Territories

[Mythos_Ruler]

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.

Long sentence is loooong.

There are a few reasons why this fear is unfounded: The territory radius of a house is generally not big enough to do this. If it is (perhaps the small Celt houses can fit) then you would need to build a looooooooot of houses in order to make such a daisy chain. So many houses, in fact, that it would be an order of magnitude cheaper to just go and throw down a Civic Centre.

If we did depend on whether buildings are surrounded, what does "surrounded" mean?

It seemed obvious to me: When the building's territory is completely engulfed by enemy territory. Edge cases be darned, IMHO (a house butting up against a cliff or the edge of the map or whatever).

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 )

The Loyalty drain/capture effect promotes and supports the capturing feature we hope will be a large part of the gameplay. The health drain if disconnected from a Civ Centre simulates the cutting of supply lines (and I threw it in there as a bone to those who may want health drainage).

EDIT: I'd rather not have any decay or anything else if simply cut off and not surrounded. I've shown why the daisy chain justification is a non-issue.

[Ykkrosh]

The Loyalty drain/capture effect promotes and supports the capturing feature we hope will be a large part of the gameplay. The health drain if disconnected from a Civ Centre simulates the cutting of supply lines (and I threw it in there as a bone to those who may want health drainage).

I was mostly wondering what's the benefit of distinguishing surrounded vs not surrounded, rather than having the loyalty drain/capture apply to all buildings that are cut off from their civ center regardless of surroundedness. (Simulating supply lines sounds kind of like pointless pseudorealism to me, and not worth the effort of detecting surroundedness if that's the only reason for it )

(When a building is surrounded, it might be surrounded by multiple enemies, so we probably couldn't have it be immediately captured by the enemy whose territory surrounds it (since which one would we pick?). So I'm assuming capturing would probably involve the building putting up a (metaphorical or literal) flag of surrender and then switching over to whoever first sends a unit along to take it. In that case, exactly the same could apply to buildings that are surrounded by neutral territory instead - they lose all loyalty then are captured by whoever reaches them first.)

[Mythos_Ruler]

In that case, exactly the same could apply to buildings that are surrounded by neutral territory instead - they lose all loyalty then are captured by whoever reaches them first.

Now that to me sounds like needless complexity. What if the player sends a hoplite over to recapture his building that has gone to gaia? Does it immediately begin to lose Loyalty again or does it wait until the hoplite moves off? So now we're talking about the presence of units determining whether it decays or not, which is adding more complexity. The simpler way would be to just make it so that there is decay (health or loyalty, either one) when surrounded by enemy territory. To make it simpler, it would have to be surrounded completely by one enemy player's territory. If cut off and surrounded by multiple enemy territories, it would hold fast and require one of the enemies to send some units to go capture it (although I like your metaphorical "white flag" proposal in this case).

[historic_bruno]

Discussion Philip and I were having in IRC: what happens if I build e.g. a fortress in my ally's territory? There's two cases:

1. ally's territory is connected to a civ centre: disable the health drain so ally's can't harm each other?

2. ally's territory is not connected to a civ centre: all buildings in the territory suffer the health drain?

The border calculation doesn't know anything about diplomacy and I agree with Philip that we should keep it that way, if possible. So what if building in ally territory had this caveat: it's like setting up a base which you own along with the surrounded land, it falls under your protection. But your ally can no longer build civ centres and houses in that enclave. That's not a new feature, but I'm trying to determine if our current behavior has a logical explanation

[Ykkrosh]

To make it simpler, it would have to be surrounded completely by one enemy player's territory. If cut off and surrounded by multiple enemy territories, it would hold fast and require one of the enemies to send some units to go capture it (although I like your metaphorical "white flag" proposal in this case).

