Cutting Off Territories?

[zerosum]

I have not attacked another player yet (or defended). But I'm starting to think about territory strategy.

Let's say player "A" has a castle and a string of five single territories with no other territories.
[C12345]
If player "B" takes territory "3", does player "A" lose control of territory 4 and 5? I assume yes.

Now let's say player "A" has a castle, a string of five single territories and a Fort
with no other territories
[C12345F]
If player "B" takes territory "3", does player "A" lose control of territory 4, 5 and the Fort? Again, I assume yes. Would be extreamly damaging assuming the Fort then automatically reverts to a wild territory.

So it is probably important to have more than one "string" of territories connecting other important territories.

[marsofearth]

I do not believe your logic holds for the rules of this game since abandoning a land within the middle of a strip of controlled lands will not render the lands no longer continuously connected to the CITY abandoned.

[zerosum]

Good test (abandonment). I'll give that a try.

[Embodiment]

Logic is wrong. If you attack another territory controlled by another player within a string they just lose, assuming you win, that territory.

[Ryogen]

Territory don't have to be connected.

[Exovian]

its only have to connect when you building it then you can abondon it to keep your Reign

and

base cannot be taken over like the castle

[zerosum]

Yep. I abandon a territory in the middle of a string and I still kept control of the disconnected string.

So much for that strategy

[DeathMan]

its only have to connect when you building it then you can abondon it to keep your Reign

and

base cannot be taken over like the castle

Castles can be taken over???

[Embodiment]

Castles can be taken over???

Nope, only raided with a chance to loot some crystals.

[DeathMan]

Nope, only raided with a chance to loot some crystals.

That's what I thought. Maybe he meant towers rather than castles.