Territories

[plumo]

I'll wait for a new autobuild. At the moment i can't see the latest two revisions.

One more thing ( feedback): Imo the effect of buildings on borders should be nerfed, just reduce it by 25 or 50 %. When you open a map like gallic fields or sicilia: with your initial base your borders are already close to the enemy's borders! what do you guys think?

Edited July 30, 2011 by plumo

[WhiteTreePaladin]

If houses aren't going to count, then Mills and Farmsteads probably shouldn't either. I think perhaps only "Conquest critical" buildings should expand it.

[Chakakhan]

Are the territory effect wieghting values going to be attached to the individual buildings?

[Mythos_Ruler]

If houses aren't going to count, then Mills and Farmsteads probably shouldn't either. I think perhaps only "Conquest critical" buildings should expand it.

Broadly makes sense.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I added my structure territory tweaks in line with the chart I made out at the top of the page. You can update and check them out and see what you think. I went ahead and gave houses and mills a small territory effect just for playtesting. It is very easy to remove later if we want to, so no one have a heart attack.

Enjoy!

[oshron]

I think the borders could be a tiny tad bit thicker than in the current version.

Also, which buildings will eventually affect borders? I'd say Civic Centres, Outposts, Fortresses and maybe Barracks. I don't know if pure economical buildings should affect borders - it doesn't make sense to me that houses should extend your borders, as they currently do.

personally, i would recommend that only civic centers and fortresses contribute significantly to a player's territory or influence because of the importance of those particular buildings while buildings like farmsteads, docks, and barracks contribute a much smaller (but still considerable) amount than the civcenter and fortress. houses, mills, and such could give even less because of their unstated civic functions (mainly because theyre where the people live). lastly, walls, wall-towers, gates, and outposts (if outposts are included) shouldnt contribute at all to territorial gains.

speaking of buildings and territories, i personally think that SOME buildings SHOULD be able to be built on unclaimed or enemy territory. this is more for realism than anything else. after all, in wars throughout history, the invaders have almost always built forward bases and fortifications on enemy territory. if you want, this could maybe be where some dropped buildings, basically outposts and palisades like in AOK, could be constructed, but NOT in territory actually controlled by the player (unless theres eventual overlap). buildings like these, of course, would be cheap, quick to build, and easy to destroy.

[Mythos_Ruler]

speaking of buildings and territories, i personally think that SOME buildings SHOULD be able to be built on unclaimed or enemy territory. this is more for realism than anything else. after all, in wars throughout history, the invaders have almost always built forward bases and fortifications on enemy territory. if you want, this could maybe be where some dropped buildings, basically outposts and palisades like in AOK, could be constructed, but NOT in territory actually controlled by the player (unless theres eventual overlap). buildings like these, of course, would be cheap, quick to build, and easy to destroy.

We're thinking of adding palisades. Erik, Pureon, and I are keen on adding them when we have working walls.

[Shield Bearer]

I vote for palisades too.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I am in full agreement with Shield Bearer. By the way, what about temples, monuments, theatrons, tholos, gymnasiums, etc,....

Edited August 1, 2011 by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

[feneur]

personally, i would recommend that only civic centers and fortresses contribute significantly to a player's territory or influence because of the importance of those particular buildings while buildings like farmsteads, docks, and barracks contribute a much smaller (but still considerable) amount than the civcenter and fortress. houses, mills, and such could give even less because of their unstated civic functions (mainly because theyre where the people live). lastly, walls, wall-towers, gates, and outposts (if outposts are included) shouldnt contribute at all to territorial gains.

speaking of buildings and territories, i personally think that SOME buildings SHOULD be able to be built on unclaimed or enemy territory. this is more for realism than anything else. after all, in wars throughout history, the invaders have almost always built forward bases and fortifications on enemy territory. if you want, this could maybe be where some dropped buildings, basically outposts and palisades like in AOK, could be constructed, but NOT in territory actually controlled by the player (unless theres eventual overlap). buildings like these, of course, would be cheap, quick to build, and easy to destroy.

Generally I agree. I think Outposts should add somewhat to the territory though. Perhaps they should be possible to build on unclaimed land, only have a small territory effect (far smaller than their LOS, though having a limit on how close to the outpost the border could go), and not suffer any hitpoint/capture effects if surrounded by enemy territory. That way they would contribute to your LOS/scouting, and give you the ability to protect e.g. a mill at a metal mine even if it's a fair distance away from the Civic Center, but without making the territory in general ridiculously large or something.

[Ykkrosh]

I made it remove SoD in owned territories now. (Windows autobuild should be uploaded soonish.)

What additional functionality is critical for proper gameplay testing of territories?

