Tower issue - Suggestion discussion

[EDMatt]

I really think this is not a good solution against towers, there has to be a better way.

What is "a better way" in your opinion ?

Also Please look at PIctures taht Romek posted, and explain to me how my arguments are invalid .

[dicsoupcan]

as awnser to romek his screenshots i posted the improvised defenses that will likely pop up, since catapults cannot harm anything except towers people will start blocking entrances and defend one entrance normalyl so they can still mobilize their armies fast. I have alternative solution of my own yet, but there has to be a beter alternative.

[EDMatt]

as awnser to romek his screenshots i posted the improvised defenses that will likely pop up, since catapults cannot harm anything except towers people will start blocking entrances and defend one entrance normalyl so they can still mobilize their armies fast. I have alternative solution of my own yet, but there has to be a beter alternative.

In my opinion there is no harm in testing Catapults that shoot all buildings vs catapults that can only shoot towers.

[dicsoupcan]

You can try to test it, but i do not think that it removes the problem but instead removes one problem and adds another. I really want to hear how exactly catapults can help counter towers without making them useless.

[EDMatt]

You can try to test it, but i do not think that it removes the problem but instead removes one problem and adds another. I really want to hear how exactly catapults can help counter towers without making them useless.

For me to answer your question we must first raise another question, What is the function of towers and how do most people use them/rely on them?

As I see it from your gameplay and from other peoples gameplay such as To and Mullberry, they rely on towers to take down 30-15 units of the enemy team while blocking them and preventing them from getting into a good position. That is OP , and without mentioning that those towers are refillable.

in comparison to catapults who should counter towers quite nicely by doing around 25 damage to a tower/structure.

and dont you already think that towers are already so power so much that catapult countering towers like this is quite a nice turn of events?
Just like horse being expensive and extremely useful while having a complete counter (pike). and still horse is not rendered to be completely useless.

[dicsoupcan]

First of all thanks for the personal attack, i appreciate it. Secondly if you watched the gameplay right we do not use a towerspam as a strategy in order to win, you can easily destroy one tower and a safe opening pops up for your troops to move in, also you can still easily empty towers by using militia so the actual powerufll forces acn move in. I have no idea why such situations suddenly become a problem, but my gues is that you cannot builderrush anymore. If someone spams mass towers that is posing a problem, but on the other hand he pays the price of lacking economy. the guys who build a good economy with a few towers are not considered a problem in my opinion.

now let me ask yuo again, how exactly are catapults making a good balance in the game without making towers useless?

[EDMatt]

First of all thanks for the personal attack, i appreciate it. Secondly if you watched the gameplay right we do not use a towerspam as a strategy in order to win, you can easily destroy one tower and a safe opening pops up for your troops to move in, also you can still easily empty towers by using militia so the actual powerufll forces acn move in. I have no idea why such situations suddenly become a problem, but my gues is that you cannot builderrush anymore. If someone spams mass towers that is posing a problem, but on the other hand he pays the price of lacking economy. the guys who build a good economy with a few towers are not considered a problem in my opinion.

now let me ask yuo again, how exactly are catapults making a good balance in the game without making towers useless?

Your points are invalid.

Tower costs very cheap and only requires 5 serfs. I can build a massive base while spamming towers rather easily .
and according to you "tyou can easily destroy one tower and a safe opening pops up", Please look at Romeks picture and show me how easily this is done.
The militia will most likely only empty 1 or 2 stones before they all die.
therefor your points are invalid in my point of view

[dicsoupcan]

if you cramp up that much towers on such a small space you can easily empty more then 2 stones using 1 militia, since more tower trhow their stones at him. in the best case you might even waste 7 stones from the enemy per militia, so i still do not see a problem. The screenshots romek has shown are already quite closed spaces so it is already easy to defend if you have mass units there, towers do not really add that mcuh extra to it. and there are more entrances to attack or defend soif one entrance has many towers the other most likely will not since he does not expect an attack there.

It is just as easy to barricade something instead of making towers so a catapult will not exactly help here.

[EDMatt]

if you cramp up that much towers on such a small space you can easily empty more then 2 stones using 1 militia, since more tower trhow their stones at him. in the best case you might even waste 7 stones from the enemy per militia, so i still do not see a problem. The screenshots romek has shown are already quite closed spaces so it is already easy to defend if you have mass units there, towers do not really add that mcuh extra to it. and there are more entrances to attack or defend soif one entrance has many towers the other most likely will not since he does not expect an attack there.

