This got mentioned on multiple platforms already, but not in this section:
This seems to be a rather amusing oversight, and I am not sure if I want it to be removed entirely.
But since it can lead to completely broken matchups, I have to mention this.
Thanks to @MiniMue for randomly joining my lobby and testing this with me by giving up immediately!
To replicate do the following:
Start the game with any player as teammate or enemy
Let the allied/enemy player give up.
Garrison your units in their buildings (TC for example) granting you control over that building.
???
Profit
You can now produce out of the captured building, in my example I played the HRE and took over an english TC. The villagers are counted as different units, since depending on which I select I can build their respective landmarks and buildings. See my screenshot below:
I was able to build the council hall to spam longbows, the Regnitz cathedral to generate more gold out of relics and the elzbach palace.
I took my HRE villagers and prelates and let them work on english improved farms. I could produce HRE MAA and boost them further with the english unique tech for them. I have the network of castles active while making buildings sturdier.
As you can see, it can make a match utterly broken, since techs and bonuses merge and mix. I would like it to be possible if an ally suddenly leaves without techs merging, but currently in a team game this can also lead to multiple enemies focusing down one player to gain control over their unique techs. A 2v2 tournament in the future could lead to crazy matches this way.
Are you sure youâre able to do this with enemy buildings?
Last I checked you can only attack them.
The example youâve provided only has your ally âassimilatedâ.
So working on the assumption that you can only do it with surrendered allyâs buildings, that makes this scenario not possible really.
I guess a guy facing 1v2 could grab some of his old allyâs structures and try to hold the game?
Which still has its own set of possible problems (overlapping bonuses).
why report it as a bug?? go to all of that effort when devs are surely aware of it by now and let them decide if its a bug or not⊠it certainly wont lead to broken matchups as it requires someone to quit or be defeatedâŠ
I donât think play as multiple civs simultaneously is a problem. Because normally, for competitive players, when someone give up, the game is pretty much close to end.
And for fun players, playing as multiple civs could be a fun way to play.
Even more, I didnât test it though, the monk can use relic to convert unit, so if you convert the vills of enemy, they should serve as a vill of their civ, not mine, and he should be able to build building of their civ. This can provide much fun for meme player!
This is a mechenism that donât break the game but provide fun for some. And it make sense too.
You should patch it, but make it an option for custom games, because it seems like something that could be quite enjoyable to play around with, being able to merge civs and stuff.
Because in fact it is a bug. During testing most of my english buildings started to disappear in imperial age and got replaced by pink âtexture missingâ cubes. Some english villagers completely bugged out when tasked to shoot something with their bow. Selecting a HRE villager group with one english villager in it makes you unable to build anything until you remove the english villager from that group (selection panel does not work, you have to manually click).
Basically the only thing that reliably works is the tech stacking, which is the bad aspect of this bug. It also can circumvent entire aspects of civ limitations, like mongols suddenly able to gather stone, making it an auto win civ again.
It is buggy as hell and needs to be either improved or removed.
Of course you guys have the last word, but if I may, donât patch it. Is it really an OP thing? For this to happen competitively, it has to be at least a 2v2 game, where one player ends up in 1v2. Do you think that, in competitive play, the 1 player vs the 2 has possibilities?? Not really. So let the 2 others have fun with mixed civs. It wonât alter the inevitable conclusion. I donât see how this can be exploited in competitive settings.
Oh and if it were the other way around where the 1 player starts mixing up civs, he cannot go beyond 200 pop, and his or her APM would have to be far superior to the enemiesâ in order for this to actually mean something. And even if that happens, the other 2 players were already alerted about the possibility of troops from that other civ anyway, so it wonât really matter too much in practice, I would say.
Would not be too sure on that, a mongol player gathering stone can literally spam you with units and research all enhanced techs at once. A Delhi player can circumvent the entire early game tech time by paying for the other factions techs and later switching to free tech research. A HRE player can boost his entire navy with relics while fielding a french navy.
Nope. How much time do you think he can survive against 2 players?? No way a player can comfortably play 2 civs against comparable peers. No way. Just not possible.
You donât have to manage 2 civs, just use their bonuses to enhance your civ and rush one enemy. A mongol player gathering stone faster can always build 2 units.
And as mentioned this also works against enemies, so taking out one player in a 4v4 can completely decide the game if one enemy decides to take control of a defeated ally.
Would have to see it, but I still bet that, in practice, this means very little. Surely if one player is significantly better than the rest, perhaps. But still, say 4v4 as you state: One player is beaten, so it is 4v3. 99% of the time, the 3 will lose. It is not like the 3 are about to win, and suddenly the enemy now has 2 civs and overturn the result. No way, no how. Once the first player got beaten, 99% of the time means the defeat of the entire team.
Are you spectating games? Saw multiple 4v4 where one player got eliminated, but the other team was able to sneak attack one enemy making it a 3v3. I even had it come down to a 1v1 sometimes, which happens when the teams are perfectly balanced.
Giving the winning side more momentum with this bug completely seals the game as soon as the first player is out of the game.
Like I said, seeing is believing, but I bet I wonât see. I bet this has little impact, if any in practice. More so when players stabilize in the ladder. Right now it is possible that TGâs are being match to unfairly. And even so, it is an interesting mechanic to have. See glass half full: Bummer, in TGâs if one team loses a player, their fate is sealed. But with this, we never know. More interesting for more uneven matches, but then again, I bet this means nothing among players of the same caliber.
