Territory Discussion

[hollth]

I feel like the concept of territory in this game needs to be expanded a bit. At the moment I don't think there is enough reason or reward to expand and build more than one or two civic centres. I think it would be better if there were more things contingent on territory expansion and vice versa.

I haven't thought to much on it yet other than I think it could do with some work so I'll expand with some ideas later.

Thoughts, suggestions etc?

[LordGood]

Once another player controls the center of the map, they get the upper hand over the others. It provides economic and military extension, and creates better trading opportunities

The battle for central territory becomes quite a core element, especially in multiplayer

[Lion.Kanzen]

Once another player controls the center of the map, they get the upper hand over the others. It provides economic and military extension, and creates better trading opportunities

The battle for central territory becomes quite a core element, especially in multiplayer

Aegis is good to expand to central territory.

-And it's good to close inside own enemy territory. The enemy can't break easily a siege, by territory. Especially if you use a wall .

Edited December 14, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[hollth]

Cant say I've played against other people only against bots (Normally 3 on hardest-not sure how that compares to real people). Anyway, there at least I've found little reason to expand. I normally have enough resources within my base or with only one extra civ centre to the side. After that theres no point in contending for things I don't need so its better to attack their base directly instead of stockpiling further.

Trading in the centre seems risky to me, although that does seem to be the main perk in expanding to me. Wouldn't it be better to go in an arc along the back than to the centre?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Cant say I've played against other people only against bots (Normally 3 on hardest-not sure how that compares to real people). Anyway, there at least I've found little reason to expand. I normally have enough resources within my base or with only one extra civ centre to the side. After that theres no point in contending for things I don't need so its better to attack their base directly instead of stockpiling further.

Trading in the centre seems risky to me, although that does seem to be the main perk in expanding to me. Wouldn't it be better to go in an arc along the back than to the centre?

Soon we get a Lobby for Multiplayer.

If you play against Aegis, a single CC is a suicide. With which Civ you play?.

[hollth]

Soon we get a Lobby for Multiplayer.

If you play against Aegis, a single CC is a suicide. With which Civ you play?.

I have played against Aegis with one CC and won several times although not with every civ. I play random Civ and random map.

Perhaps it is indicative of another problem, namely too many resources in the base. Sometimes there is 2 metal and stone mines. Combined with infinite food from farms and trading i find it very difficult to run out of anything.

[sanderd17]

If you play against human players, they will normally attack your resources, so the workers can't do their job any more. While aegis just comes in from the front. Btw, if you want less resources, try the wasteland map. But Aegis is quite bad at that map.

[hollth]

Actually now that I think about it I think a large part is that its easy to achieve max population even with only one CC. Once you hit max population its pretty easy to take out at the very least auxiliary CCs and weaken them since they cost so much and are the linchpin to expansion. Maybe having each CC have a max population limit could work? Then again that might be over complicating it as reducing the resources in the base would make it more difficult to reach max population with once CC or reduce the speed at which it can be done.

[hollth]

If you play against human players, they will normally attack your resources, so the workers can't do their job any more. While aegis just comes in from the front. Btw, if you want less resources, try the wasteland map. But Aegis is quite bad at that map.

I suspected that the bots weren't too good but it is only alpha so thats to be expected.

[hollth]

I guess put another way, does it bring some extra to the table? The strategies would be pretty much the same if it wasn't present. People would still build fortresses to defend new resources to provide the same benefits as without it. So what then, does it bring in its current form? Denying the enemy the ability to place foundations is the only thing. But thats essentially the same effect (just a larger radius) as having defensive buildings in the area. I suppose that is the main point I'm trying to get across here. It seem unnecessary to have unless something is added to it or it is changed in some way.

[Rodmar]

Maybe, exploiting resources in a neutral territory (fishing, hunting, mining), and even "controlling" it with frequent patrols and moving troops, could allow your contiguous territory to slowly spread there. But at the same time, this new gained terrain would be more vulnerable to normal enemy territorial expansion. After all, you actually possess a terrain when you exploit it, not when you inhabit in it. This added expansion mechanism would be kept marginal however, but it could provide the small hand to build another building where you couldn't if you weren't so "aggressive" in the area.

It would take a "hidden" second territory computing (with another criteria, based of the amount of resources collected, transported there) maybe made for whole chunk of land (and not for each "hex"), and a check.

