General Feedback: Buildings on neutral and enemy territory

[Romulus]

Couple features of game play that bother me.

First not being able to build in neutral and claimed territory. I think this really needs to change.

The one reason I think the rule is there, is cause if you build in an enemy zone you will get attacked? Well yeah then let the player get attacked then. This should be allowed.

Second thing is the Roman fort. Its life should not deteriorate if units are gathered inside. And wtf happened to repair building? Lol... Come on.

Third thing is that forts are to weak.... Think about what it is... A wooden structure that's solid as heck, how can a hand full of units cause so much damage?

...

Those are the annoying things... But now on the bright side.....

The in game sound needs a bit more tone to it.........

More birds... Animal sounds, ocean waves... Forest ambient, and wind... You know .. Something that compliments Gaia

I'd like to see more different types of bushes, trees, and whatnot. it will certainly make a huge difference

Edited January 23, 2014 by sanderd17
changed title

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

The reason I determined that buildings cannot be (with a few exceptions) is due to logistical limitations. Fortresses are difficult to erect, after all, when you have to first quarry all the available resources first. Maybe if supply lines were implemented as a way of connecting buildings as an alternative to natural territorial expansion. That is naturally another subject though.

[niektb]

...

And wtf happened to repair building? Lol... Come on.

...

I can confirm that it's impossible to repair the Roman Entrenched army camp.

[sanderd17]

I can confirm that it's impossible to repair the Roman Entrenched army camp.

That's a design choice, it's forbidden to repair on purpose: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/structures/rome_army_camp.xml#L52

[Romulus]

That's a design choice, it's forbidden to repair on purpose: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/structures/rome_army_camp.xml#L52

Well the the design choice is incorrect.

Yes the forts were temporary, but only when the Romans decided to leave did they dismantle the encampment. Otherwise they maintained it.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Romulus

[Romulus]

Also why is the wedge formation only for cavalry?

Infantry or most notably the Roman infantry used wedge formations.

Please give it to the Romans as a unique formation.

[Zeta1127]

I don't care for the Romans not being able to repair their Entrenched Army Camps and Siege Walls either, though the Roman Logistics tech is going to be helpful.

[Prodigal Son]

I find the current way of building kinda realistic. A barracks or fort would almost always be built near owned lands or new colonies (new civ centers here), not at a random spot in the middle of nowhere. From a gameplay perspective both choices have pros and cons.

[LordGood]

It gives the Roman stone castle it's rightful leg up on the army camp. Sure entrenched camps developed into stone fortifications and then into city centers in history, but it would mess with game balance too much. It also gives the besieged a chance to fight back and *eventually* chip away and dismantle the roman siege, but the Roman player would have a distinct advantage at that point anyway which is why the current system works.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ok in multiplayer it's can be good build walls specially in allies territory but not close of a civilian building or a CC. This way two player can close a powerful enemy. And have more military presence in some areas.

[hollth]

The building restriction is the only purpose territory serves. Am I understanding correctly that you then wish for that to be removed?

Also I think the reason for 'rule' is more likely the opposite of what you stated. i.e. Not to protect the player building, but rather the player being built near. It would be incredibly annoying to have an essentially permanent enemy fortress in your lands with no downtime or windows of opportunity. Forcing it to be temporary brings some counter play by providing these

Following on from the preceding point, the camp should most definitely deteriorate if there are units in it. A building with incredibly high effective HP and dozens of arrows shooting out that can be constructed and repaired anywhere. That would be nigh uncounterable. It would likely result in a large locus of control around the building with very little counter play. The other player would have to avoid that area at all costs with no opportunity to break back.

Lastly, if the army camp is to be made more difficult to destroy via hack attacks then it needs a serious nerd to the crush armour. (IIRC the army camp has the highest crush armour of any building, including walls)

Edited January 24, 2014 by hollth

[Romulus]

It gives the Roman stone castle it's rightful leg up on the army camp. Sure entrenched camps developed into stone fortifications and then into city centers in history, but it would mess with game balance too much. It also gives the besieged a chance to fight back and *eventually* chip away and dismantle the roman siege, but the Roman player would have a distinct advantage at that point anyway which is why the current system works.

Sure, but at least put back the repair building option.

it would be incrednent enemy fortress in your lands with no downtime or windows of opportunity. Forcing it to be temporary brings some counter play by providing these.

The building restriction is the only purpose territory serves. Am I understanding correctly that you then wish for that to be removed?

Also I think the reason for 'rule' is more likely the opposite of what you stated. i.e. Not to protect the player building, but rather the player being built near. It would be incredibly annoying to have an essentially permanent enemy fortress in your lands with no downtime or windows of opportunity. Forcing it to be temporary brings some counter play by providing these

Following on from the preceding point, the camp should most definitely deteriorate if there are units in it. A building with incredibly high effective HP and dozens of arrows shooting out that can be constructed and repaired anywhere. That would be nigh uncounterable. It would likely result in a large locus of control around the building with very little counter play. The other player would have to avoid that area at all costs with no opportunity to break back.

Lastly, if the army camp is to be made more difficult to destroy via hack attacks then it needs a serious nerd to the crush armour. (IIRC the army camp has the highest crush armour of any building, including walls)

I disagree with virtually everyone of your statements.

First you forgetting Rome was/is the strongest. They have a right to have their encampments strong. These encampments saved the lives of real soldiers, countless times. So anything against this, I'm not inclined to agree with.

