Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/7254/display/redirect

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/8343/display/redirect

You should set

<TerritoryDecay disable=""/>

So that the towers don't have to be garrisoned.
Now, is it just stone towers? What about the sentry tower, and upgrading to stone tower? This could be balanced by reducing hp, or by removing some tower technologies, like murder holes.

Well I think you are saying about the height of the towers. What we can do is a third tower, bigger and stronger than the conventional tower. Or just increase the size of the current model and give it a little more health and other attributes.

Any opinions here guys?
the current proposal does not seem historically appropriate.
It should apply to brochs (fortresses).
Decrease the cost of fortresses? Decrease the minimum distance to build nearby fortresses? Give more attack? etc..

In D5120#217810, @borg- wrote:

Any opinions here guys?
the current proposal does not seem historically appropriate.
It should apply to brochs (fortresses).
Decrease the cost of fortresses? Decrease the minimum distance to build nearby fortresses? Give more attack? etc..

I think forts being built in neutral territory could be interesting. The idea being loosely based on the 'hill forts'. I don't think decreasing minimum distance would be good, because it could rapidly make turtling OP.

I'll continu the discussion here. What I meant to say was that for constructing towers in neutral territory you'd probably search for a description like the brochs: "Defensive structures (...) that dotted the rest of the islands." from Wikipedia. (IMHO you can bend the historical justification a bit.) My concern for this patch is that the history in the civ.json talks about large towers and so it doesn't match the effect. Change the history and there's no problem anymore. ;P

In D5120#217887, @Freagarach wrote:

I'll continu the discussion here. What I meant to say was that for constructing towers in neutral territory you'd probably search for a description like the brochs: "Defensive structures (...) that dotted the rest of the islands." from Wikipedia. (IMHO you can bend the historical justification a bit.) My concern for this patch is that the history in the civ.json talks about large towers and so it doesn't match the effect. Change the history and there's no problem anymore. ;P

This sounds like an easier and more fun solution. Good catch.

Okay, I can change the story. Historically, the most correct thing would be for the fortress to be built on neutral territory, but I don't know if this is behind any interesting changes in gameplay. Maybe move to p2, but I don't know how strong could it be.

@chrstgtr @real_tabasco_sauce @wowgetoffyourcellphone

What is preferable, fortress p3 neutral, fortress p2 neutral (maybe increase cost to balance) or tower p2 neutral?

In D5120#217903, @borg- wrote:

@chrstgtr @real_tabasco_sauce @wowgetoffyourcellphone

What is preferable, fortress p3 neutral, fortress p2 neutral (maybe increase cost to balance) or tower p2 neutral?

For me, towers in neutral during p1. That allows you to rush with towers, which would be an interesting dynamic (like outposts in a23 but stronger). After p1, towers can be easily captured so they can’t stand alone.

Forts in neutral is a little too close to Roman camps. But forts will be harder to build (cost/time) and stronger (HP). This will make them

In D5120#217909, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5120#217903, @borg- wrote:

@chrstgtr @real_tabasco_sauce @wowgetoffyourcellphone

What is preferable, fortress p3 neutral, fortress p2 neutral (maybe increase cost to balance) or tower p2 neutral?

For me, towers in neutral during p1. That allows you to rush with towers, which would be an interesting dynamic (like outposts in a23 but stronger). After p1, towers can be easily captured so they can’t stand alone.

Forts in neutral is a little too close to Roman camps. But forts will be harder to build (cost/time) and stronger (HP). This will make them

I think neutral forts in p3 is the most historically defensible, but I agree that scout and defense towers should both be buildable in neutral territory. This would be the more entertaining option. It wouldn't make sense to just allow this for the defense towers, so better to give it to the whole tower line. To balance, you could decrease their hack armor to make them easier to bring down with units most civs have (not just slingers).

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/7291/display/redirect

@real_tabasco_sauce I don't know if <TerritoryDecay disable=""/> is good here, because when building towers in neutral territory, you have the root territory.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/8380/display/redirect

In D5120#218135, @borg- wrote:

@real_tabasco_sauce I don't know if <TerritoryDecay disable=""/> is good here, because when building towers in neutral territory, you have the root territory.

