Jump to content

Should fortresses have a territory root?


Should fortresses have a territory root?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Should fortresses have a territory root?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      8

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

D1762

First of all, I'm not sure this is the correct place to post, nor do I know what is the proper procedure to get gameplay changes implemented.

Currently fortresses do not have a territory root, which means you can simply ignore them and aim straight for the centre instead; if the centre is lost, the entire base is basically lost. Historically, a city was only conquered when all of its fortifications were taken.

What I propose is giving fortresses a territory root. This will help the fortress do what it is supposed to do: defend.

Arguments against:

  • It breaks the status quo
  • Defending a well-developed base is easier

Arguments in favour:

  • It breaks the status quo
  • Defending a well-developed base is easier
  • Fortresses are limited to ten per player, become available only in city phase, are expensive: 1000 stone (centres cost 1500 resources, colonies 600), and take long to build: 500 (centres 500, colony 300)
  • Fortresses have a territory radius of 100, city centres 140*1.2*1.5=252
  • Iberian monument, Mauryan pillar, Persian Ishtar gate, and several scenario structures also have a territory root
  • Realism: the purpose of a fortress is to defend something and keep it under control

Abstractly:

  • can be built in neutral territory, have territory root: centre, military colony, crannog, military harbour
  • can be built in neutral territory, no territory root: dock, outpost
  • can't be built in neutral territory, have territory root: fortress, monument, palace, pillar, wonder
  • can't be built in neutral territory, no territory root: most other structures

I've been playing with this in single player for months and I think it's really an improvement. I might be biased, of course; I don't play multiplayer games. @Angen, @av93, @borg-, @elexis, @Feldfeld, @Hannibal_Barca, @wowgetoffyourcellphone, and anyone else interested in gameplay or balance, your opinions are more than welcome!

Here's a mod for people who'd like to play-test this proposal: FortressRoot.zip

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Historically, a city was only conquered when all of its fortifications were taken.

Perhaps that argument could be filled with some examples, since it can only be true for a part of the battles, perhaps the majority. For example Vercingetorix had to surrender to Cesar because they were starving, despite still being fortified as far as I know.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elexis said:

Perhaps that argument could be filled with some examples, since it can only be true for a part of the battles, perhaps the majority. For example Vercingetorix had to surrender to Cesar because they were starving, despite still being fortified as far as I know.

Yes, Vercingetorix surrendered; Alesia is an example of a city that was not taken by assaulting the centre. Here are two famous examples of sieges that were taken by force:

  • The siege of Argos (Plutarch Pyrrhus 31–34), in which the city gates were opened by traitors, Pyrrhus' army occupied the city centre, but failed to take the fortresses, from where the defenders counter-attacked and managed to defeat the invading army
  • The siege of Syracusae (Livy XXV.23–32), in which Archimedes excelled and died. The Romans repeatedly tried to take the city by direct assault but where repulsed. Subsequently they tried blockading the city both on land and sea, which was not entirely successful either. Later the Syracusans participated in a festival honouring Artemis; the Romans launched a surprise attack before dawn and quickly overran most of the city. The defenders kept control of a major citadel, the Achradina, and the siege dragged on for months. The Romans continued to occupy most of the city and defended it against armies sent by the Sicilians and Carthaginians, which later left because of a plague. Meanwhile the Romans conquered other Sicilian cities, but they failed to seize the Achradina. The citadel was finally taken when one of the mercenary captains in charge defected to the Romans and opened a gate to let the Romans in during the night. Afterwards the Syracusans surrendered and only then was Syracusae fully conquered.

Regardless, I think the gameplay experience is more important than historical accuracy when deciding whether or not the fortress should have a territory root.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I agree. The distinction between fortress, hillfort, citadel and fortified city is not clear and most of the historical examples does not fit in these categories uniquely. They overlap each others. 

Moreover, a place like the Ptolemaic Berenike fortress was not only a defensive structure but also a structure with markets, workshops, ports and monuments. It acted like a political entity representing the authority of the Ptolemies. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elexis said:

Perhaps that argument could be filled with some examples, since it can only be true for a part of the battles, perhaps the majority. For example Vercingetorix had to surrender to Cesar because they were starving, despite still being fortified as far as I know.

The same way you can starve well defended city :) But starving is not in game.  Back to the point. Maybe limit fortresses to 1 per civil centre and give them territory root, also force minimum distance from each other.

