Territory

[mroyer]

I'm at turn 80 of my first multi-player game and the following thoughts and suggestions about territory have been brewing and developing as I go. So, It thought I'd toss some of the ideas out for discussion.
-Mark R.


Territorial Suggestions

(1) Isolated hexes
A hex isolated from any friendly SHQ should revert to unowned
Isolated -> a path of friendly hexes (of any length) cannot be traced to an SHQ

(2) Transfer territory
By strategem, a player should be able to cede territory to another nation. Size of cessation could depend on roll, leadership skill etc...

(3) Territory purchase
By strategem, a player should be able to offer to purchase territory for credits.

(4) Alliance level cooperation
By strategem, two nations whose relationship is very high (they have engaged in a victory pact) should be able to enter into an alliance whereby a certain sized expeditionary-force of one nation can operate in the other nation's territory. The size of the expeditionary force could vary depending on die roll, negotiation skill, relationship value etc... supply and reinforcement could get tricky, but the nation of the expeditionary force might be able to build roads and logistics infrastructure in the host nation's territory. If relationship drops (to say below 80) the exp force must disband and logistics becomes owned by host nation.

(5) Non-sentient animal territory
Non-sentient animals should not permanently control territory. They should only control the hex they occupy. When they move from the hex, the hex ownership should revert to the previous owner.

(6) Traversing vassal territory
As posted by Kaaven here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4887282

[TheSquid]

While all your points are good, one should take special note of number 5 - until you mentioned it, I never even thought about it.

But you are totally correct - while predatory creatures would of course consider themselves to be "holding territory", since practically all territory-related rules don't apply to animals (no logistics etc), it seems kind of silly to have an area considered to be "occupied" by predators. Though the flipside of this opinion is that having animals occupy territory makes it easier to see where any animals are left so you can wipe them out, possibly?

Oh and point 6 is definitely high on my current list of "stupid things that need to be fixed ASAP".

[Daza99]

+1 on all points, these would give the game more depth and more realism, and more diplomacy options is always welcomed too.

[Fritz1776]

Agreed. Two thoughts though. First: territory transfer is probably something that should be done bilaterally. Basically a normalization of borders to ensure that clean logistics are possible for all parties. Second: Animals should probably fight with free folk marauders, as well as eachother.