New Takeover system - Tower Fatmilak/Madina

[Allomere]

I'm not entirely sure if this is wrong but from what I've been told there is something amiss.

Under the old takeover system regions were supposed to be in control of the ones who have the takeover. As I understand it the defender is usually the one the game considers "in control" of the region. Winning a battle doesn't mean you're auto in control except to be able to loot and dismantle things. However starting a takeover has always made the one running the takeover to be the defacto defender because they are in control of the region. Doesn't make any sense otherwise surely because how could they be "taking it over" without being the dominant power for that turn. Also, regions under a takeover are not meant to be able to provide recruits.

If this is all correct then there is an issue with the current Aurvandil takeover of Madina's capital.

Every battle we've had since the takeover has started Madina has continued to have the walls. From what more experienced players have said the walls are meant to be unusable for both sides if there is a takeover running. One turn there were rogues which joined the attackers (Aurvandil) against the Madina defenders. The defenders had the walls again. The next turn no Madinians rallied and we became the defenders and got attacked by the rogues. Neither of us had the walls. The next morning after that (today) Madina has the walls again. Surely this isn't supposed to happen, and if it is it's a rather serious flaw in the new takeover system which is going to be costly for us. We're in the city, chatting the locals, and occasionally dismantling the walls, but then we decide its much more fun to go outside and use our siege engines when it comes to doing battle?  ???

Second to this, if what I said earlier is true Madina shouldn't be able to recruit troops in the region because its under takeoever. I'm not sure if this changes because it's a capital but the Madinians have constantly been rallying up and recruiting up units which weren't there before. Again, if the region is under takeover how can it be used to recruit in? Surely that doesn't make any sense. Apparently under the old system you couldn't recruit in a city under a takeover but I don't have any personal experience to go off on this.

Some clarity from the Devs on this might be helpful.

Also as an end note I would say that both Aurvandil and Madina's players think the new takeoever system is pretty bad... we're getting 50+ messages every turn which are almost all the same. As much as I like knowing who is and who isn't following orders its very droll. Also the takeover doesn't seem to run the region into any negative stats so even though its 70% complete the region is still on full morale, full loyalty and so far has remained on Core control, which means there's nothing negative for the host realm who are suffering the takeoever. This doesn't seem to make much sense either. I don't know if this has simply been overlooked with the new system.

[Telrunya]

If you're doing a fully friendly takeover, how much would the region really suffer though?

I did notice as well that the new TO doesn't make the Realm running it automatically defenders though. I agree there.

[Tom]

A long time ago, we made the rule that in case of doubt, the owner of the region is always the defender.

The defender will usually have the walls. While it is not "realistic", simply consider it as having to conquer the city street-by-street.

There are some circumstances where the defenders don't have the walls. The most usual one is when all "defenders" have actually just arrived from a different region, i.e. they are coming in from elsewhere to break your TO.

But as long as at least one unit remains in the city, you should assume that they will have the walls.

[Anaris]

A long time ago, we made the rule that in case of doubt, the owner of the region is always the defender.

The defender will usually have the walls. While it is not "realistic", simply consider it as having to conquer the city street-by-street.

There are some circumstances where the defenders don't have the walls. The most usual one is when all "defenders" have actually just arrived from a different region, i.e. they are coming in from elsewhere to break your TO.

But as long as at least one unit remains in the city, you should assume that they will have the walls.

This may be true, Tom, but for years, when a takeover is running, no one has gotten the walls.

[Tom]

Also as an end note I would say that both Aurvandil and Madina's players think the new takeoever system is pretty bad... we're getting 50+ messages every turn which are almost all the same. As much as I like knowing who is and who isn't following orders its very droll. Also the takeover doesn't seem to run the region into any negative stats so even though its 70% complete the region is still on full morale, full loyalty and so far has remained on Core control, which means there's nothing negative for the host realm who are suffering the takeoever. This doesn't seem to make much sense either. I don't know if this has simply been overlooked with the new system.