Hmm, I was thinking to make them like outposts. The roman army camp should be like this as well. Disabling territory decay isn't the way to do it though. For some reason I cannot reproduce the outpost behavior.

I also think it would be appropriate to reduce their hack armor so that they can be rushed down by units most civs have. Think about how hard this would be to stop without slingers.

Just remove the root territory, this way it will act as an outpost. What do you think is better, remove or leave the root territory? The territory of a stone tower is large, you can even build a fortress.
@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr

In D5120#218226, @borg- wrote:

Just remove the root territory, this way it will act as an outpost. What do you think is better, remove or leave the root territory? The territory of a stone tower is large, you can even build a fortress.
@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr

I would also vote remove. We considered letting brits build forts in neutral and decided against it. It also doesn't seem fair that you could use something as tiny as a tower to get a fort or series of barracks.

One thing to consider is that a territory root would let enemy players see that a tower has been built.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/7300/display/redirect

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/8389/display/redirect

Do we want the empty towers to hold up against enemy territory? I think probably not.
In outpost.xml, this line seems to let them decay only to enemy territory, but I tried adding it to the tower template and it didn't work. I am not sure how to overwrite "neutral enemy" which is inherited from template_structure.

<TerritoryDecay>
  <Territory>enemy</Territory>
</TerritoryDecay>

I think it's correct now @real_tabasco_sauce

The only problem is that the towers no longer influence their own territory.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @Freagarach Is there any other way to do this? I mean, make sure it doesn't fall into neutral territory, but maintains the standard territorial influence.

idk how to get them to behave exactly like an outpost, but I think we definitely want them to decay to enemy territory. For example, if a tower is built in neutral territory near an enemy woodline ungarrisoned, the territory when the enemy reaches town phase should be able to capture it.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/7322/display/redirect

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/8411/display/redirect

In D5120#218547, @borg- wrote:

How it works now:

Not decay in neutral/own territory
Decay in enemy territory

Is this what we want?

It is necessary to describe the decay/territory influence?

Yeah I think this is the ideal territory behavior. Now, what about hack armor? I worry that scout tower rushing could be impossible to stop for civs without slingers in p1. I think the worst civs for this would be Gauls, Macedonians, and Seleucids. Decreasing the hack armor would help with balance, so that spearmen can more easily rush down towers.

In D5120#218627, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5120#218547, @borg- wrote:

How it works now:

Not decay in neutral/own territory
Decay in enemy territory

Is this what we want?

It is necessary to describe the decay/territory influence?

Yeah I think this is the ideal territory behavior. Now, what about hack armor? I worry that scout tower rushing could be impossible to stop for civs without slingers in p1. I think the worst civs for this would be Gauls, Macedonians, and Seleucids. Decreasing the hack armor would help with balance, so that spearmen can more easily rush down towers.

Towers are easy to capture in p1. You don’t have to decrease back armor to capture them

In D5120#218649, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5120#218627, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5120#218547, @borg- wrote:

How it works now:

Not decay in neutral/own territory
Decay in enemy territory

Is this what we want?

It is necessary to describe the decay/territory influence?

Yeah I think this is the ideal territory behavior. Now, what about hack armor? I worry that scout tower rushing could be impossible to stop for civs without slingers in p1. I think the worst civs for this would be Gauls, Macedonians, and Seleucids. Decreasing the hack armor would help with balance, so that spearmen can more easily rush down towers.

Towers are easy to capture in p1. You don’t have to decrease back armor to capture them

Yeah I suppose it’s fine. This could be something to do if balance proves to be an issue.

@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr @wowgetoffyourcellphone some idea for tech name?

"Great Towers"

In D5120#218955, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

"Great Towers"

Okay, if you want to keep the name it's fine. ;) I thought "Great Towers" (i.e. Turos Maros) was sort of reserved for larger Brittonic towers. If not, go ahead and use it here.

@Freagarach we have new model for 3° tower? If so, can I use it instead of the usual tower. If not, can I wait until I have.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/7357/display/redirect

I think it's good for now. In the future we can increase the briton stone tower model to appear bigger and stronger to be more realistic with the name of the bonus civ, that way there is no need for a third tower.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/8446/display/redirect