Don't need to capture Towns/Cities?

[pad152]

Don't need to capture Towns/Cities?

In random games, if you can see a town/city you can then select an HQ for that city, no need to capture it? I would prefer it more like the old empire game where you had to capture the city (with a random chance on sucess).

[Awac835]

Ehhh... you do need to capture citys? Sure some times you dont actual need troops in it as long as it fall under your zone of control.

[seille]

I try to answer. In case you advance to a city/town whatever which is undefended and you´re close to with enough troops
and there is no enemy near the city hex can turn into your ownership without moving in. That´s a question how the ZOC settings are.
The city/town will then show a black bottom until you attach it to one of your HQ´s

If that what i described happens with defenders in the city or for a city under enemy control (that you can attach your HQ to)
something is wrong.

What you mean with "random chance of success" i don´t know. In AT you have a straight combat system.
Usually you know before if your attack will be successful or not. The question is mostly how many losses you´ll have.
I want to say you can calculate your chances very well and you can prepare your attacks. So random results like in empire deluxe
are nothing what i want to see here. That´s why i switched from playing Empire to Peoplestactics long time ago.
And the AT combat system is much better than the one from PT.

Ok back to your problem. Maybe you should post a screen of such a city.