Capturing Allied Territories with no Capital (givesBackOriginalTerritories)

Hepps

So this has been kicked around for years and I wondered if we might take one last kick at the can...

Would there be any way to create a mechanism where-in if a power has lost its capital that it's territories can be captured by an Ally (and remain as their possession) until such a time that the Capital(s) is (are) liberated?

I haven't looked at this in years and years... and I cannot even recall whether there was some significant obstacle preventing such a feature... but here are my suggestions...

1] Global property "Ally occupies with no Capital"

or

2] Territory attachment "No Capital captured by Ally"

Just some food for thought.

Reason this Happens in TWW

Per @redrum
So the reason this happens is the political property givesBackOriginalTerritories:

    <attachment name="relationshipTypeAttachment" attachTo="Allied" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RelationshipTypeAttachment" type="relationship">
      <option name="archeType" value="allied"/>
      <option name="givesBackOriginalTerritories" value="true"/>
    </attachment>

POS2

givesBackOriginalTerritories			values: "true", "false", or "default". default setting is "default", and "default" means false. If true, at the end of each politics phase, any territories originally belonging to the other player will revert to that players control.

RogerCooper

@Hepps You could handle that with events and political relationships. You could change the relationship when occupied to make the occupied country a neutral and then restore the relationship when the capital is liberated.

Hepps

@RogerCooper So by doing it this way, every territory on a map would need a cacophony of different triggers and events for each one?

RogerCooper

@Hepps No, you would just need triggers for the Capital. The relationship options for the players could be

	canTakeOverOwnedTerritory				values: "true", "false", or "default". default setting is "default", and "default" means that archeType of war lets you take over territories.  By setting true, you can take over territories of an ally

	givesBackOriginalTerritories			values: "true", "false", or "default". default setting is "default", and "default" means false. If true, at the end of each politics phase, any territories originally belonging to the other player will revert to that players control.

You should test the options to see if they give the proper behavior.

Hepps

@RogerCooper said in Capturing Allied Territories with no Capital:

canTakeOverOwnedTerritory

Is this present in any map?

redrum

@Hepps I thought that generally after an ally loses its capital any of its original territories captured are controlled by allies until their capital is liberated?

RogerCooper

@Hepps In the the Global game, the following code is used for the Dutch

<attachment name="relationshipTypeAttachment" attachTo="Custodianship" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RelationshipTypeAttachment" type="relationship">
<option name="canLandAirUnitsOnOwnedLand" value="true"/>-->
<option name="archeType" value="allied"/>
<option name="canTakeOverOwnedTerritory" value="true"/>
</attachment>

@ redrum Normally the territories controlled by a power that has lost its capital remain under original control. Only if captured by the enemy and then liberated can allies control them.

redrum

I think we are talking about a couple different scenarios. But here is an example of my understanding on a simple map like revised: liberating_capital.tsvg

Japan loses its capital and mainland Asia territories to USA
Germany then conquers a mainland Asia territory and Germany gets ownership
Japan's capital is liberated and the mainland German owned territory goes back to Japan

redrum

Here is an example with TWW: UK_Sudan.tsvg

Egypt loses its capital and Sudan to Italy
UK conquers Sudan and gets control of it
Sudan reverts to Egypt during Italy's politics phase

It appears to work properly initially but for some reason during Italy's politics phase the territory reverts back to Egypt.

redrum

So the reason this happens is the political property givesBackOriginalTerritories:

    <attachment name="relationshipTypeAttachment" attachTo="Allied" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RelationshipTypeAttachment" type="relationship">
      <option name="archeType" value="allied"/>
      <option name="givesBackOriginalTerritories" value="true"/>
    </attachment>

POS2

givesBackOriginalTerritories			values: "true", "false", or "default". default setting is "default", and "default" means false. If true, at the end of each politics phase, any territories originally belonging to the other player will revert to that players control.

Cernel

@redrum Right, but this must be a bug. In the original games without politics, the only case in which this should happen is, either:

When you capture a territory originally owned by an ally, the ally takes control if it has ownership of its capital or if the territory you just captured is its capital.
When the capital of an ally is liberated, all the territories you own that are originally owned by that power revert back to it.

Cernel

@redrum said in Capturing Allied Territories with no Capital (givesBackOriginalTerritories):

If true, at the end of each politics phase, any territories originally belonging to the other player will revert to that players control.

This should be complemented by adding "if that player or any of the players with which is in a relationship having this option true currently owns the required minimum number of capitals, belonging originally to that player, for territory liberation (default=1)".

redrum

@Cernel Not sure I understand what you are saying. Any map that has givesBackOriginalTerritories=false or not specified (default) will have the behavior you describe:

When you capture a territory originally owned by an ally, the ally takes control if it has ownership of its capital or if the territory you just captured is its capital.
When the capital of an ally is liberated, all the territories you own that are originally owned by that power revert back to it.

