Building capturing needs refinement

[Hitman]

I don't exactly understand what the devs were going for with the capture feature. I feel that when military buildings are garrisoned they should be exempt from capture. I was playing a game and had my garrisoned entrenchment camp captured for example.

It seems weird that the enemy can do that seeing that it is intended to act as a stronghold. Or am I missing the point? Also why does it require less time to capture a building then to destroy it?

[niektb]

It is really difficult to capture a garrisoned building (since garrisoned units really help with defending against capture attacks), so I'm not really sure how you tested it...?

[Hitman]

16 hours ago, niektb said:

It is really difficult to capture a garrisoned building (since garrisoned units really help with defending against capture attacks), so I'm not really sure how you tested it...?

I had recently built the structure and had a fully manned defense tower in range, the AI literally just swarmed with melee and took it.

[Phalanx]

16 minutes ago, Hitman said:

I had recently built the structure and had a fully manned defense tower in range, the AI literally just swarmed with melee and took it.

But was the building itself garrisoned?

[Hitman]

18 hours ago, SeleucidKing said:

But was the building itself garrisoned?

Yeah, albeit not full (only three guys).

[Danny]

In general, I agree with Hitman, but the issue is broader than just what he mentioned.  Here are some aspects that need balancing:

• Roman entrenched army camp defects immediately in enemy territory, as I noted in another thread.
• Garrisoned buildings can still be captured, as noted by Hitman here.
• Buildings are easier to capture than destroy, and capture is the default option.  So what often happens is I send a contingent of soldiers to destroy a building, but my other nearby soldiers (whom I haven't explicitly tasked) decide to capture it, and inevitably I end up capturing an almost dead building that I didn't want in the first place.
• Why, you ask, would I not want a captured building? Because once you capture it and move on, it will very often revert to enemy control by virtue of territory, or else be recaptured by enemy troops.  So you end up with a see-saw of building ownership that does no one any good. I often delete buildings that I capture "by accident" just so they won't fall back into enemy hands.  But there shouldn't be a need for silly hacks like that.
• The see-saw is worse with siege weapons.  Even with a large ground army to protect the siege weapons, it only takes a small handful of enemy soldiers to sneak through and capture your siege weapons.  I've played a couple of games where it was almost impossible to prevent.  So the best way to deal with the situation is to recapture your own siege weapons, and so on ad nauseam. But the whole situation is absurd.
• Since capturing is the default action, it leads to some highly improbable situations from a realistic/historic perspective.  I just finished a game in the Gallic Fields where the gaia Roman soldiers captured one of my towers instead of fighting my nearby soldiers (which is fine, if that's what they choose). My nearby soldiers, then, instead of attacking the Romans, went and stood shoulder to shoulder with them trying to recapture the tower.  But they were quite evenly matched, so they all just stood there for quite a long time, shoulder to shoulder.  They could have been enjoying a nice spot of tea, or maybe singing Christmas carols together.  In real life, someone would have realized the absurdity of it all, swung a sword at their neighbor, and ended it.

I fully realize that all of this is simply a matter of balancing out a very new feature.  And it is a valuable feature, no doubt.  Some scale-back in A20 and beyond will bring capturing to it's full potential.

Ideas to consider:

• Make capturing slower than destroying
• Make attacking (not capturing) the default option
• Limit capturing abilities to only certain types of units
• Make certain types of buildings (cc, fortress) immune to capture
• Make garrisoned units resist capture even more strongly than they do currently.
• Develop techs that prevent/retard capture
• Especially for siege weapons, make it so that nearby friendly soldiers provide an "aura" of resistance to capture.  Ie., if a siege weapon is alone, it is easy to capture, but if it is close to its army, it is very difficult to capture.

Thanks to all who take these rough brainstorms and do the hard work of polishing them into something useful!

[Phalanx]

I found that just capturing the CC works best, because realistically,in real life, once you capture a building in an enemy's town, then leave it without leaving troops behind, you effectively lose it.  Just capture the CC, and the entire town collapses (I think that needs to be changed. Conversion not destruction).  And I generally dont use seige for the above mentions. If you do, protect then with an exclusive group of infantry.