That sounds like you need the surroundedness check and the get-captured-by-units feature, whereas I was suggesting having merely the get-captured-by-units feature (regardless of surroundedness), so my suggestion is simpler

(I'm imagining the get-captured-by-units feature would have the building remain owned by its original player (not revert to Gaia), but any enemy unit can go up to it and do a little capturing dance for a few seconds without being interrupted and the building will then switch ownership, but it will remain at zero loyalty so a different enemy (or the original owner) could come and do another capturing dance and take it back almost immediately, until the new owner gets around to building a civ center nearby to cement their ownership of the building (which will slowly recharge the building's loyalty, making it much harder to recapture). That avoids the problem of ping-ponging between one owner and Gaia - you won't immediately lose control of the building when you lose its loyalty, but it'll become extremely vulnerable if enemy troops reach it and you don't have enough troops nearby to defend it.)

[Mythos_Ruler]

@ Philip: I think it will just need playtesting. Too many hypotheticals at this point. My main beef is just the decay that happens when disconnected from a Civ Centre. Why should a fortress, a couple of barracks, 20 houses and mills, and all the player's buildings start to lose health just because the enemy got lucky and knocked down the Civ Centre? Seems like a bit much.

Discussion Philip and I were having in IRC: what happens if I build e.g. a fortress in my ally's territory? There's two cases:

My preference is that building in allied territory should be limited to a small number of specific buildings. And my preference is toward no decay in any case except when swallowed by enemy territory. I'm actually regretting even introducing the concept.

[historic_bruno]

Well we need something to make territories worth having

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well we need something to make territories worth having

Requiring territory for construction of buildings is already a HUGE deal. I play the game every single day.

EDIT: The only reason I introduced the decay(loss of loyalty) concept when engulfed in enemy territory is that I felt there should have been a benefit for the enemy player for engulfing your building and a consequence to you for allowing your building to be engulfed. All this extra stuff about decay happening when disconnected from a civ centre and all the edge cases involved with that (building in allied territory, etc.) seems superfluous.

As far as placing your buildings in allied territory, I think they should have no effect on territory boundaries whatsoever, and if we ignore the whole "cut off from your own civ centre" idea, then we don't have to worry about this at all. You just have to worry about your ally backstabbing you, turning enemy, and now some of your buildings are cut off and losing loyalty (or health, whatever) from you to him.

[Potter]

The only reason I introduced the decay(loss of loyalty) concept when engulfed in enemy territory is that I felt there should have been a benefit for the enemy player for engulfing your building and a consequence to you for allowing your building to be engulfed. All this extra stuff about decay happening when disconnected from a civ centre and all the edge cases involved with that (building in allied territory, etc.) seems superfluous.

I side with this. Territories is a novel idea which has a physical equivalent - that you own those land where your buildings are. And, when your building is single-handed surrounded by enemy territory, we can assume that it becomes intimidating for it to stay loyal and starts losing Loyality. It is also a shortcut for the enemy to capture the building instead of destroying it and building another one...

But, I feel that this extra thing about losing Loyality when cut off from Civic Centre, has no physical equivalent/explanation, and could lead to confusion (as the Player wouldnt expect it). My building has the extra support of other buildings if the enemy comes knocking by. So, why should it start losing my Loyality? It could lead to more micro management or not. I agree that needs to be playtested

[Chakakhan]

You just have to worry about your ally backstabbing you, turning enemy, and now some of your buildings are cut off and losing loyalty (or health, whatever) from you to him.

I like this a lot! Nice little twist to it all.

As long as there are knobs to adjust things, I think the complexities are fine and maybe even necessary to get things properly balanced.

[Potter]

On second thoughts, I think that Loyalty draining "when cut off from civic centre" could add a strategic point-of-attack to the game. If 0ad wants to add a different point of play, instead of just war, things like this can give players different attack strategies...

Of course, with an option like "Disable strategic tactics" to toggle off such things

[historic_bruno]

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

We kinda forgot to about this for Alpha 7. Maybe that's OK since we'll get lots of feedback on territories. Do we still agree on the above suggestions (the ally ones)?

[Mythos_Ruler]

We kinda forgot to about this for Alpha 7. Maybe that's OK since we'll get lots of feedback on territories. Do we still agree on the above suggestions (the ally ones)?

