What's the reason for capturing or destroying the Command HQ?

[Alison Wunderland]

I've already tried to google (and other places) an answer. No luck.

TIA,
AB

[Insaniac]

There is none. I mean it provides a decent place to hole up militia or other crappy units.

[Alison Wunderland]

They must have some purpose, no?

There any reason to capture the buildings in open-field town assaults? Other than a hot shower and a quick nap?

[Insaniac]

Well if you are going to take buildings, first make sure they're not under artillery fire. Building destroyed while a unit is inside? That entire unit can kiss its ass goodbye. Second, if you've unlocked rank fire or platoon fire, don't put units that can rank or platoon fire in the buildings, they lose firepower. Units that you should put in buildings are units where only the first rank fires. Think along the lines of Janissaries, Militias, etc. They don't lose any firepower, they get a bit of extra morale, and they get cover.

[Raptor]

Originally posted by Kumelowski:

Well if you are going to take buildings, first make sure they're not under artillery fire. Building destroyed while a unit is inside? That entire unit can kiss its ass goodbye. Second, if you've unlocked rank fire or platoon fire, don't put units that can rank or platoon fire in the buildings, they lose firepower. Units that you should put in buildings are units where only the first rank fires. Think along the lines of Janissaries, Militias, etc. They don't lose any firepower, they get a bit of extra morale, and they get cover.

What he said. Also units in a building can't be attacked by cavalry. Also in a 2 or 3 story building, they will get a slight range advantage because they are higher, which makes them good choices for light infantry.

[Alison Wunderland]

I understand what you're both saying here, so I didn't express my question properly. If "The Game" has some rationale for having buildings that can be captured or destroyed, I haven't figured out what it is. I've captured all the buildings in a couple of open towns and didn't see any obvious advantage. I've destroyed the HQ in fortifications and didn't notice any effect either.

I don't normally charge cross the landscape to take a town, I simply kill or rout everyone, and I don't need to enter a fort to take the city, so these buildings seem to be a novel but useless feature, because in both cases they don't appear to affect the outcome.

[Raptor]

You are absolutley correct. They have no strategic value, besides protecting your troops from musket fire.

[Eat3n]

Originally posted by Anonymous Bosch:

I understand what you're both saying here, so I didn't express my question properly. If "The Game" has some rationale for having buildings that can be captured or destroyed, I haven't figured out what it is. I've captured all the buildings in a couple of open towns and didn't see any obvious advantage. I've destroyed the HQ in fortifications and didn't notice any effect either.

I don't normally charge cross the landscape to take a town, I simply kill or rout everyone, and I don't need to enter a fort to take the city, so these buildings seem to be a novel but useless feature, because in both cases they don't appear to affect the outcome.

If i had to venture a guess i'd say the buildings/open towns are more for strategic use as a screen. In an open field the enemy cannons can shoot you fairly easy. With a town or buildings in the way not so much.

[Alison Wunderland]

If i had to venture a guess i'd say the buildings/open towns are more for strategic use as a screen. In an open field the enemy cannons can shoot you fairly easy. With a town or buildings in the way not so much.

Yes, but there are plenty of other buildings that don't have access and they serve as screens just as well.

(Still puzzled)