Computer flipping outposts during peace

Imo, both cities and outposts should have garenteed ZofC and there should be a minimum distance that you are allowing to place an outpost to a city and vice versa.

• Cities should have a garenteed ZoC of 2
• Outposts should have a garenteed ZoC of 1
• An outpost cannot be closer than 3 from a city, and vice versa you cannot settle a city closer than 3 tiles from an outpost.
• Outposts can never be built within another faction's ZofC
• Cities can never be built within another faction's ZofC (not sure about this one)
• (thus, if a city has a current ZoC of 4, it would be possible to build an outpost 5 away and gain 3 tiles of sanctuaried land)
• Naturally, it would be possible to expand a city through buildings towards an outpost still.

Add in the following as well:

• Whenever an outpost becomes incorportated into a city, it ceases being an outpost with any said upgrades previously attached. Instead, a new building is inserted called "Guard Tower" which grants ....blah blah blah....to be determined. (Needs to be a small bonus not to waste the actual site, and needs to be big enough to make the prospect of merging an outpost viable....but also needs to be small enough such that multiple outposts being merged won't summate to a grevious exploit.)

This way, it is possible to chisle away at a faction by building outposts, but never to the extreme of that faction losing significant ground. This system would definately make the placement of outposts WAY more strategic than they currently are.

Thoughts? Comments?

Imo, a very stream-lined mechanic that I think every player playing would understand and expect.

I'm perfectly happy with the current implementation as it prevents spam of outposts to lock out opponents.  This is much worse with Arcane Monoliths as you just need some mana.

If you prevent outpost flipping, then there's nothing to stop a mass spam of Arcane monoliths around cities to lock them in and prevent them from accessing resources on their borders.  It'd be far too abusive to be considered 'balance'.

I don't mind outpost flipping itself, but i do mind that it happens, while still at peace with the faction that does it.

Either make it so that you need to declare war before you can flip outposts, no matter what the method.

Or let us walk through the outposts while at peace.

I don't really see the need to limit it to wartime only. The influence of a city is obviously much larger compared to a mere outpost and if an outpost was built very close to a growing city if should allow the city to "incorporate" the outpost of a friendly faction. I see it as working similarly to the culture border in Civ4.

When flipping an outpost, you are basically taking over the other nations assets, that's an act of war.

Or, maybe they could let us station units in the outposts like we do in the cities, and outpost can only be flipped after the units defending it are defeated.

But basically, get rid of outposts flipping without warning.

These are good ideas, and could possibly make me actually build outposts - the way things currently stand, with their general vulnerability, population cost, expensive upgrades with little effect and flipping control, I very, very rarely build outposts at all.

"Outposts can never be built within another faction's ZoC" - I didn't even know you could do that at the moment. Can you? Can you do it with cities? I wasn't aware I could settle other factions' territory. I *shouldn't* be able to...

But the guaranteed ZoC is an excellent idea.

I like the current outpost flipping mechanic. Looking at the OP's problem from the other perspective, one time an AI built an outpost right next to a young city of mine. It was incredibly frustrating, but I didn't want a war. The only way for me to "reclaim" that land was by rapid border expansion to take over their outpost.

The problem, I think, is that outposts can even be built so close to other player's cities. The number of tiles between outposts and cities needs to be increased.

Of course, one thing I WOULD like is the ability for outposts to push back outposts. If you build an outpost right next to the border of an enemy outpost, you gain the tiles right next to your outpost, stealing tiles from the original owner. I've used that myself, but it still feels cheap.

You cannot currently build outposts/cities within an enemy's ZoC.

I also agree with the OP's comment/option regarding stationed units preventing takeover.

I've taken over quite a few enemy outposts (and a city or two!) through ZoC influence. However, I never rely on just an outpost to plug a gap, but always station units as well (even if it's just one square).

War solves all your problems. AI placed a city next to your outpost ? Kick his ass, thats all. I always do that. Its a good reason to start war. IRL fight for resources often was a war cause, wasnt it ?

One thing I did not address in my thoughts was the ability to flip control on an outpost. This is important and I do think is necessary.

In the Civ system, each tile had a % weight associated with a tile's loyalty to a given race. Perhaps something like this also has to be considered for FE. Thoughts must be given to the three types of ZofC interaction: City - City, City - Outpost, and Outpost - Outpost. While not perfect, here are some ideas to address this:

• If an outpost has the same faction ZofC on a given side as well as opposite that side, then the outpost flips.
• If an outpost has the same faction ZofC on three of the sides, then the outpost flips.

This strengthens the need to have contiguous ZofC throughout your empire as being 'flanked' culturally could leave you with less than you've bargained for.

