) but when it reaches zero, it converts to gaia and attacks friendly and enemy units.

Gaia buildings have always been like that, but of course, we didn't have that many gaia buildings on maps before. It's perfectly possible to limit gaia buildings from firing arrows.

Another thing I noticed is that the capture points decreases faster than 3 units capturing (it loses capture points faster than 3 units can increase its points)

The same if the units are garrisoned. But garrisoning several units will make the camp to never lose its owner (unless it is attacked) since the garrisoned units are constantly recovering its capture points.

It all depends on the structure. I just transitioned the decay from a Health to a Capture decay, while keeping the original stats. Most buildings lose 5 CP per second, so with every unit taking 3 CP per second, you can maintain that building with 2 units. The outposts decay 2 CP per second, or 1 CP per second after the technology research. So you can maintain it with one unit. The army camp was indeed defined to lose 10 CP per second, so you need at least 4 units to maintain a full bar.

Also units can't be garrisoned unless the building is 100% owned by the player, but the already-garrisoned units can stay inside the building until the loyalty reaches 0

I can't reproduce the garrisoning issue. In my case, units can still garrison as long as the owner is an ally (which is shown by the player colour on the banner of the selection pane).

[Enrique]

I can't reproduce the garrisoning issue. In my case, units can still garrison as long as the owner is an ally (which is shown by the player colour on the banner of the selection pane).

Try with the roman sandbox, there's an army camp just outside the territory which is decaying, if it's below 100% capture points you can't garrison there.