Territories

[Mythos_Ruler]

I don't think I do.

You won't be able to build Civic Centres until the last age. By that time, players should be well-established.

[SMST]

You won't be able to build Civic Centres until the last age. By that time, players should be well-established.

I can't? Was that always the concept?

Then I would say that the game becomes too slow paced indeed. Maybe from the second phase (phase, not age ) onwards, but with the restrictions I suggested?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Or we can try it with the idea that gives the most freedom first, then take freedom away if it's a problem.

[SMST]

Or we can try it with the idea that gives the most freedom first, then take freedom away if it's a problem.

I don't like freedom. See my signature.

As you wish, it is not my game anyway, I just wanted to make a point.^^

[ribez]

to avoid cheating with civic centre spawning, what about if civic centre cost is proportional to the distance to the nearest civic center (or border) of your faction? and maybe inverse proportional to the distance to the nearest enemy civic centre (or border)?

Also, if you know how culture works in Civilization 4, the construction of some buildings like temples and theaters affects the cultural influence that your faction has on nearby players

how about this idea to satisfy both of you?

[ribez]

Our thinking here is that the red house I circled here would fall into enemy territory and gradually start to lose Loyalty and convert to green's side. Green could send some soldiers to speed up the capturing process. We don't have capturing or Loyalty yet, so in the meantime we could maybe just drain the building's health instead. What do you think?

instead of drain the building's health, that adds micromanagement, why don't reduce the building productivity?

for example, a house instead of produce a woman in x seconds, if it's heavily sorrunded by enemy territory, it will produce a woman in x*f, where f is a factor >1

[Mythos_Ruler]

instead of drain the building's health, that adds micromanagement, why don't reduce the building productivity?

for example, a house instead of produce a woman in x seconds, if it's heavily sorrunded by enemy territory, it will produce a woman in x*f, where f is a factor >1

I see no micromanagement involved. The "drainage" of Loyalty or Health would be largely automatic. Your idea is interesting, but really just a lateral move as far as management goes.

[Mythos_Ruler]

how about this idea to satisfy both of you?

We have yet to know whether "Civ Centre spawning" will be that big of any issue (or an issue at all).

[ribez]

I see no micromanagement involved. The "drainage" of Loyalty or Health would be largely automatic. Your idea is interesting, but really just a lateral move as far as management goes.

but i can always send something to repair building and restore health, and it adds micromanagement, or i'm missing something? (probably yes )

[ribez]

We have yet to know whether "Civ Centre spawning" will be that big of any issue (or an issue at all).

yes, you're right, we don't know yet.

I have made this assumption looking to Civilization game, where city spawning was a heavy used tactic to obstacle enemy expansion. To avoid this, programmers have introduced the concept of corruption, that makes less productive the farthest cities from capital

[oshron]

PLEASE dont tell me that settlements arent going to be included in the final game; i loved that concept in AOM because, even IF the town centers were very far away from each other to encourage expansion, there was still some control over the population limit which would prompt players to attack occupied settlements if they desperately needed more population.

incidentally, i think that, for scenario design, it would be good if there were "sites of power"; basically, buildings that would fill the territorial functions of civic centers but without the overlapping radius limitations, and would otherwise serve different purposes. as mentioned earlier in this thread, a "site of power" could be something like an inn where some economic functions and units are trained (much like a civic center) or it could be some ruins like an ancient fortress or temple, or perhaps even just a hill. again, this wouldnt come into regular gameplay, but it could look really good if youre designing a fiction scenario. i could probably come up with an entire list of "sites of power" for ya if you wanted me to

...is that red territory giving us the finger? XD

As long as we don't give all buildings decay so you have to "maintain" them or other some such tediousness.

hey, here's an idea: maybe there could be some special button on the game interface taht would allow you to task all selected units to repair all buildings that are damaged? that would certainly take away from some of the emicromanagement factors

I also thought it would be a plus to implement both options. However, I think we shouldn't get too greedy. One or the other adds nothing to the schedule, while doing both would add to development time.

i think that the two options should definitely be added at some point, but only one should be chosen for now. maybe the development team and former staff could just do a show of hands to decide which one they want for the final version and work on adding the other as a new feature in the second release

[Mythos_Ruler]

but i can always send something to repair building and restore health, and it adds micromanagement, or i'm missing something? (probably yes )

You would do better to attempt to shift the borders back to your favor.

incidentally, i think that, for scenario design, it would be good if there were "sites of power"; basically, buildings that would fill the territorial functions of civic centers but without the overlapping radius limitations, and would otherwise serve different purposes. as mentioned earlier in this thread, a "site of power" could be something like an inn where some economic functions and units are trained (much like a civic center) or it could be some ruins like an ancient fortress or temple, or perhaps even just a hill. again, this wouldnt come into regular gameplay, but it could look really good if youre designing a fiction scenario. i could probably come up with an entire list of "sites of power" for ya if you wanted me to

One concept I had in mind was Farmstead settlements. You can only build Farmsteads (and subsequently Farm Fields around them) on suitable sites. But let's not get too complicated. We'll give Philip a heart attack.