Thoughts? Comments?

Yes, this was a good way to represent the shifting control of borders and gave you some warning when a piece of land you currently control is under threat from your opponents' expanding influence, and lets you know that you need to do something to prevent a non-hostile takeover of some of your territory. That said, though, I don't think they should COPY this system, because if I want that system, I'll go play Civ IV.

Of course! If it's being squeezed by two enemy towns, then it should flip. This will also prevent the AI spamming random stuff behind your villages. However, I don't really get how your second criterion differs from your first. If you have the same faction ZoC on three sides, you must also have the same faction ZoC on two opposite sides, making your first one sufficient for flipping...

This. I think one of the best institutions in this game is that 15% unrest hit for not being connected to your capital's territory, representing your people's loss of motivation for being a "provincial" town, or as I like to think of it, the fruits of rampant corruption and mal-governance in a village not adequately linked to your empire's beating administrative heart of power.

Although I sometimes employ city "snaking" to link up my cities' ZoCs (I avoid it where possible, but sometimes settleable spots are just too far removed from each other, over a mountain and 30 tiles away, and outposts with their small ZoC and heavy early game cost just don't cut it, especially for my second city), I think a contiguous empire is crucial to a budding empire, as it makes you think more carefully about city placement and forces you to develop and expand your early towns to prevent rapid expansion.

Though, Firefly, to be honest, considering the fact that outposts can be flipped and cities can't, and taking into account how generally underpowered outposts are at the moment (the upgrades aren't worth a whole lot, and they're exceedingly vulnerable), if you just build a city near a chokepoint instead, it almost always does the job better. I like your ideas, though, but I would add that I think outposts need a little more love than they currently get for me to consider them more strongly for use.

I mistyped in my previous post. Outposts should NOT be allowed to push the borders of other outposts.

Totally agree. Only city should be strong enough to push outpost, but not other outpost. I also think outposts should have 2 militia garison, bacause now 1 scout can retake outposts which i find ridiculous when at war. Its not right that any random troop or lvl 3 hero can just come and cap it.

Zone of Control in EWoM, FE, and LH is problematic in a lot of ways, though better in LH. It's difficult to know how/when it will expand, is drawn strangely at times, interacts differently with outposts than cities, etc.. I really like some of the suggestions in this thread with providing some minimums and changing the behavior- very reasonable.

For the second criteria mentioned, it is possible that a single city 'dwarfs' a neighbouring outpost controlled by another faction. At what point does that outpost switch. My thought was if 3 of the 4 sides were completed adjacent to the first faction ZofC (where the 4th side is farthest side away fromt he city in question), then enveloping outpost would flip.

Definately agree that outposts need more love. (Is why I've been recommending what I've been recommending)

As to why cities can't be flipped - why not? If an opponent ZofC applies strong pressure against one of your cities than you're unrest of that city should increase. There is actual tension being seen. Obviously that unrest penalty should take into account treaties and alliances and stuff as well as how strongly the ZofC is being pushed. In the end however, if your city is dwarfed by another growing empire, at some point it should revolt out of dissatisfication and at some point it should rebel and join the other faction.

So who would get preferance? First come first serve?

My main issue with cities flipping isn't so much the concept, which I agree with, but the fact that settleable city spots are more or less random and not under your control. In Civ, sure, since you could found a city literally anywhere you wanted to, it makes sense that if you settle one too close to the enemy territory then you have the danger of your budding town or dead-end backwater slum (whichever you made it) becoming unhappy and throwing in with your culturally superior neighbours, but considering that in LH you take what you can get as far as city spots go, it's a bit of an unfair thing to have your cities swap sides based on enemy ZoC, especially if it is coming from outposts or the like.

I do think rising unrest rates from cultural pressure are justified, don't get me wrong, but not city flipping, not with the way settling cities works.

Seems logical to me.

Because now you carefuly planing how to put it in order to get into that 5x5 square all those precious resources and the someone comes and just popups that freaking outpost just at your border and boom your precious air shard not yours anymore >:/

That is not dificult. Your city has 2 elements of area: the one which is covered with buildings + control zone. You start with 1 tile covered by city icon and 3x3 starting area. There are 3 ways to expand it by 1 tile to all directions:

monuent;

Townhall;

Town status (2 lvl of town).

Maybe there is 1 more "1 per faction" building or smth what gives 1 extra tile (cant remember exactly).

So you can have max 3 free (free = non builded, not covered with buildings) tiles area around your real (buildings covered) city. Thats why more experienced players like manualy place their buildings. This way they can contol direction of city expansion, conect recources into city area thus enhancing city area even more or building wonders which are bigger (1 tile size).