[historic_bruno]

I didn't see any discussion of diplomacy yet, which is OK since we don't have proper diplomacy yet. But some scenarios have fixed teams, and we were discussing on IRC how to handle ally territories. The thinking is buildings except civic centres should be allowed in allied territories (without suffering loyalty drain) This creates an interesting tension between players IMO, as when alliances shift, and allows cooperative defense. Meanwhile civic centres would only be allowed in your own or neutral territory.

Proposed territory building restrictions:

                                 Own    Ally   Neutral   Enemy
Civic Centre                      X              X
Fortress                          X      X
Barracks                          X      X
Scout Tower                       X      X
Temple and Market                 X
Mill and Farmstead                X      X
Farm Fields and Corral            X      X
House                             X
Dock                              X      X       X
Walls                             X

[Mythos_Ruler]

I made it remove SoD in owned territories now. (Windows autobuild should be uploaded soonish.)

Rad!

What additional functionality is critical for proper gameplay testing of territories?

Territorial limits to buildings. Civic Centres and Docks=Neutral and own territory; all others=your own territory. Preferably an element in the entity templates rather than thrown into a javascript file. Ben listed the 4 possibilities. And mayyyyybe the Civic Centre radius that prevents them from being built too close.

outposts (if outposts are included) shouldnt contribute at all to territorial gains.

Outposts=Scout Towers. Perhaps they can contribute to territorial gain if built within your territory, but if built within Neutral territory they do nothing territorial at all.

EDIT: And with the new FOW lifted within territory feature implemented, I'll go ahead and reduce vision ranges for all units.

[gudo]

I don't think towers should contribute to territorial gain at all. Or any defensive structure for that matter. If they did contribute when built outside your territory, people would just build rows of them on the frontier, then another row on the new frontier, etc. We'd just end up with maps full of rows and rows of towers and walls. They're cheaper than civ centers and fortresses, once technology and phases are in play they could be build sooner too. They can garrison units, heal units, and kill units. Essentially, making defensive structures add to territories would make everyone "turtle to expand." Fortresses could be an exception because of their importance, but that just seems to shift the problem.

I'm not linking the feel of dynamic territories that much to be honest... The only way I see them working is by implementing settlements as the only places to build civ centers, and by making another settlement like entity (call it a "strategic location" or something) that must be built on to expand your borders. Honestly, the best option IMO is to 1) make it so that only civ centers and fortresses expand territory and 2) implement settlements and 3) make Fortresses and Civ Centers only buildable on settlements. That way, instead of wall and tower spam, we actually create valuable positions that must be contested in order expand.

[Ykkrosh]

we were discussing on IRC how to handle ally territories. The thinking is buildings except civic centres should be allowed in allied territories (without suffering loyalty drain) This creates an interesting tension between players IMO, as when alliances shift, and allows cooperative defense.

I assume the idea is that territories are still each owned by a single player, and computed independently of diplomacy, so the borders won't change as diplomacy changes, and the only new feature is that you're allowed to build on an ally's territory; as opposed to having a territory be owned by an alliance, where all the buildings of that alliance's members are summed together (as if they were effectively a single player) when computing the territories?

(To give a specific example: say players 1, 2 and 3 have civ centers arranged in a small triangle. Each player's territory is basically a third of a circle since it's symmetric. If 1 and 2 ally, they can each build on their combined two-thirds; as opposed to combining the influences of their two civ centers, which would push back against player 3's influence and so player 3's border would shrink towards its civ center, so the alliance would end up with more than two-thirds of the area. (The latter option sounds more complex and unpredictable for players, and also hard to pick meaningful border colours for, and also incompatible with non-symmetric or non-transitive diplomacy (say 1 and 2 are allies, and 2 and 3 are allies, but 1 and 3 are enemies), so I'd be happier to go with the first approach.))

Separate question: If you have a situation like this where a house (or whatever) is creating a bit of territory around itself, but is cut off from a civ center, so the building will be slowly losing loyalty (or hitpoints or whatever), should the red player be allowed to build in that bit of territory around that house? or should you only be able to build in territory owned by you (or an ally etc) that is still connected to a civ center?

Perhaps they can contribute to territorial gain if built within your territory, but if built within Neutral territory they do nothing territorial at all.

That sounds kind of cyclic, which is bad - to compute a player's territories, you first have to decide whether that player's towers are in their territory (and should influence it) or aren't (and shouldn't), and you can't decide that until you've computed their territories

[Mythos_Ruler]

That sounds kind of cyclic, which is bad - to compute a player's territories, you first have to decide whether that player's towers are in their territory (and should influence it) or aren't (and shouldn't), and you can't decide that until you've computed their territories

That's fine. I was just throwing the idea out there to see if someone could find a problem with it.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I don't think towers should contribute to territorial gain at all. Or any defensive structure for that matter. If they did contribute when built outside your territory, people would just build rows of them on the frontier, then another row on the new frontier, etc. We'd just end up with maps full of rows and rows of towers and walls.