This property appears to control an additional set of functionality that occurs during political phases that reverts the territory to original owner regardless of whether they own their capital. My assumption is this was created either for TWW or for some other complex map with politics. As the issue with TWW, is if you don't set this to true then you have say USA build a factory in a Chinese original owned territory after they lost their capital then you liberate China that "americanFactory" would become owned by Chinese (not a "chineseFactory") and not be able to be used because each nation has its own units.

Cernel

@redrum I'll need to do some testing to be sure of my answer here, but at the moment I'm playing. Anyways, in general, what politics add is the possibility of liberating territories, you previously captured and currently own, because of changing your relationship to one that gives them back, while the previous one, you were in, didn't. This is not possible if the game has fixed relationships.

redrum

@Cernel Ah. Ok. In that case, I bet this was created to handle essentially the politics making peace scenario. So let's say you are at war with playerX and take some of his territories. Then you ally with playerX and setting this property to true would then make it so you give playerX any territories you control that they are the original owner of.

Cernel

@redrum More than peace, let's saying becoming allies. Usually peace means stopping being at war, which, for example, in Napoleonic Empires FFA means upgrading from War to Ceasefire, and Ceasefire doesn't give anything back.

redrum

@Cernel Yeah, all depends how you define the different relationships and which ones you set givesBackOriginalTerritories=true for.

That being said, TWW I think uses this to avoid having non-original owners from building infra in those territories and if the capital was ever liberated those infra would revert to the original owner but not be able to be used. Which is kind of a hack and not ideal but the alternative is probably a lot of triggers to something like L&L works in TWW for pretty much all territories and all various infra units to convert something like americanFactory to chineseFactory, etc.

Cernel

@redrum said in Capturing Allied Territories with no Capital (givesBackOriginalTerritories):

That being said, TWW I think uses this to avoid having non-original owners from building infra in those territories and if the capital was ever liberated those infra would revert to the original owner but not be able to be used. Which is kind of a hack and not ideal but the alternative is probably a lot of triggers to something like L&L works in TWW for pretty much all territories and all various infra units to convert something like americanFactory to chineseFactory, etc.

Yes, as long as factories go.

For infrastructures in general, however, since TWW is a custom game, you should decide and document what happens, or at least what is the intended behaviour, unless this is clarified by referring to an external rulebook or ruleset that defines it.

For example, Revised (both OOB and LHTR) never changes ownership of aaGuns that are in a territory that is indirectly liberated due to capital liberation of the original power of that territory, while Anniversary has those aaGuns changing to the ownership of the power that just had its capital liberated, if they were previously under the ownership of an allied power (just like the factories, in any rulesets).

However, in the moment in which you port those rules in a TripleA system, in which you don't necessarily have at most two infrastructures called exactly "aaGun" and "factory", with exactly the same characteristics as those same units in the referring ruleset, you should decide more generally what this dualism between aaGuns and factories is dependent from. For example, saying that all mobile infrastructures are treated like the aaGuns and all immobile ones are treated like the factories.

Talking about names, I could also make a game with mobile factories and immobile aaGuns; so TripleA should decide if, in this case, the behaviours will nominatively switch. For example, what should happen, in such a case, to a Napoleonic Empires General? I don't think there is any way the user can know that.

This, in turn, means that for an infrastructure unit like the "Material" you should also decide whether such a unit is subjected to aaGun rules or to factory rules, in the moment it's movement is 0, but can be moved (transported).

I would personally encourage the developers adding an option with which any mapmakers may decide, per unit, if that infrastructure is following territory liberations rules (factories and Anniversary aaGuns) or if it changes ownerships for capture only (Revised aaGuns). For existent games, of course, the matter should be inferred somehow, and precisely documented in pos2.

@panther2 If you can please check I didn't say anything wrong.

Cernel

@Cernel I meant if correcting this bug would allow it and in the other cases in which, for non politic reasons also, such liberation after conquest may happen, while the territory having any of the many kinds of infrastructures TWW offers in it.

Cernel

Or you could even argue that the factory-only give-back of Revised should have nothing to do with the factory being an infrastructure (which the aaGun is too, but is not given back). In particular, one could argue that in a map like Napoleonic Empires, when you give back a territory you should also gift all the mortella towers and fortress you might have built in it (that are immobile but not infrastructure units) also since, otherwise, if you go back at war, you may have mortella towers and fortress in a state of war with the territories they are in. Having anchored such matters to the units being infrastructures (that is, capturable) is, after all, just a TripleA decision, of course: the original rulesets just refer directly to the units' names.

So, in the moment you give back a territory with mortella towers, fortress, encampments and generals in it, what of these units should be turned back too cannot be read in any referring rulesets. TripleA should somehow infer it, and let the mapmakers know in pos2 (so that the mapmakers may let the users know in notes, hopefully), or you should be able to define it per unit, with options.