[gudo]

Wait, I'm confused. Are territory borders dynamic?

[feneur]

Wait, I'm confused. Are territory borders dynamic?

We're in the process of deciding that Feel free to add your opinion.

I'm not sure which way I'd prefer to go, both ways have their good sides. Would it be possible to have quick mockups of both versions in the game some time soon Philip? With some quick way to choose either. Would be nice to be able to play a couple of games with either type to get a feel for them.

[Chakakhan]

I love the dynamic borders! I also liked the previous territory concept, but if forced to choose I would pick dynamic borders.

[historic_bruno]

I love the dynamic borders! I also liked the previous territory concept, but if forced to choose I would pick dynamic borders.

Agreed, it reminds me a bit of the old board game Risk. I'm generally in favor of dynamic gameplay, so that every game is different.

I don't think buildings should be drained of HP as a part of territory behavior, like ribez said they could be repaired, but it's not all that realistic anyway. Instead their aura of influence should be slowly diminished (slow enough that it may be preferable to attack the building rather than waiting).

[Mythos_Ruler]

I don't think buildings should be drained of HP as a part of territory behavior, like ribez said they could be repaired, but it's not all that realistic anyway. Instead their aura of influence should be slowly diminished (slow enough that it may be preferable to attack the building rather than waiting).

I only proposed it as a temporary behavior until we get Loyalty and Capturing. The slowly draining Loyalty makes sense though, right?

[satchitb]

I dislike this. Give players the freedom they want to fix things. I was incredibly annoyed with Age of Empires III. There were restrictions on everything: how much you could build of something or the other, the godawful "cards" and you couldn't even do something so basic as make three teams. Building civ centres is a strategic decision that should be left to the players. If they want to build one just a tiny bit closer to the enemy, or build six of them for whatever reason, let him. This whole concept of Loyalty and Capturing, while probably more realistic, adds unnecessary complications to the game. If there's a lone building way out in enemy territory, let there be. It's the opponent's foolishness for not knocking it down.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I dislike this. Give players the freedom they want to fix things. I was incredibly annoyed with Age of Empires III. There were restrictions on everything: how much you could build of something or the other, the godawful "cards" and you couldn't even do something so basic as make three teams. Building civ centres is a strategic decision that should be left to the players. If they want to build one just a tiny bit closer to the enemy, or build six of them for whatever reason, let him. This whole concept of Loyalty and Capturing, while probably more realistic, adds unnecessary complications to the game. If there's a lone building way out in enemy territory, let there be. It's the opponent's foolishness for not knocking it down.

That's a fair view, but there are other design decisions that must be taken into account, like how we want to deal with city walls and other things. And modest restrictions force innovations in strategy. If we took your view to its conclusion, then the game would just be a sandbox without direction.

[Shield Bearer]

I agree with Michael entirely. To think out of the box, there must first be a box

I'm guessing city walls will have the most weight, correct? What if an enemy builds his Civ Center right at the edge of his territory and the on the other side, at the edge of your territory, you've build some walls? Will his expansion somehow push his border and make the walls his or will the walls stubbornly not allow him to expand? What if the walls were a further bit inward, would his expansion stop right in front of the walls? How would we determine this? If the walls have really low weights won't the enemy be able to take over possession of the walls?

[errt]

Really love the idea of dynamic borders. The static territories idea was what I disliked most about the previous plans for 0ad. Also like Mythos_Ruler's last border drawing style, looks unobtrusive and 'antique', fitting the game greatly.

Just one thought about this:

Q. So if two opposing buildings always split the difference, then how can a building ever fall into enemy territory?

A. If any building, besides a Civic Centre or Special Building, is ever cut off completely from adjacent territory (imagine a solitary Blue Barracks with a Blue ring around it, totally surrounded by Red's territory), then that building (and its surrounding territory) falls into enemy territory. Now, this does not mean the building automatically falls into enemy hands, but its Loyalty does start to drain immediately, albeit slowly. It still functions under the original player's control, but will convert to the enemy player once all its Loyalty is gone (similar to infantry capturing a building, but slower)

I'd not have buildings split the difference, but more like that (might also be easier to implement): Let's say you have two opposing barracks, weight 100, range 10 with two tiles in between. Each would have an influence of 100 on it's own tile, 90 on the next one and so on, so each player would get one of the tiles in between. Now player 1 builds a fortress (weight 300, range 15) on the tile behind his barracks, increasing his influence on the tiles as following: 390 on the fortress' tile (300 from the fortress + 90 from the barracks), 380 on his barracks' tile, 350 on the tile in front of his barracks, 320 on the next tile (being more than the 90 from player 2's barracks, so this would fall to player 1) and, this being the important one, 290 one player 2's barracks' tile, still being more than the 100 from it, so the tile containing player 2's barracks would also become part of player 1's territory (and thus losing loyality and such).