So, me building at the edge of my ally's territory will do what to the border? Add to his territory? Carve out my own?

[WhiteTreePaladin]

Scout Towers should perhaps be able to be built in neutral territory as a way of speeding up expansion?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Scout Towers should perhaps be able to be built in neutral territory as a way of speeding up expansion?

Maybe. Not sure though. The Scout tower will immediately begin to decay. Is that the behavior you want? At any rate, for 3.5x the amount of resources (200 for Scout tower vs. 900 for Civ Centre) you can grab 30x the amount of territory (3,215m² for the Scout Tower vs. 102,000m² for Civ Centres). Peeps need to build those CCs, mein.

[historic_bruno]

So, me building at the edge of my ally's territory will do what to the border? Add to his territory? Carve out my own?

The territory calculation doesn't know anything about diplomacy. So if the building influences territory, it would carve out your own territory (each tile can only be associated with one player). I guess the bigger concern is the health decay when disconnected from a CC, there's no way to know if you originally placed the building in an ally's territory, it only matters who owns the territory at present We can get around that if the building doesn't influence territories because it will be on your ally's territory - the health decay can take diplomacy into account.

Scout Towers should perhaps be able to be built in neutral territory as a way of speeding up expansion?

Seems reasonable to me, but they do have an affect on territory weighting, so it would be like a mini-territory. Which raises the question of whether scout towers ought to be territory "neutral".

[Mythos_Ruler]

Hmm, what if Scout towers don't have any territory effect at all, nor do they decay. You can just place them anywhere on the map (yours, ally, or neutral), except within enemy territory.

[ribez]

Hmm, what if Scout towers don't have any territory effect at all, nor do they decay. You can just place them anywhere on the map (yours, ally, or neutral), except within enemy territory.

totally agree! It's necessary to have a strategic control of the map.

you have anticipated me

Edited September 18, 2011 by ribez

[Pureon]

Hmm, what if Scout towers don't have any territory effect at all, nor do they decay. You can just place them anywhere on the map (yours, ally, or neutral), except within enemy territory.

What if we had a much weaker 'Outpost' building for this purpose?

Edit: If we do anything to Territories for Alpha 8, it should be to remove building decay for AI players, at least until an advanced AI is created that understands Territories. Building decay makes Jubot a lot weaker in Alpha 7 than it was in Alpha 6.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

I think Pureon is right, we should copy AoK here. We should use our Scout Towers (which should perhaps just be called Towers) and have Outposts or true "Scout" Towers. I don't think they should decay though. I'm also not really sure how decay woks, considering it wouldn't even let me me build in neutral territory (except for Civil Centers).

[feneur]

I think Pureon is right, we should copy AoK here. We should use our Scout Towers (which should perhaps just be called Towers) and have Outposts or true "Scout" Towers. I don't think they should decay though. I'm also not really sure how decay woks, considering it wouldn't even let me me build in neutral territory (except for Civil Centers).

Decay (or loss of loyalty later) happen when a building loses contact with a civic centre, when the building was built it was your territory since it was under the influence of your civ centre, but if the civ centre is destroyed it's as if it had been built in neutral territory.

[Pedro Falcão]

Let's thinks this way: Decay, in real life, would be the lack of supplies for the people of the building. In enemy territory, even civils can't go out and hunt for their food, so they'll start to starve and die. In neutral territory, it would be dangerous, but civils can collect their supplies on the forests nearby to survive, but if there are soldiers in the building, it is neutral territory no more, except if the soldiers are just passing through. In allied territorry, tough, soldiers can go out and find their daily bread, but being you the president of the USA, would you like UK (an ally) people building military bases next to Washington D.C. without consulting? I think no nation would like other nations' military buildings in your territory.

[Pureon]

I think no nation would like other nations' military buildings in your territory.

You don't think your ally should be able to help you defend your territory? What if your base is in a forward position, should your allies not be able to build fortresses beside your fortresses to stop the enemy destroying your base?