takeover mechanics

[Stue (DC)]

Did something change in takeover mechanics?

for ages, battles for averting takeover meant that you do not need to win the battle to disrupt takeover, putting half of enemy troops away from battlefield would frequently mean an end to takeover.

currently, we had two battles, both time just few enemy troops stayed on battlefield, but takeover is intact.

after two battles, which we both lost, out of dozen enemy troops just two are left standing, their soldier count is reduced to one third, but takeover is still proceeding.

[Anaris]

Nope, we haven't changed anything.

Your confirmation bias is just misleading you.  Again.

[Fleugs]

I bet the reason is gangbang-wars. They're evil!

[Tom]

the numbers do, however, affect the TO, so even if you don't win, you will slow down the TO process.

[Telrunya]

Maybe they just had a lot of extra men in the region?

[Chenier]

Am I understanding it correctly though in assuming that if he had won the battle instead of losing it, the takeover would then have been immediately broken?

[egamma]

Maybe they just had a lot of extra men in the region?

That sounds correct to me.

Illustration
They needed, say, 100 men to run the TO. They actually had 300. Attacks reduced that number to 200, which is still more than the minimum.

[Bedwyr]

Am I understanding it correctly though in assuming that if he had won the battle instead of losing it, the takeover would then have been immediately broken?

I've never, ever seen a takeover continue after the takeover realm was defeated in battle.  I haven't checked the code, but I'm 99% sure that's a hard fact.

[Stue (DC)]

That sounds correct to me.

Illustration
They needed, say, 100 men to run the TO. They actually had 300. Attacks reduced that number to 200, which is still more than the minimum.

it was something like 450 was reduced to 100 in total, but only 20-30 are left on the battlefield and that i what i do not understand completely - if men retreated from battlefield still count as takeover force, than it would not always happen what bedwyr said, that defeating takeover force always stops takeover.

on the other hand, if retreated troops do not count, than it is hard to imagine that wiping most of army do not stop takeover. ok, remaining troops can still be over takeover threshold, no matter how little of them stayed, and that would be the only logical explanation.

[Bedwyr]

Takeover threshold isn't necessary for continuing takeovers.  Takeovers can continue with only ten men left in the region.  I've seen it happen.

If the takeover force is defeated, then they no longer count as "holding the region" as the game calculates such things, and my guess is that if you lose that status the takeover ends, period.  I haven't looked at the code, but I'd say that's a pretty firm guess.

[Anaris]

After checking the code:

• The takeover type matters. A lot. Some takeover types can progress with 0 supporters (not with a high probability, but it's possible); others can't.
• Retreated, scattered, and rallied troops do not count towards those supporting a takeover.
• Having troops in the region belonging to the region's realm will oppose the takeover (reducing the chances of success), whether or not they're scattered or retreated (wounded don't count, though).

[Bedwyr]

After checking the code:

• Having troops in the region belonging to the region's realm will oppose the takeover (reducing the chances of success), whether or not they're scattered or retreated (wounded don't count, though).

Really?  That seems exploitable...

[Telrunya]

Until the enemy starts hunting and the rest of the troops are nowhere to be found any more after all that time

[egamma]

Really?  That seems exploitable...

Indeed. What if they are traveling? Could the region's realm keep their troops from arriving for an extended period of time, presumably until the main army arrives?

[Stue (DC)]

• The takeover type matters. A lot.
  

this explains much. i knew that friendly takeover is easily disrupted, and with the same logic brutal takeover is hardest to disrupt.