I agree on building civ centers on neutral territory (might be impossible to conquer e.g. islands) and no border for gaia (there's really no need for that). No position on the civ centers near to each other question, I see the problem, but on the other hand really dislike restrictions, have to agree with satchitb, that was something I hated in AOE3, that you were allowed to only build a certain number of buildings and so.

[feneur]

I agree with Michael entirely. To think out of the box, there must first be a box

I'm guessing city walls will have the most weight, correct? What if an enemy builds his Civ Center right at the edge of his territory and the on the other side, at the edge of your territory, you've build some walls? Will his expansion somehow push his border and make the walls his or will the walls stubbornly not allow him to expand? What if the walls were a further bit inward, would his expansion stop right in front of the walls? How would we determine this? If the walls have really low weights won't the enemy be able to take over possession of the walls?

Hmm, I think you just made an argument for the city walls rather than freely buildable walls in this scenario Not sure Walls should affect the borders at all, after all, weren't walls often built on borders? =) (Borders of cities more commonly than borders of territories afaik, but still )

All-in-all I think I'm starting to lean towards dynamic borders. Just played EE2 the other day to remember a bit more how their territories work and feel, and remembered it feels a bit static. I mean once the initial race to capture as many territories as you can you really need to start a war to expand. Eventually things must come to war (unless there is a game mode which allows for other victory conditions, but I'm talking about general Conquest games ) but it's nice to have some other options for expansion. Especially if you're already at war with another player and want to finish that war before taking on the next.

Also, for the people not liking limits, there should/will be a mode without territories and other limits so everyone should have their choice. However the main focus will be the territory-based mode as we think that makes the game more interesting.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Hmm, I think you just made an argument for the city walls rather than freely buildable walls in this scenario Not sure Walls should affect the borders at all, after all, weren't walls often built on borders? =) (Borders of cities more commonly than borders of territories afaik, but still )

Hmm, I think this actually supports the curtain wall idea, because then you can have a certain radius from the Civ Centre, if walls are built, that stop the expansion of the enemy. With freely placed walls you could have walls crisscrossing borders and don't make sense. We'll prolly have to playtest this. I do like Amish's idea that walls should be a barrier to the enemy's expansion. I don't think they should have an their own expansion effect though--we should keep them strictly defensive in nature, while the Romans can use their Siege Walls anywhere (and have absolutely no effect on territory, defensive or otherwise).

I agree on building civ centers on neutral territory (might be impossible to conquer e.g. islands) and no border for gaia (there's really no need for that). No position on the civ centers near to each other question, I see the problem, but on the other hand really dislike restrictions, have to agree with satchitb, that was something I hated in AOE3, that you were allowed to only build a certain number of buildings and so.

I think the dynamic borders scenario requires us to remove most of our build limits, because those build limits were settlement/territory based. So, a Civ Centre radius is only a minor restriction considering we remove the build limits on most of our buildings (or increase build limits substantially; i.e. 8 max fortresses, and 25 max Scout Towers, instead of the old way which was 1 Fortress per territory, etc.). Look at the Civ Centre radius thing as an acknowledgement that the old settlement idea's main gameplay function was to force territorial expansion. The radius idea has this function, but still frees up the player to determine where he/she places the building.

[feneur]

Hmm, I think this actually supports the curtain wall idea, because then you can have a certain radius from the Civ Centre, if walls are built, that stop the expansion of the enemy. With freely placed walls you could have walls crisscrossing borders and don't make sense. We'll prolly have to playtest this. I do like Amish's idea that walls should be a barrier to the enemy's expansion. I don't think they should have an their own expansion effect though--we should keep them strictly defensive in nature, while the Romans can use their Siege Walls anywhere (and have absolutely no effect on territory, defensive or otherwise).

Yeah, I guess that mostly was what I meant Curtain wall. I would still like freely placed walls to be implemented though, for non-territory gameplay if nothing else. It would feel a bit less than fun not to be able to block off places though, but on the other hand there will still be outposts and fortresses to fill that role. (It will make the game less defensive-oriented as well, though I'd personally want to have at least the possibility to play defensively But for those who want it to be less like that

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yeah, I guess that mostly was what I meant Curtain wall. I would still like freely placed walls to be implemented though, for non-territory gameplay if nothing else. It would feel a bit less than fun not to be able to block off places though, but on the other hand there will still be outposts and fortresses to fill that role. (It will make the game less defensive-oriented as well, though I'd personally want to have at least the possibility to play defensively But for those who want it to be less like that

Hmm, why not have stone walls for curtain walls, then palisades for freely placed walls? It's not really feature creep, since all it would be is swapping in new actors and meshes (and the consensus seems to be we want both types of wall placement anyway). I can whip up palisade objects easily, or use Pureon's palisades as a basis.