Capturing Allied Territories with no Capital (givesBackOriginalTerritories)

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.

redrum

@Cernel Actually, I believe TripleA has all infrastructure changed to the original owner when a player's capital is liberated including AA guns in revised (not sure if that is how its supposed to be though). Here is a save game testing liberating UK's capital and both the factory and AA gun in canada change to UK though there is a graphical glitch that still shows the russian one until its moved: test.tsvg

I glanced at the code as well and from what I can tell its ALL infra are changed to original owner when a capital is liberated.

Here is the excerpt from revised rules for AA and factories:

AA
Usable by Invading Forces: If a territory is captured, any antiaircraft guns there are also captured. They
can be used by the capturing player in future combats. Antiaircraft guns are never destroyed, except when
a transport carrying one is sunk. If you move an antiaircraft gun into a friendly territory, place one of your
control markers under it. If you liberate a territory containing a captured antiaircraft gun, control reverts to
the original owner.

Factory
Usable by Invading Forces: If a territory is captured, an industrial complex there is also captured. It can be
used by the capturing player on the turn after it is captured. Industrial complexes are never destroyed. You
cannot place your new units at an industrial complex owned by a friendly power, unless its capital is in enemy hands (see Liberating a Territory on page 18). Even if you liberate a territory with an industrial complex
in it, you cannot use the complex; the original controller can use it on his or her next turn.

@Panther Any insight into how liberating capitals is supposed to work for the various versions?

Cernel

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

@Cernel Actually, I believe TripleA has all infrastructure changed to the original owner when a player's capital is liberated including AA guns in revised (not sure if that is how its supposed to be though).

Yes, I know, and that is a bug. Sometimes it resurfaces; I seem to recall, for example, @bayder mentioned it somewhere (I might be wrong). It would be good if TripleA would have an actual tracker, in which to keep a list of all existent bugs over the years (or decades!), as it seems they get lost (or closed) in the various trackers and forums, over the years.

I know it doesn't work correctly before Anniversary (this is one of the several things that TripleA gets wrong for Revised, and one of the few issues that are the same for LHTR too); I thought it was clear I was talking about what TripleA should do. And, yes, in the moment in which you liberate a territory, everything that would be captured in that territory is also turned to the power you are liberating the territory for (liberating is capturing stuff for another one, and follows all the rules for capturing stuff). The matter I was talking about is just for the case of changing ownership from yourself to an ally of yours (that without politics can only happen because of capital liberation, while with politics can also happen by satisfying the capital requirement when upgrading to a relationship that gives back original territories, while the former relationship didn't (except that in TripleA this is bugged too, as it doesn't require the capital)).

In my opinion, extrapolating the rulebook (just a subjective interpretation that cannot be proved), how it should work is that when you "give-back" (not liberate) a territory all immobile units in that territory should be also turned over (comprising the ones that you built) (linking it to the fact of being immobile, instead of being an infrastructure, would fully cover the Revised case without requiring exceptions), while, only from v3 onwards, you should also give back the mobile infrastructures (but with v5 there are no mobile infrastructures anymore). This is just how I would personally extend the referring rulesets to TripleA in general. So, for example, in Napoleonic Empire giving back a territory with a Mortella Tower, a Fortress, an Encampment and a General in it, I would give back the Mortella Tower, the Fortress (these have been surely built by me, as they cannot be captured), the Encampment (that I may have captured or I may have built after capture of the territory), while it should be up to the mapmaker if to turn over the General too (that may have been captured, and not necessarily in that territory, built in that territory after capture, or just moved into it at any point after capture).

@Panther The only thing I'm not entirely sure, actually, is what happens in Anniversary if I have a territory that I'm giving back (for being in my possession, but originally owned by an ally of mine, that just got its capital liberated) and in this territory there is an aaGun that I captured in that territory, another aaGun I built in that territory after capturing it and also another aaGun that I owned since start game and just moved into that territory. What I believe it should happen is that I turn over all three aaGuns, but I'm not entirely sure about this.

Cernel

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

If you liberate a territory containing a captured antiaircraft gun, control reverts to
the original owner.

I think this part is not clear, as it appears making an exception for the case I'm liberating a territory defended by an enemy antiaircraft gun that enemy power already owned or placed, and then moved into the territory after capturing it, let alone the fact that I can liberate territories with antiaircraft guns belonging to allies of the enemy power I'm liberating the territory from. It would be clearer if it said something like "If you liberate a territory containing any numbers of enemy antiaircraft guns, control of all antiaircraft guns change to the original owner of the territory". So, if @Panther can take a look at this too... Practically what happens in the case I'm combat-liberating a territory with:
1- An AA that was captured in that territory when that territory was captured by the enemy power I'm liberating it from.
2- An AA, belonging to the enemy power I'm liberating the territory from, that was captured somewhere else, but still from the power I'm liberating that territory for, then moved into the territory I'm liberating.
3- An AA, belonging to an ally of the enemy power I'm liberating the territory from, that was captured somewhere else, but still from the power I'm liberating that territory for, then moved into the territory I'm liberating.
4- An AA, belonging to the enemy power I'm liberating the territory from, that was never captured before, by anyone (for example, an AA that my enemy owned since start game and just moved into the territory now I'm liberating).
5- An AA, belonging to an ally of the enemy power I'm liberating the territory from, that was never captured before, by anyone (for example, an AA that the ally of my enemy owned since start game and just moved into the territory now I'm liberating).

3 and 5 are cases in which, before territory liberation, the AA is in the enemy territory with a control marker of an ally of that enemy underneath. For example, British conquering North-Western Europe from the Germans, then the Americans moving an Americans AA into it, then the Japanese liberating North-Western Europe (the Germans still owning their capital).

1 to 5, what goes to my ally, I'm liberating the territory for, and what goes to me, if anything?

Panther

@Cernel @redrum I will definitely take a look at all of this but will not be able to do that before next week, as I am currently travelling.