As a side effect, a grain field crossing the boundary wouldn't suffer from attrition (i'm not sure if this the case, but in my alpha version (14?), normal building suffer from attrition when they are build across a boundary, whereas they were marked as build-able).

[LordGood]

I'm sure you've noticed that defensive structures are very powerful early in the game, more so than they ever were in AOE or AOM, The territorial expansion keeps the enemy from building aggressively early game, and why an enemy expansion flush to your own territory lines can become so nerve racking.

[sanderd17]

Adding territory now requires a much bigger investment than without it. You have to build a CC first (500w + 500s + 500m), and then you need to defend it with fortresses to defend your resources there. Whereas without territory, you could just defend it with fortresses, but the defense wouldn't be very effective, as the opponent can just build a fortress next to it.

Btw, it's quite easy to disable it. Just get rid of all mentions of "TerritoryInfluence", "TerritoryDecay" and set the BuildRestrictions Territory flag to "neutral".

[Nakamura]

A very small change that is a must imo is to block farm placement overlapping. Already the territory concept would be more important.

[dvangennip]

As I was working on a mechanism for transformable CC's (into carts and back into a building) for nomadic civs some time ago (not finished yet), I wondered what the benefit would be of having such a mobile CC. Currently expansion can be done anywhere as long as you have the resources, plus can get the construction work done (which means units have to go there). One thing that could bring interesting gameplay benefits to nomadic civs is if they could indeed set up shop wherever they want (that is, wherever they could get their CC cart), while other civs could only build a CC not too far away from another, earlier built CC. Thus, there is a clear maximum for distances between CC.

I can see some issues with my idea, the most important one is that some maps may limit options for expansion (think of the islands maps). Introducing a max distance could mean there is no suitable location, severely limiting regular civs. As an alternative, giving nomadic civs a similar benefit would be to do away with territory restrictions in general or lower their mobile CC cost (facilitating rapid expansion).

[Lion.Kanzen]

As I was working on a mechanism for transformable CC's (into carts and back into a building) for nomadic civs some time ago (not finished yet), I wondered what the benefit would be of having such a mobile CC. Currently expansion can be done anywhere as long as you have the resources, plus can get the construction work done (which means units have to go there). One thing that could bring interesting gameplay benefits to nomadic civs is if they could indeed set up shop wherever they want (that is, wherever they could get their CC cart), while other civs could only build a CC not too far away from another, earlier built CC. Thus, there is a clear maximum for distances between CC.

I can see some issues with my idea, the most important one is that some maps may limit options for expansion (think of the islands maps). Introducing a max distance could mean there is no suitable location, severely limiting regular civs. As an alternative, giving nomadic civs a similar benefit would be to do away with territory restrictions in general or lower their mobile CC cost (facilitating rapid expansion).

Is needed open a ticket for that with your patch. It's a great feature that, can be other step to new gameplays.

[Rodmar]

Imo, maximal distance between CC for all civ. save nomads would be quite a-historical. It's true that some civ. aren't known for their expansionism but other could found colonies overseas! Also, most the "nomadic" civ. in this game will be either semi-nomadic (i.e. sedentary relocating after resources are depleted), migrating and looking for returning to their prior way of life whenever given the opportunity (i.e. an empty (rich) land) or war parties (as if the Roman would only build camps and tents). No grazer herders I mean, nor seasonal nomads (except some Samartians and the Huns??). Also in a rich land, (semi-)nomads could well travel only a day or two from their former camp.

• But your idea maybe could be developed into fixing minimal and maximal distances between CC, according to each civ. background.

The most urbanized civ. would have greater minimal distances, colonial maritime powers would have the greatest maximal distances if most of the travel is by sea, nomadic people would have the greatest maximal distance if most of the travel is by land.

If possible, the distances would depend on the terrain: a mountain range would reduce the minimal and maximal distances, ...

and this would alleviate your issue concern.

• Another idea is that some colonial civs would have a similar feature: their CC could buy a "colonist" unit that would transform on the spot into workers.

Say that it would transform into 15 full health citizen units: 5 women, 5 citizen-soldiers type 1, 5 citizen-soldiers type 2 (on the building list).

