A threatening question

[sleepyjer]

Are camps always threatenable if there are no opposing forces?

[Pfendi]

Same as villages, towns, MT and cities.

Some people say that camps are more unpredictable, but still the same basic rules are at work.

Pfendi

[Pearly]

And attempting to "capture" a camp will results in destroying the camp, yes?

[Pfendi]

If you have enogh troups to be successful, you capture the camp, but as always it gets reduced by one level to ruins, so yes a capture also destroyes a camp.

Pfendi

[mgrazebrook]

I've found camp-threatening to be unpredictable. One game, I used a small-ish army to threaten camps throughout the Misty Mountains. Even at command rank 80+, my leader still often failed. But I've also seen threats work with command ranks under 40.

I have the impression upgrades and downgrades are very important. Then there's a big element of luck. If your force is smaller than it should be, it seems threats can still work - though having a stack of command artefacts helps.

[Another Darrel]

And attempting to "capture" a camp will results in destroying the camp, yes?

Yep, but capturing hurts the loyalties of all his other PC's a little bit.
Doesn't seem like much but when the first couple camps get placed with 15, 17 etc. loyalties....losing 3-4pts because the enemy captured some of your stuff can cause you to fall below 15 loyalty and then tie up some resources preventing them from degrading away.

It's not huge...but capturing camps is normally more preferable than destroy.