It's understandable that the option to remove owned buildings is limited by the proximity of the enemy, but it's not realistic that there is no option to destroy owned walls.

rex

like catapult your own walls?

Yes

and when the wall is destroyed that counts as points against you, who would want to do that?

i suppose you really should be able to target any building, yours or not. and not just walls.

Many times I would have liked to knock out a wall that my opponent had ranged troops sitting on the other side of. Open a hole and create havoc.

Well I think the idea of penalty points can be made moot, but I also think the circumstance of finding it necessary to rush an invading enemy who is set with about 2/3s of his army and who out-ranges you with about a dozen full ballista stacks while you have none at the scene for about 8 to 10 turns;

and because the invader is content to slowly take advantage of out-ranging you eliminating each of your archers and marksmen as he slowly creeps forward with countless one-pop scouts and spearmen protected by your walls;

and your only access to him is one travel restricting drawbridge and then later a breached wall unit that it took about 8 turns for him to breach, makes it desireable to take down your walls to be able to cut through his fodder that even provides zoc at the two opennings.

The wall is necessary because it gives time to assemble an army where you may have just a skelton defence and I have provided more drawbridges in later built walls, but at a certain point the wall works in favor of the enemy if his offense is range oriented.

rex

Penalty points? huh? where did this come from?

i thought the point of this was about being able to destroy your own walls (and other buildings of course).

Well maybe I used the wrong words ...
yes, I'm just interested in being able to make an openning in my own wall when it is strategically necessary.

As far as anyone getting points for it, I just meant that that could probably be made null and void (i.e. not a factor (i.e. no points for it)).

rex

It would have to be point nuetral. Otherwise, you could conceivably attack your own walls and come out ahead on experience.

could that be done? if an opp destroys your building he gets x amount of exp points for the destruction and I believe half of that goes against you.

but if you destroy your own building that building has no point value?

wouldn't that mean each building would have to have a switch whether it has point value or not?

Switch?
"huh? where did this come from?"

PS:
Next time I will know how to deal with the *hex-inchup ballista strategy*, but as far as destroying owned buildings, I think Req has acknowledged it;

I think he can do it;
I think he might do it;
and I think any switching that might be necessary would be within the programming.

rex

I just want to make sure you still get exp for destroying opp's building's.

Well I understand, but again Renno as I mentioned to you privately, it might require a switch as you suggest, but there is a switch in programming I believe for such circumstances where the attacker and the target would be tested (i.e. e.g. if attacker is A and target is A than do C else if attacker is B and target is A than do D or something like that).

I doubt if I'm even close with the programming and there is probably a much more simple mechanism in C+ programming or flash or whichever is used, but you should be able to get the idea that it can be done within the programming.

I also understand that you want to be sure to get points as usual if you are the enemy and that you have suggested having points deducted from the attacker if the building is owned.

rex

if( wallOwnedByAttacker == true ){
pointsForDestroyingAWall = pointsForDestroyingAWall;
}
else if( wallOwnedByAttacker == false ) {
pointsForDestroyingAWall += damagePoints;
}

//the first 'if' statement leaves the experience points the same but the second adds them to the attacker's score if the
wall is not owned by the attacker.

Showoff.
At least I had the "if" and the "else" right.

rex

Ok, I currently allowed you to destroy your own buildings. Keep in mind, this means the Destroy From option will appear on any building of yours that is adjacent to melee figure or inrange of a seige weapon.

Now that I'm even with my opponent for completing my destruction of his tower,
is that ok if you can destroy an owned building that your opponent was attacking or did you not want it that way?

Seems realistic enough to me to leave it as is.

rex

PS:
I was also just getting a destroy button on a falk stack one space away that was inside a tower so I tried it to see if it weren't just a false alarm, but it worked.

rex