Edited February 16, 2016 by SeleucidKing

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yes I agree , don't be default action. Is annoying.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ok , now i can give some extended reply

Quote

 

 

 

• Make capturing slower than destroying i agree
• Make attacking (not capturing) the default option. as said by  SeleucidK : "I believe it was made default for this alpha to players obviously knew it was an option. Only exploratory players would have found it otherwise. "
• Limit capturing abilities to only certain types of units. yes , infantry mainly
• Make certain types of buildings (cc, fortress) immune to capture. no this lost sense for capturing.
• Make garrisoned units resist capture even more strongly than they do currently.yes i agree with this.
• Develop techs that prevent/retard capture yes but need time tech tree is not highly priority right now.
• Especially for siege weapons, make it so that nearby friendly soldiers provide an "aura" of resistance to capture.  Ie., if a siege weapon is alone, it is easy to capture, but if it is close to its army, it is very difficult to capture. this the best, I like this one. can be work with cavalry and elite or using escort command.

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Lion.Kanzen
editing

[Phalanx]

2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Yes I agree , don't be default action. Is annoying.

I believe it was made default for this alpha to players obviously knew it was an option. Only exploratory players would have found it otherwise.

[Lion.Kanzen]

52 minutes ago, SeleucidKing said:

I believe it was made default for this alpha to players obviously knew it was an option. Only exploratory players would have found it otherwise.

yes I asked this before the alpha release.

[wackyserious]

4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Yes I agree , don't be default action. Is annoying.

We have been supporting this idea ever since capturing was impelemented. It needs to change, IMO.

The very reason,

6 hours ago, Danny said:

[...] so they all just stood there for quite a long time, shoulder to shoulder.  They could have been enjoying a nice spot of tea, or maybe singing Christmas carols together.  In real life, someone would have realized the absurdity of it all, swung a sword at their neighbor, and ended it.

Plus the very hectic way of dealing with siege engine swarm, chasing here, chasing there, chasing everywhere.. Switch button + click here to destroy,  switch button + click there to destroy, etc..

Edited February 17, 2016 by wackyserious

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Reduce capturing to only Civic Centers, Houses, and Temples.

 

Also, make it easier to switch between attack typpes (Destroy or Capture). Make the switch obvious. I have some ideas how to do this but you all would just criticize them to no end and nothing will be done in the end. lol

Edited February 17, 2016 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

I like take towers and barracks too.

 

but can be a system common in city warfare or siege defenses , can destroy your all building hurting the enemy, yes a trap.

burning the enemies. In rise of nations you can order to destroy a building when start lose loyality, but the process take time. So is a run against the takers before they perform at 100% the capture.

 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

15 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I like take towers and barracks too.

I think all defense building should need destroy (defense tower, wall, fortress). I am on the fence about barracks tho.

 

I just think capture is good feature, but need to be more targeted or special.

Edited February 17, 2016 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Danny]

We're making some progress.

6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

• Make certain types of buildings (cc, fortress) immune to capture. no this lost sense for capturing.

On further consideration, I think Lion.Kanzen is correct that fortresses in particular need to be able to be captured (though it should be difficult). There may be less important buildings which can only be destroyed, not captured.

But in keeping with historical accuracy, there should be significant downsides to capturing.  The best case in point is the civ center.  A civ center is theoretically much more than just blocks and mortar.  It represents population, heritage, pride, culture, ideas, patriotism, industry, literature... Simply waltzing your soldiers in and militarily capturing the center shouldn't make it effectively yours.  In real life, the native population would only tolerate the conquerors while there was overwhelming force present.  At the slightest chance the population would rebel, trying to throw off the oppressors.  Or if rebellion was untenable, they would work at greatly reduced productions rates so as not to "help" the "enemy". Military occupation (think Paris in WWII) ≠ adding a fully productive civ center.

So in terms of game mechanics, perhaps buildings should "remember" who their original owner is, and always be at risk of reverting to the original owner if 1) original owner troops are nearby or 2) conquering troops are not garrisoned in the building in sufficient numbers. Even while the building has not reverted to original ownership, it should work at reduced speed (i.e., train units at half speed) or more interestingly, occasionally produce units that owe allegiance (belong) to the original owner instead of the conquering oppressor.  In these or other ways, the conquered civ center should be a bit of a thorn in the side of its conquerors.  However, the longer the new conquerors maintain control of the civ center, the more the memory of the former owner fades and the more it becomes fully "yours".  So the "thorn in the side" characteristics decline with time until they finally vanish altogether and the civ center is just like one you built yourself.

Adding these historical elements will give more nuance to capturing and thus more diversity to the strategy of the game.  For the game to be strategically interesting, there should never just be one right answer.  The player should have to decide wisely whether he/she will 1) capture a civ center, devote a bunch of troops to the garrison, endure the reprisals of the local population, and hope to hold on to the center for long enough for it to be useful, or 2) just destroy it and not have to deal with it, but also not get a civ center out of the deal.