Yeah, the messages are probably excessive. But then you have a special situation. 50 messages? Are you really running a TO with 50 people? Or do you run one with 20 people and everyone does 3 different TO actions per turn? Then let me tell you that is a bad decision. Like all things in BM, doing the same thing twice for half the hours always results in less result than doing it once with full hours.

And it is intentional that the TO does not damage the region. If you want to do damage, loot.

[Eithad]

Also the takeover doesn't seem to run the region into any negative stats so even though its 70% complete the region is still on full morale, full loyalty and so far has remained on Core control, which means there's nothing negative for the host realm who are suffering the takeoever. This doesn't seem to make much sense either. I don't know if this has simply been overlooked with the new system.

No taxes are collected or given out to the nobles of the region while it is being taken over. That is a huge negative if you ask me. At least this is the case in BT, on tax day got a message that I don't get tax because a TO is currently running in my region. The TO never succeeded so we will have to wait to see what happens next tax day.

[Indirik]

This may be true, Tom, but for years, when a takeover is running, no one has gotten the walls.

This was my understanding, and experience, as well. When a takeover is running, the force running the takeover is always the defender. Anyone trying to break the takeover must attack them, without the benefit of the walls, even if they are the region owner.

I am unsure of the recruitment issue, as I don't have much experience with my own capital being under takeover.

[Allomere]

If you're doing a fully friendly takeover, how much would the region really suffer though?

Control should surely suffer, you're killing or kicking out officials and the like. Its an entire change of government. Loyalty should suffer too, surely. I mean; especially under a friendly takoever which is suceeding. The people are choosing to be less loyal, that is the definition of a friendly takoever. All of which would mean they can't draft and the like.

Yeah, the messages are probably excessive. But then you have a special situation. 50 messages? Are you really running a TO with 50 people? Or do you run one with 20 people and everyone does 3 different TO actions per turn?

We've got 42 chevaliers doing roughly one takeover action per turn. Add that to a very few letters, scout reports or demolishion reports and it's just sheer monotony. It's worse than looting because looting has a limit afterall.

This may be true, Tom, but for years, when a takeover is running, no one has gotten the walls.

Yeah, this is quite a big problem then. I can understand fighting street to street, but then the streets don't have Walls and barbicans all along them. Its unfortunate we seem to be one of the first few to take on a city, and a Capital at that, when this is going through testing. I fear we might lose the takeover because of this, when Madina was pretty much totally beaten.

What about the recruitment issue? A few of the older players have said they're pretty sure you can't recruit in the capital when the capital is under a takeover. We're not entirely sure though.

[Allomere]

I am unsure of the recruitment issue, as I don't have much experience with my own capital being under takeover.

Ah, this addresses the last bit in my reply. Thanks.

[Eithad]

What about the recruitment issue? A few of the older players have said they're pretty sure you can't recruit in the capital when the capital is under a takeover. We're not entirely sure though.

Don't know if it was ever changed, but way back in the day, I am sure I could recruit both militia and a unit in my capital while a TO was running. How else would you manage to break a TO if you can't recruit at all?

[Allomere]

We managed to win the battle, but they did have the walls again.

[Tom]

Control should surely suffer, you're killing or kicking out officials and the like. Its an entire change of government. Loyalty should suffer too, surely. I mean; especially under a friendly takoever which is suceeding. The people are choosing to be less loyal, that is the definition of a friendly takoever. All of which would mean they can't draft and the like.

That last part is a non-sequitur. Drafting is not hindered by low loyalty.

And no, you are not making anyone less loyal. You are making them love you more. There are actions in the game that specifically lower loyalty, such as certain priest or diplomat actions.

I don't disagree entirely, the new TO system is not yet integrated fully and there should be some effects - but you seem to want the simple act of starting a TO to act like a super-weapon - disable use of walls, disable recruitment, damage all kinds of stats - and that is just dramatically unbalanced.