The annoying fortress bit of your post, I think is irrelevant... Because Romans can only build an encampment in the third age. So the opponent had of at least a small force in which to ward off an attack.

Buildings should be destroyed by siege weapons....... Picture units carrying a pointed ram and run and bash buildings... This should be be a fine way to even things.

So this really an request for the repair option. Sure one can and modify it, but I think the game as a whole needs it.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Romulus

[LordGood]

There is no strongest faction, This game is supposed to be balanced. The fact that the camp is unrepairable reinforces the fact that it is a temporary structure used for assaulting an enemy or guarding a point in the frontier while the civilization expands its borders. In the time it takes an enemy to destroy a camp, there should definitely be enough time to build a civ center close enough for a stone fortress.

[Romulus]

There is no strongest faction, This game is supposed to be balanced. The fact that the camp is unrepairable reinforces the fact that it is a temporary structure used for assaulting an enemy or guarding a point in the frontier while the civilization expands its borders. In the time it takes an enemy to destroy a camp, there should definitely be enough time to build a civ center close enough for a stone fortress.

Wait a minute... I'm talking about a wooden entrenched campment. Not a stone castle....

But according to you, I should build cc near it to stop it from dying?

Unrealistic. Romans never ever built a town near a tempory fort. If that was the case, Europe today would be filled with rubble from towns everywhere.

And Romans are the strongest cause I say so

[historic_bruno]

Don't worry too much about buildings losing health in enemy territory, that's a "temporary" hack. While it has been in the game for years, so it may seem like a permanent and intended design, it really was just a placeholder. We don't have building capture yet, so the only way territories would have a decent gameplay effect was to decrease health in enemy territory, combined of course with building restrictions to make it important to expand territory - but that alone was not considered enough. I think the way it works now is decent so that most people don't complain or even think about it, but yeah, it will most likely change.

The concept of territories has evolved over the years, and I'm sure it's not done yet

[Lion.Kanzen]

Don't worry too much about buildings losing health in enemy territory, that's a "temporary" hack. While it has been in the game for years, so it may seem like a permanent and intended design, it really was just a placeholder. We don't have building capture yet, so the only way territories would have a decent gameplay effect was to decrease health in enemy territory, combined of course with building restrictions to make it important to expand territory - but that alone was not considered enough. I think the way it works now is decent so that most people don't complain or even think about it, but yeah, it will most likely change.The concept of territories has evolved over the years, and I'm sure it's not done yet

Now with bonus aura we can give to bonus even for eyecandy buildings. I think there is the successful of our Atlas, because I noticed in mostly of RTS haven't a good scenario editor, but it's only few had one. AOE saga and Blizzards RTS.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Don't worry too much about buildings losing health in enemy territory, that's a "temporary" hack. While it has been in the game for years, so it may seem like a permanent and intended design, it really was just a placeholder. We don't have building capture yet, so the only way territories would have a decent gameplay effect was to decrease health in enemy territory, combined of course with building restrictions to make it important to expand territory - but that alone was not considered enough. I think the way it works now is decent so that most people don't complain or even think about it, but yeah, it will most likely change.

The concept of territories has evolved over the years, and I'm sure it's not done yet

This is all true. But having said that, it may make sense for some things to lose loyalty when cut off from home territory (buildings that normally must be built in the player's territory), while other things lose health (things that can be built in enemy territory, like Army Camps). Don't know yet. It'll take some playtesting once we have capturing and loyalty.

[Romulus]

Don't worry too much about buildings losing health in enemy territory, that's a "temporary" hack. While it has been in the game for years, so it may seem like a permanent and intended design, it really was just a placeholder. We don't have building capture yet, so the only way territories would have a decent gameplay effect was to decrease health in enemy territory, combined of course with building restrictions to make it important to expand territory - but that alone was not considered enough. I think the way it works now is decent so that most people don't complain or even think about it, but yeah, it will most likely change.The concept of territories has evolved over the years, and I'm sure it's not done yet

Thanks for for some clarity.

I completely forgot about the capture building option

But I'm glad you agree in a way that the encampment has to have a repaire option, makes perfect logical sense.

Also I really, really don't mind the thing losing life in enemy territory... But not when there's units garrisoned inside. There's a point of consideration.

But thanks for the clarity

[Mythos_Ruler]

But I'm glad you agree in a way that the encampment has to have a repaire option, makes perfect logical sense.

He didn't say that at all.

[Romulus]

He didn't say that at all.

Don't you agree aswell?

If you think about it... It really makes no sense. The repair option is still there for the palisades. Which by the way are more lethal than the fort if built in a certain way.

So that's three of us that agree

[hollth]

Are then any gameplay reasons to have the repair option other than consistency?

Edited January 25, 2014 by hollth

[Lion.Kanzen]

What is the max garrison of the army camp?(im not in computer right now)

Edited January 25, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[hollth]

Garrison? I'm pretty sure its 20

[Lion.Kanzen]

Garrison? I'm pretty sure its 20

yeah, why not if irs garrison at 15 /20 they don't lose healt, if you think it about this is great numbers of soldiers. Obviusly is is attacked can lose.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Don't you agree aswell?

If you think about it... It really makes no sense. The repair option is still there for the palisades. Which by the way are more lethal than the fort if built in a certain way.

So that's three of us that agree

If there's a repair option for the Siege Walls, then that was an oversight. lol. There's no repair for these items for balance purposes. They're meant to be non-permanent.