9 replies to this topic

[adash]

Fortresses were the backbone of the state, not city centers. Please enable fortresses to be built out of the blue line, so the ridiculously expensive and bulky city center is not required.
Having a fortress guarding the mountain pass etc. was not uncommon during the time frame, AFIK.

Outposts are pretty much useless if they can not be built outside of the are too. Having remote outposts near the border was used quite a lot too.
Please enable outposts to be built outside of the territory too.

Having all mines or lumber within the settlement limits was not too common, so please enable the Mill to be built out of the territory limits.

Neither were the crops grown inside the city, so please enable the Farmstead to be built outside the territory limits too.

[feneur]

So in essence what you are saying is make the territory borders into city borders?

[adash]

They pretty much are such already, just enable certain buildings to be built outside of it, and enable the fortress to be the center of another territory.

BTW, I do also believe that city centers lost their place to fortresses/castles later in time, but not exactly sure when.

[Pureon]

Perhaps this could be a research tech

[Mythos_Ruler]

adash, on 20 November 2011 - 08:09 PM, said:

They pretty much are such already, just enable certain buildings to be built outside of it, and enable the fortress to be the center of another territory.

BTW, I do also believe that city centers lost their place to fortresses/castles later in time, but not exactly sure when.

The point is you are founding new cities, which was common in this time period. Building up towns around castles comes in a later (medieval) age. It's true Romans built towns around establishing army camps, and the Romans in our game will get an army camp structure that they are allowed to build anywhere on the map regardless of territory.

[adash]

Ok, I get the point. I still believe that at least Mill/Farmstead/Outpost do not have to be bound to the territory limits.

BTW, can the Fortress/Outpost building limit be per city and not global?

[Android_]

Quote

I still believe that at least Mill/Farmstead/Outpost do not have to be bound to the territory limits.

Yeah that is really annoying. You can't access resources in no man's land.

Anyway I think territories still need some good thoughts put into them... at the moment they're mostly a restriction instead of strategically valuable / fun.

[feneur]

Android GRRR, on 24 November 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

Yeah that is really annoying. You can't access resources in no man's land.

Anyway I think territories still need some good thoughts put into them... at the moment they're mostly a restriction instead of strategically valuable / fun.

To some extent your asking for two completely opposite things, on the one hand you're saying territories need more strategical value, and on the other you're asking us to remove one of the things which gives them strategical value The ability to limit your opponents access to resources is one of the nicer things about territories as they are right now. And don't forget that you can still gather resources which aren't in your territory, it just takes longer as you cannot generally build a resource dropoff point nearby.

It would perhaps be one thing to make Outposts buildable in neutral territory, but the problem I see with that is: what happens when an enemy builds a Civic Centre nearby and his territory expands to cover the area where you've built your Outpost. If Outposts doesn't affect/are affected by territory at all, then you essentially have buildings in enemy territory. Just giving them a bit of territory would also present problems. Not only would they be outside of the general paradigm with buildings cut off from CCs loosing loyalty etc, they would also just be tiny pieces of territory inside enemy territory in the above scenario, to me that doesn't sound like fun. Especially not for the person building the CC, having to fight off an Outpost just to be able to use the newly acquired piece of territory properly.

Edit: Also remember that we intend to have an unlimited game mode without territory limits etc for people who don't like these restrictions.

[adash]

Quote

If Outposts doesn't affect/are affected by territory at all, then you essentially have buildings in enemy territory.

In real life I see no problem why my building can't exist in enemy territory. Apart from logistics, about which this game does not care at all, I see no reason why my building should collapse on its own or refuse to be built once the stone, mortar and workers are in place.

May be the game needs a more deep redesign in the whole territory concept - may be the territory needs to give an advantage or disadvantage, rather than an absolute limitation. For example, buildings will have +20% hit points and will cost 10% less, will build 50% faster when in home territory, and will correspondingly they will have -20% hit points and will cost 20% more, will build 50% slower when on enemy territory, but will retain their current parameters when on no-man's land.

Should I submit my suggestion in another thread?

[quantumstate]

adash, on 25 November 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

In real life I see no problem why my building can't exist in enemy territory. Apart from logistics, about which this game does not care at all, I see no reason why my building should collapse on its own or refuse to be built once the stone, mortar and workers are in place.

The current behaviour is meant to be temporary, buildings should be converted which makes it more like real life since logistically you wouldn't be able to supply a building in enemy territory very well.

Quote

May be the game needs a more deep redesign in the whole territory concept - may be the territory needs to give an advantage or disadvantage, rather than an absolute limitation. For example, buildings will have +20% hit points and will cost 10% less, will build 50% faster when in home territory, and will correspondingly they will have -20% hit points and will cost 20% more, will build 50% slower when on enemy territory, but will retain their current parameters when on no-man's land.

Should I submit my suggestion in another thread?

If you wanted to expand on your ideas it would be good to use a new thread. If you do I would recommend reading the forums (search for relevant topics) and looking through the design docs to see what is already planned. Also be aware that based on previous experience most new proposals don't get accepted since there are reasons for the current design, but if the new idea is good enough then people will like it I guess.