What about the recruitment issue? A few of the older players have said they're pretty sure you can't recruit in the capital when the capital is under a takeover. We're not entirely sure though.

That is nonsense. You can recruit in the capital when it is under takeover. There are many things you can't do after you have lost a battle, and recruitment is among those. Maybe that causes the confusion. But that has nothing to do with TO or not, it's simply a consequence of your unit having to rally.

[Allomere]

Actually how much the people love Aurvandil has decreased since we started the takeover according to the stats. The region has gone from Loyal to Indifferent to us, and yet the takoever says it is succeeding and is nearly complete, so if its just a case of making the people like you more it's not entirely squared by what the game actually says to you in the stats. Even if a priest or a diplomat is working against us the stats should surely also be influenced by the takoever and show the people moving to liking us more rather than disliking us. That was more my point. If the opposite was true how can the takeover be succeeding .. there has to be a shift in relation somewhere.

No, I'm not advocating takeover being a super-weapon whatsoever ... look, I'm fairly new to all this anyway, which is why I'm asking not telling. We just seem to understand that a region under a takoever doesn't give you recruits, so since the new system has already failed us regarding the walls it's not too hard to also move to asking if its not got a fault somewhere else, and then the point was made about recruitment.

It does seem logically flawed that recruits which are clearly in the capital when you hire them are suddenly unavailable if a region 200 miles away they happen to come from has enemies trying to take it over, yet when those very same actions are being taken by an enemy army in that city where you are suddenly every man in the region is still up for hire, and the takeover force isn't doing something to neutralise possible recruitment despite the fact its happening in that very location. I know you can demolish RC's to stop that, but only the ones in the region at the time. So there are still soldiers for hire mulling around, and the conquerors being totally fine with knights walking along and taking them under their banner and readying them to fight in the next battle.

Hence, I don't think its much of an unreasonable question to ask. Thanks for clearing it up though.

[Tom]

Actually how much the people love Aurvandil has decreased since we started the takeover according to the stats.

That is, for the moment, an unrelated stat. I've posted that in the New TO System topic when it was activated.

It does seem logically flawed

Yes.

The whole recruitment system is entirely artificial and works the way it does mostly for game-balance reasons, not for realism reasons, however:

and the conquerors being totally fine with knights walking along and taking them under their banner and readying them to fight in the next battle.

That is where you make a faulty assumption. You see, you are not yet in control of the region. You have won on the battlefield, but you are not in control of the region. Ask any veteran from Iraq if you don't see what the difference is. The TO is the action by which you establish that control. So it's not like people would walk into the barracks right under your nose.

[Allomere]

That is where you make a faulty assumption. You see, you are not yet in control of the region. You have won on the battlefield, but you are not in control of the region. Ask any veteran from Iraq if you don't see what the difference is. The TO is the action by which you establish that control. So it's not like people would walk into the barracks right under your nose.

I'm aware what the difference is, but in this particular case we're talking about something, let's be honest, entirely different from Iraq. The two aren't even comparable. The army is in the Stronghold, which isn't a big city (or indeed a city at all) but which is the only place soldiers from all over the realm are apparently gathered awaiting hire. We've been there almost a week, our army is 24% of the entire regional population so it's not like we're thinly spread, considering a good number of them won't be in the castle anyway. So if the defender knights are in the rather small, militarily occupied, takeover-almost-complete castle, with every other person there being their enemy, it's highly unlikely to think they could wander along and hire men who would surely have been neutralised anyway.

As much as its a faulty assumption game-wise, it is by no means illogical when given some context, especially if you think of it in terms of a RL situation. Thats why it's not really a ridiculous question to ask when you have no idea of how that particular part of the game works.

I'm not trying to challenge that part of the game, I'm fine if thats how it's coded to be, I just wanted clarity on if that actually was how it worked.