Similar dynamics might be applied to other buildings, but perhaps to a lesser scale.  Fortresses, for example, are mostly block and mortar, and so capturing one is much more strategically advantageous than capturing a civ center.  And a fortress has less "memory" of its former owner.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Quote

endure the reprisals of the local population

ehhh, it is up to the other players to administer reprisals. The local population is just units controled by players. If those units are dead or gone, then there can be no reprisal. I think you are thinkinh of a macro game like Total War. There are things that can be useful from Total War, but 0 A.D. is on a level between macro and micro. What you are talking about is exterme macro on the level of a strategic map. 0 A.D. is more intimate than that.

 

Quote

 In real life, the native population would only tolerate the conquerors while there was overwhelming force present.

In 0 A.D., that naive population is likely wiped out because that native population is made up of the enemy players units. So, in 0 A.D. what you are doing are massacring the local population and repopulating the city with your own settlers. You are try to add some abstract macro idea about native populations and cultures that is not present in a game like this.

Edited February 17, 2016 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

ehhh, it is up to the other players to administer reprisals. The local population is just units controled by players. If those units are dead or gone, then there can be no reprisal. I think you are thinkinh of a macro game like Total War. There are things that can be useful from Total War, but 0 A.D. is on a level between macro and micro. What you are talking about is exterme macro on the level of a strategic map. 0 A.D. is more intimate than that.

probably good for campaign TBS mode. but I like the cultural meaning, may be trough Tech and hard to take or easy retake tech.

this mean a Technology to make recapturing most easy. because nationalist pride or invaders aversion/ hostility against foreign rule.

[Mr.Monkey]

I think capturing is fine as it is, honestly at first I thought it would be too good, however In my opinion the devs hit it spot on. Neither is better than the other, it is all situational. A fully garrisoned fortress can be destroyed by 20 champs just over a minute, however it is impossible to capture a fortress with just 20 men. It is so slow that they die off and the capture level keeps going back. Capturing is basically a way of recompensing a player that has a large champion army and instead of having to destroy a civ, they have the choice to make it their own.

Even with 60 champs and a hero, it takes 47 seconds to capture a civic centre, whereas with the same amount of champions, you can destroy a civic centre in 29 seconds. Capturing is in no way faster than destroying unless the building is un-garrisoned.

The capturing system this alpha is almost perfect.

• Capturing buffs the usage of walls since they cannot be captured (something that most people didn't even bother to build last version).
• It buffs champion cavalry units since they can quickly and swiftly "capture & delete" important buildings that are usually un-garrisoned (e.g Barracks, markets) with only a few of them.
• Adds more in-depth strategy to attacking.
• Nerfs towers a little bit because they can be captured easily, this is much better because the defence tower spam in previous versions was crazy OP, a fully upgraded tower took ages to destroy.

Those are the indirect positive effects that the current capturing system has. In-game, the only real positives are:

• You can capture a civ to further assure your victory (At the expense of it being slower)
• Same with fortresses (even though I personally just destroy fortresses because capturing is so slow)
• You can disrupt your enemies champs spam whole you are attacking much faster since capturing barracks and gymnasiums etc is so much faster than destroying

I see nothing OP in capturing, only thing it affects defensively is now I have to protect more buildings, which is good because I can't just build 6 towers and 2 fortresses and survive almost any attack.

[Phalanx]

I just think the buildings around the civ center shouldnt automatically collapse when the CC is captured.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, SeleucidKing said:

I just think the buildings around the civ center shouldnt automatically collapse when the CC is captured.

The houses can be...

I don't see the problem with that.

[Phalanx]

18 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The houses can be...

I don't see the problem with that.

Oui, but EVERYTHING is destroyed right now.

[optrin]

I also like the current system. One thing I noticed, however, it's that when you set up your barracks rally point to destroy a enemy building (with the sword icon), they try to capture it instead...

Edited February 29, 2016 by optrin

[Lion.Kanzen]

23 minutes ago, optrin said:

I also like the current system. One thing I noticed, however, it's that when you set up your barracks rally point to destroy a enemy building (with the sword icon), they try to capture it instead...

That is simple bug by inconsistency between the rally point and the main action to perform.

[optrin]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

That is simple bug by inconsistency between the rally point and the main action to perform.

Has it been reported on Trac? I can open a ticket if needed, I suppose.

Although I said I like the current system, I think the champion capture rate is too high right now.