I'm starting to agree, or at least shrink the tower radius to something like the House radius. We already decided that walls will not add to the border, just potentially stop the expansion of your enemy's border. Also, there will not be "wall spam" if we go with the curtain wall idea. And if we add palisades, they will be relatively weak (and destructible by meat units) and only serve to help slow the enemy's attack or slow an enemy's raid.

(Walls) can garrison units, heal units, and kill units.

Indeed. It is my preference that the only building that heals garrisoned units should be the Temple.

I'm not linking the feel of dynamic territories that much to be honest...

You're in a small minority on this.

The only way I see them working is by implementing settlements as the only places to build civ centers, and by making another settlement like entity (call it a "strategic location" or something) that must be built on to expand your borders. Honestly, the best option IMO is to 1) make it so that only civ centers and fortresses expand territory and 2) implement settlements and 3) make Fortresses and Civ Centers only buildable on settlements. That way, instead of wall and tower spam, we actually create valuable positions that must be contested in order expand.

I just discussed why there will not be wall and tower spam. I'm not against there being settlements in some form, however I would like to run with the current method for a while, or perhaps make settlements a game option.Once we implement the Civic Centre radius, people will be forced to expand with their Civ Centres building new colonies a required distance away from their starting positions. I would like to see how well this works first.

I assume the idea is that territories are still each owned by a single player, and computed independently of diplomacy, so the borders won't change as diplomacy changes, and the only new feature is that you're allowed to build on an ally's territory; as opposed to having a territory be owned by an alliance, where all the buildings of that alliance's members are summed together (as if they were effectively a single player) when computing the territories?

I'd say each player's territory is separate. If you want "combined" territories, then play a coop game.

Separate question: If you have a situation like this where a house (or whatever) is creating a bit of territory around itself, but is cut off from a civ center, so the building will be slowly losing loyalty (or hitpoints or whatever), should the red player be allowed to build in that bit of territory around that house? or should you only be able to build in territory owned by you (or an ally etc) that is still connected to a civ center?

For simplicity's sake, I'd say you can build on any territory you own.

[historic_bruno]

I assume the idea is that territories are still each owned by a single player, and computed independently of diplomacy, so the borders won't change as diplomacy changes, and the only new feature is that you're allowed to build on an ally's territory; as opposed to having a territory be owned by an alliance, where all the buildings of that alliance's members are summed together (as if they were effectively a single player) when computing the territories?

Right, I don't think building in ally territory should affect borders - only building in your own or neutral territories.

[oshron]

Generally I agree. I think Outposts should add somewhat to the territory though. Perhaps they should be possible to build on unclaimed land, only have a small territory effect (far smaller than their LOS, though having a limit on how close to the outpost the border could go), and not suffer any hitpoint/capture effects if surrounded by enemy territory. That way they would contribute to your LOS/scouting, and give you the ability to protect e.g. a mill at a metal mine even if it's a fair distance away from the Civic Center, but without making the territory in general ridiculously large or something.

sounds like a good idea to me. a simple outpost surrounded by palisades protecting an ore deposit could very well be a good way to make a forward base first an outpost next to a quarry; then a mill to harvest those minerals; then palisades to protect the workers; then a house, a barracks, a fortress, and finally a small army to harass your enemies!

[Ykkrosh]

Added some decay - if a territory does not contain an entity with <TerritoryInfluence><Root>true</Root></TerritoryInfluence> (currently set on civ centers) belonging to the territory's associated player, then its border will flash and buildings within it will lose 20HP per second (see template_structure.xml) until they either die or come back into a civ-center-connected territory.

[Pureon]

Added some decay - if a territory does not contain an entity with <TerritoryInfluence><Root>true</Root></TerritoryInfluence> (currently set on civ centers) belonging to the territory's associated player, then its border will flash and buildings within it will lose 20HP per second (see template_structure.xml) until they either die or come back into a civ-center-connected territory.

