border-push rules?

Asked by MP on 2013-08-05

What are the "rules" when it comes to whether a military site/lack of military site will alter a border with another empire?

In Settlers I, local borders were re-calculated after every military outpost occupation or destruction. Even if a building was in the center of your territory, destroying it could result in a loss of buildings and paths due to loss of territory. That doesn't seem to happen (much) in widelands, although fog-of-war sometimes makes construction or placement of flags impossible in the affected zone. Additionally one time I DID lose some of my territory in Widelands by razing a bunch of recently captured military buildings (to give myself some time to rebuild my military against a superior opponent). I'm just not sure what exactly the conditions were that triggered a loss of territory (conversion to unowned).

Also in Settlers, you frequently received messages to the effect of "an enemy has occupied a new building, resulting in loss of your territory (or building site)" In Widelands you can build a fortress right on the border with an enemy and not have it push the border whatsoever, even if all they have is a distant sentry or two. However, in some circumstances (e.g. empire campaign map 2) you can push back the border after elimination of all(?) of their military sites.

What happens if you wish to upgrade the only nearby military building near a border with an enemy? As no soldier stays to man the post, is it as if you have zero military buildings in the area? In other words, is there a potential of a border pushback (immediate? after they occupy a new building?) if they have a sufficient military presence in the area?

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
widelands Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
SirVer
Solved:
2013-08-05
Last query:
2013-08-05
Last reply:
2013-08-05
Best SirVer (sirver) said : #1

In Widelands, as long as you are the first to have military influence over an area you'll own it. As soon as you loose military influence (i.e. no occupied military buildings that conquer this land) it can be taken by any other having military influence. As long as noone claims it, it is still yours - so you need not have occupied military buildings inland.

MP (pagel-d) said : #2

to clarify: when upgrading a fortress to a citadel, the military influence vanishes for this building, correct?

To me, it'd be nice if 1/2 of the soldiers could be present during building upgrades (and the building lost its healing temporarily?) rather than booting all out and having it lose its influence

MP (pagel-d) said : #3

Thanks SirVer, that solved my question.

SirVer (sirver) said : #4

> to clarify: when upgrading a fortress to a citadel, the military influence vanishes for this building, correct?
yes.

> To me, it'd be nice if 1/2 of the soldiers could be present during building upgrades (and the building lost its healing temporarily?) rather than booting all out and having it lose its influence
I think this is a design decision and can be argued about. I kinda like that you have to protect your borders while you turn your big military building in a huge one. It also makes for interesting game situations: you sometimes build a lot of medium sized buildings so that you can turn a castle into a citadel or so. In short, I like it the way it is. It might be less convenient, but more interesting.