On the other hand I think if cc is taken one will not have enough sources to defend fort. :) 

But aside from that forts are conquest critical buildings. I think that for Conquest Structure (or whatever is the name of victory condition) should not be enough to destroy cc and all critical buildings are lost because no territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another argument against would be that it devalues the importance and uniqueness of the CC

But I haven't strong opinion against or in favor, nor I been playing multiplayer since long time. In gameplay terms, that would make conquering much more difficult in third phase, and that should be balanced.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s fine but if the CC is toppled all structures that are not occupied within its radius shall turn ito Gaia slowly as is. This way too players who are doing a sneak ram or fire horse attack on CC without support units.wil be discouraged and fight in the frontlines. The mod though make sense that if a structure too far from another after the CC is destroyed turns into Gaia too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it makes sense to loose an ungarrisoned fortress to gaia when the CC is taken out. Especially seen as garrisoning even a single woman reverses the loss of control. But not being able to build in your own territory anymore, even when the fortress is garrisoned makes even less sense to me. So if that means it needs a territory root, I'm in favor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I think it makes sense to loose [sic] an ungarrisoned fortress to gaia when the CC is taken out.

Fortresses have a default garrison; even if there are no controllable units inside they're able to fire three arrows simultaneously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Fortresses have a default garrison; even if there are no controllable units inside they're able to fire three arrows simultaneously.

Hmm, but the "default garrison" is an abstraction that isn't explicitly mentioned anywhere, is it? Really I'm not sure. I've noticed the default arrows but it doesn't add actual population does it? Maybe it should (like ships) to justify the territory root and replace the castle ghosts that are shooting those 3 arrows? What about towers? Too complex? Dunno... 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Hmm, but the "default garrison" is an abstraction that isn't explicitly mentioned anywhere, is it?

To be more accurate, it's not a default garrison, it's default arrows (excuse me for my english).

It's for example written in the tooltip of those structures (towers, fortress, cc, ...) and you can set up that in the BuildingAI entry of the related templates.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

To be more accurate, it's not a default garrison, it's default arrows (excuse me for my english).

It's for example written in the tooltip of those structures (towers, fortress, cc, ...) and you can set up that in the BuildingAI entry of the related templates.

Yeah, i know about the default arrows. But there's a difference between an arrow and an actual archer shooting arrows. I used to play a game where you'd hire archers for the towers, and that would be their dedicated job. I just don't know if that's interesting for 0AD as well... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 10:04 AM, Nescio said:

Currently the poll's 10–4; more opinions are welcome!

My taste is no territory root for fortress.

CC must be the key of the thing (we are already far of the initial territory design).

Fortress is something important as an outpost but it can't survive itself (but you can keep it when garrisoned).

Though finally what are we voting for, everybody can just add two lines in their own mod :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 9:58 AM, Sundiata said:

But there's a difference between an arrow and an actual archer shooting arrows. I used to play a game where you'd hire archers for the towers, and that would be their dedicated job. I just don't know if that's interesting for 0AD as well... 

How exactly is that different from 0AD? Besides that you can pay for sentries to add firepower, you can also put 'dedicated' units in the tower.

I often do that on 'hot' borders, for firepower, capture prevention and repairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

How exactly is that different from 0AD? Besides that you can pay for sentries to add firepower, you can also put 'dedicated' units in the tower.

I often do that on 'hot' borders, for firepower, capture prevention and repairs.

I think the current way 0AD handles garrisoning units in towers is really great, and I also use it for the same reasons as you do. My question is about the default arrows that don't add population. I'm not necessarily opposed to it though. There's just a logical flaw in ungarrisoned towers and fortresses firing arrows, implying someone's home, yet still loosing it to gaia when the CC falls because of the lack of a territory root. Just exploring possibilities. 

Edited by Sundiata
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

My question is about the default arrows that don't add population. I'm not necessarily opposed to it though. There's just a logical flaw in ungarrisoned towers and fortresses firing arrows, implying someone's home, yet still loosing it to gaia when the CC falls because of the lack of a territory root. Just exploring possibilities. 

I take it as an 'implied' dedicated ~tower guard. So he's there, hence the sight, he can shoot a bit, but in case there's a real attack you either need real fighting troops there or the tower will be lost. And ofc that poor guard can't hold the tower if he isn't supported from the surrounding territory anymore... ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

IMHO fortress should have been just upgrades to long walls. I'll be experimenting that in my dwarven mode :)

Instead of gates? That would be great! Historically gate-houses were typically the largest and highest parts of the city walls, e.g. the Porta Nigra in Trier:

serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.romeacross

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angen said:

@stanislas69 interesting idea but I am affraid that difference in obstruction size is too big

Not if I manage to do what I want. ;)

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Instead of gates? That would be great! Historically gate-houses were typically the largest and highest parts of the city walls, e.g. the Porta Nigra in Trier:

serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.romeacross

Actually was wanting to give players the choice :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...