I have been giving some consideration to the new rules, especially the inability to take over towers and walls, and I've decided that I don't like it, for several reasons. First, it makes very little sense realistically. True, a wall is more like a terrain feature than a building, and so one could argue that it should not be able to be taken over. However, this should mean that they are neutral buildings - why should it be easier for the creator of the wall to remove that terrain feature than for anyone else to do so?
Second: Towers should be able to be taken over. They are manned structures - it just makes sense. The alternative would be to make towers neutral buildings as well, but this would weaken defenses preposterously.
And third: Regardless of how these issues work for owned buildings, abandoned (i.e. "disappearing in _ turns") walls and towers should be no different than other abandoned buildings.
In conclusion:
Walls: Remain unconquerable, possibly become "neutral".
Towers: Able to be captured (just like outposts
Abandoned: ABLE TO BE CAPTURED!

Your thoughts please.

All reasonable points. Sensible edits, to me
(yes, all of them, I'm not just saying it for a short post...)

I had a long argument about this with Req.

First any player is supposed to be able to use an unmanned tower. With the exception that to enter the castle tower you must first be inside the castle. There is currently a bug, that is why if the tower is unmanned you can't enter it.

Second I agree with you on the wall thing, if the player who built the wall is allowed to own it and tear it down at will, then another player should be able to capture it and tear it down instead of having to destroy it. Otherwise once a wall is built it should be neutral and both players should have to destroy the wall to remove it.

Third the drawbridge is not a building that should have to be destroyed. According to Req it is a manned building, which in my oppinion means you should be able to capture it. He said but you can't capture a building without damaging it and I do agree with that. But I have yet to take over a building where it didn't sustain some damage.

My suggestions, these are for unprotected buildings such as walls, towers, and drawbridges.

1. Make the buildings cost more in BP to take over. Also require it to take more damage as well. In the case of a manned building such as a drawbridge, you could give it a minor attack and defend value so when a player is attempting to capture it they take some losses to represent actually fighting and overcoming the gate guards who wont let you through. There would need to be a limit given to how long the gate guards would last, maybe a third of the buildings HP. Or when the drawbridge is built it is automatically manned be 1000 HP worth of spearmen and they have to be killed before the building can be captured.

2. A wall or a building should not be able to be removed if another player still has an existing building in direct contact with it. example 1: You have three walls built to gaurd a path, your opponent takes over the right most wall. He must capture the middle wall or destroy it before he can remove the right wall.
example 2: You give a barracks in a castle to an ally or a clan member. You then decide to tear down some of your walls in order to get more resources. As the barracks isn't touching the walls you could do it.

3. If troops are standing next to a section of connected walls, then the entire length of walls should be considered manned and cannot be captured. The troops would have to be killed before you could capture any of the wall. Or you would have to destroy a section of the wall to get through. The size of the wall wouldn't matter, it could be two hexes long or ten, as long as there were troops standing next to one of the sections the entire wall would be considered manned and uncapturable.

4. Walls, towers, and drawbridges that are part of a castle, cannot be captured as long as there are troops anywhere within the castle. As troops would theoretically be manning these walls to prevent an enemy from getting in. If the castle is empty though capturing buildings would be allowed. After all if nobody is manning the walls they can't protect them.

5. Buildings outside of a castle should be able to be captured by any troop type, just like resource buildings. There is a tech that prevents troops other than comms from capturing a castle, but comms shouldn't be required to capture unprotected buildings that aren't part of the castle. After all if there isn't anyone protecting it why can't a non comm unit claim it for their side. Such as marks laying claim to a tower so they can use it. As long as there isn't an enemy nearby to prevent the capture, and it isn't part of a castle they should be able to claim it.

6. A building should not be able to be removed for a full turn after it has been captured. If the building is part of a castle and the player has met the requirements of capturing the wall to either side of it, then it could be removed. Removal would only be possible though if the castle were sti

Req has said that he doesn't want the players to just sit in defense all the time. yet with this change he has given players who like to box themselves in an unfair advantage. After all to get through an opponents walls you have to either sacrifice a large number of your troops hammering away at it slowly whlie your opponent uses his ranged to kill your melee. Or give your opponent alot of turns to build a larger army while you take the time to build seige to get through the walls. In either case the defensive player is being given a huge advantage by not having to have any troops close to the walls to give you a chance to keep the forces even.

Actually, the simplest way to make defence less appetising, is simply to externalise more of the gold.

Currently, I could have, say, 3750 gold a turn.
Then a guy seizes my gold mine, and the surrounding territory. but despite the loss of all other resources, I can still hold at least 3000 a turn, field advanced troops using my stored market (inside the castle), and the cost of the new resources is much reduced due to it being later-game.

Some RTSes make th etechs into actual add-on buildings. Perhaps this would be a literal way to 'externalise' the tax tech