Does it need an autobuild? I can't run either 0AD or Atlas from svn at the moment, I get this:

Loading simulation script 'simulation/components/TerritoryDecay.js'

ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/components/TerritoryDecay.js line 74 Error: Registered component has unrecognised 'OnTerritoriesChanged' message handler method ()@simulation/components/TerritoryDecay.js:74

Loading simulation script 'simulation/components/Timer.js'

Loading simulation script 'simulation/components/TrainingQueue.js'

Loading simulation script 'simulation/components/UnitAI.js'

Loading simulation script 'simulation/components/UnitMotionFlying.js'

CTerrainTextureManager::RecurseDirectory(art/textures/terrain/types/): no terrains.xml (or errors while loading) - using parent properties

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/biome-desert/desert_city_tile_plaza.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/biome-desert/desert_city_tile_plaza.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/biome-desert/desert_rough.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/biome-desert/desert_rough.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/biome-mediterranean/medit_city_pavement.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/biome-mediterranean/medit_city_pavement.png

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/biome-mediterranean/medit_city_tile.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/biome-mediterranean/medit_city_tile.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/biome-savanna/savanna_tile_a.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/biome-savanna/savanna_tile_a.png

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/biome-temperate/temp_road_muddy.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/biome-temperate/temp_road_muddy.png

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/special/blackness.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/special/blackness.dds

CTerrainTextureManager::RecurseDirectory(art/textures/terrain/types/water/animation1/): no terrains.xml (or errors while loading) - using parent properties

CTerrainTextureManager::RecurseDirectory(art/textures/terrain/types/water/animation2/): no terrains.xml (or errors while loading) - using parent properties

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/water/corral_c.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/water/corral_c.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/water/ocean_rock_a.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/water/ocean_rock_a.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/water/ocean_rock_b.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/water/ocean_rock_b.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/water/ocean_rock_deep.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/water/ocean_rock_deep.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/water/water_1.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/water/water_1.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/water/water_2.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/water/water_2.dds

CTerrainTextureManager: Successfully loaded override xml art/textures/terrain/types/water/water_3.xml for texture art/textures/terrain/types/water/water_3.dds

ERROR: CXeromyces: Parse error: structures/hele_civil_centre:1: Expecting an element Weight, got nothing

ERROR: CXeromyces: Parse error: structures/hele_civil_centre:1: Invalid sequence in interleave

ERROR: CXeromyces: Parse error: structures/hele_civil_centre:1: Element TerritoryInfluence failed to validate content

ERROR: RelaxNGValidator: Validation failed

ERROR: Failed to load entity template 'structures/hele_civil_centre'

ERROR: CXeromyces: Parse error: structures/iber_civil_centre:1: Expecting an element Weight, got nothing

ERROR: CXeromyces: Parse error: structures/iber_civil_centre:1: Invalid sequence in interleave

ERROR: CXeromyces: Parse error: structures/iber_civil_centre:1: Element TerritoryInfluence failed to validate content

ERROR: RelaxNGValidator: Validation failed

ERROR: Failed to load entity template 'structures/iber_civil_centre'

[feneur]

Sounds like it needs an autobuild yeah (Or a custom build )

[Ykkrosh]

Autobuild should be there now.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Pretty cool man. works exactly as advertised. I like the flashing borders; very intuitive. I think two things though:

1. The Health drain is too drastic. The 20hps is good for a proof of concept, but should probably be walked back to something like 1-2hps.

2. Not sure if I want the buildings to drain health if not surrounded by enemy territory. I'd say "no" but it wouldn't kill me to keep it. But if we do keep that, I think the health drain should be half the health drain if it was swallowed by enemy territory. When we get capturing enabled, we could switch it up: Slowly loses Loyalty when swallowed by enemy territory, slowly loses health if detached from Civ centre (as is now).

[Ykkrosh]

Feel free to tweak the values, I just picked one at random

If there's no effect when a territory is disconnected from civ centers but not surrounded by enemies, you could probably build a chain of houses/etc and stick some dropsites on the end a long way from your civ center, with no harm or danger and no cost beyond the cost of houses, which seems to partly defeat the role of territories in keeping your cities clumped together, which doesn't sound great. (When there's some kind of decay, that long chain would be very vulnerable to the enemy destroying a single building and cutting the chain in half and indirectly destroying the rest of the buildings through decay, which gives players a more interesting choice between risky fast expansion vs solid well-connected territories.)

If we did depend on whether buildings are surrounded, what does "surrounded" mean? In particular, what if the building is by the edge of the map (or maybe a big cliff or ocean etc), so the enemy territory can extend partially around the building but can never reach around the final side, so the building can never be completely surrounded? It seems bad if you could exploit that to make buildings unexpectedly resilient when enemy territories are nearby. More generally, what combination of adjacent friendly/ally/neutral/enemy/second-enemy/third-enemy/etc tiles should trigger the "surrounded" behaviour?

Also, what's the expected gameplay benefit of your proposed changes? (Not saying I disagree, just it would be good to have justification for adding complexity )