Pro: easier to protect, easier to manage, temporary bonus to build the CC or this CC slightly cheaper??, quicker to produce ?

Con: easier to destroy if not escorted, slower (?), slightly more expansive than the sum of the individual citizen costs.

Maybe it could be a trade-off between building time and initial cost : you pay more, you wait more, but the CC is build faster.

As a possible option, this "colonist" would only build near open water (maybe, it must settle and start building within a certain range of the landing point (sea colonies).

• Also, you say

nomadic civs (...) could indeed set up shop wherever they want (that is, wherever they could get their CC cart)

It makes me think nomads could have the option to construct a market place instead of a CC and for a lesser price. It would also act as deposit building. Could the use of it help and build an economy in a poor land when the enemy is absent or not so aggressive? A network of marketplaces with patrolled trade routes by the military would be more realistic than a network of CC to represent a mid-game nomadic civ. (less territorial expansion needed).

This feature could then be extended to some colonial/trading powers : I mean the trading posts of Europa Universalis 2.

[hollth]

As I was working on a mechanism for transformable CC's (into carts and back into a building) for nomadic civs some time ago (not finished yet), I wondered what the benefit would be of having such a mobile CC. Currently expansion can be done anywhere as long as you have the resources, plus can get the construction work done (which means units have to go there). One thing that could bring interesting gameplay benefits to nomadic civs is if they could indeed set up shop wherever they want (that is, wherever they could get their CC cart), while other civs could only build a CC not too far away from another, earlier built CC. Thus, there is a clear maximum for distances between CC.

I can see some issues with my idea, the most important one is that some maps may limit options for expansion (think of the islands maps). Introducing a max distance could mean there is no suitable location, severely limiting regular civs. As an alternative, giving nomadic civs a similar benefit would be to do away with territory restrictions in general or lower their mobile CC cost (facilitating rapid expansion).

I had a similar idea to give a them more of a tribal vs centralised feel that incorporated increasing the max distance for tribal civs. Hadn't thought of introducing a min distance requirement though. Giving docks a small amount of territory would fix the problem of water maps.

To exacerbate the feel how about CC's giving the capacity for X number of buildings or houses in the territory aura, where X changes depending on the civ. I do think there could be changes that could further push civs into a tribal or city state feel. I think there are a lot of things that could be done without much disruption to territory.

• Another idea is that some colonial civs would have a similar feature: their CC could buy a "colonist" unit that would transform on the spot into workers.

• Also, you say

It makes me think nomads could have the option to construct a market place instead of a CC and for a lesser price. It would also act as deposit building. Could the use of it help and build an economy in a poor land when the enemy is absent or not so aggressive? A network of marketplaces with patrolled trade routes by the military would be more realistic than a network of CC to represent a mid-game nomadic civ. (less territorial expansion needed).

This feature could then be extended to some colonial/trading powers : I mean the trading posts of Europa Universalis 2.

For the 'colonist' do you mean like in Age of empires 3?

I'm not to sure what you mean with the market thing. Can you please elaborate on it a bit?

[Rodmar]

I didn't play AoE3. The "colonist" would be like a trader caravan: only one unit to handle until you decide to build a structure (CC, marketplace?). It would be different from the Europa Universalis 2 colonist in that the structure wouldn't build itself, but the normal way because the colonist has changed into a group of citizen workers. Currently, you have to group those citizen and have them move together by land or by ship.

Now, my point is only that in the case a nomadic civ. is given a mobile nomad CC which has to move to a new location in order to redeploy (ox cart?), why not give some other civ. quite the equivalent to depict their historical trend to colonize. The difference could be that a nomad CC only needs resources to re-deploy (or to put down and pack), whereas a "colonist (CC) unit" would cost the colonists price too (and those citizens would add to the total pop as soon as the colonist is bought, long before they even pop out at the building site.). Of course, this unit's purpose would be to make it easier to expand, thus being more handy, less costly, or faster, ... as compared to other sedentary civs (not to nomadic civs).

By marketplace I was thinking about the same building as currently available, where you can buy resources and earn benefit from trading caravans, except that for these civs, they could be built in neutral or even enemy territory, to reflect the capacity to deal with locals even without controlling the area. But it was answered in another thread that multiplying the stopping places (caravan seraglio, trading post) or forcing artificially long trading routes (around the map) was not efficient, economically.