It is just as easy to barricade something instead of making towers so a catapult will not exactly help here.

Capture.PNG

This is a nice example, let us analyze, attacker has twice the amount of range. and militia that will storm the towers, maximum he will waste maybe 5 stone at best before dying like a fly.
There is no possibility to attack the place because of the deep tower position , no matter what you do it is suicide to attack and simply because of the towers .
THERE IS NOTHING that the player can do to successfully attack with least amount of casualties even though he has more range units, and melee.

This is a typical situation where towers will save your ass, and you cannot do anything about it.
and there arent even many in this picture, imagine if there was 3 or 4 towers that were deeper in the town. and let us not forget that you wil never get vision within the defenders base unless you commit to attack.

[dicsoupcan]

You can destroy the towers with bowmen attack his allies, force him to attack you because of hunger. There are things you can do, and as i mentioned before those spaces on the screenshots are defensive already so the attacker already needs more numbers to attack. It is not the fault of the towers. If you have an open space it is impossible to defend that with towers so in my opimion the towers are not op and there is no need to make them completely useless.

[Debaron]

For what it's worth, I do dislike the camping and defensive play and think it should have at least a bit more risk. Having a rather expensive catapult as a counter for too many towers, which doesn't deal much damage to other units seems like a great solution to me. I think it's at least worth trying out. I agree crossbowmen take too long.

[Siegfried]

I feel like in every topic you bring a nice set of questions to challenge ones suggestions , and often enough rightly so. I will try to answer your questions .

Thanks for taking my questions serious. I asked because I have a light feeling that the towers are not the main cause of the problems described.

when one encounters a line of towers, it usually means that he would have to tower dive to see what is behind the towers, and if there is range on the frontline such as on romeks post (picture that he attached) , it is impossible to send 1 or 2 militia to scout it and so you are forced to tower dive or try to micro your way through to destroy the tower which will be very difficult

keep in mind that you have no idea what is behind the towers, as there could be more towers, so basically player A Made a good move and defeated many soldiers and is forced to give the advantage away by sending the extra soldiers that he has left over to the towers to equalize the situation and often enough it is crippling his army, more so if there is another line of towers behind , player A has an advantage and is forced to give it away.

This is so very true. The towers are used as a first attack line, not just a defending building. That is a problem and that should be adressed.

But there is one more question that arises to me.
You mentioned the Romeks screenshot. Just imagine for one second: what would change if each tower would be replaced by a 3x3 squad of pikemen or knights? Let's assume, player B still sits at his place, not planning any attack. Would it be easier to attack now?

I am asking this, because I think it would not be easier. You would encounter the same amount of losses as with towers. You still cannot flank them, so if you want to attack, you have to run into it. It probably feels better so have a fight between armies than seeing your troops dying because of a soulless building. But the effect would be the same.

So I conclude, that the problems come from the fact, that kam is a defensive game. The defender has the advantage that his archers shot first. Always. The attacker has a disadvantage, regardless of towers of units.


But, of course, there is one thing that is defferent between towers and a line of knights - the cost. A 3x3 squad of knights is harder to produce than a tower. So maybe that's the point where we should work on. Make the tower more expensive. Let it need 3 bars of iron for construction.

[pawel95]

So I conclude, that the problems come from the fact, that kam is a defensive game. The defender has the advantage that his archers shot first. Always. The attacker has a disadvantage, regardless of towers of units.

Well thats nearly in ever Strategy game like this and also in reality, why the defender shouldnt have an advantage.

Like you already mentioned you cant compare knights with towers, while Knights are like the most expensive troops
The problem is that often you see bad players/beginners that have like 1/4 the army of you but have like 20 towers, because of the small costs. So everyone is able to rush many of them. The best possibility to counter that are the catapults, because you havent any other ways to stop towerspaming/place towers at bridges. The only problems that a towerspammer could have:
-Run out of stone
-No food for recruits

However you won´t find one single player who has no stone on these mp maps from today and when someone has like no army but many towers,he also hasnt often foodproblems. So there is like 0 "punishment" for the defender.
I don´t agree to your point to increase the Towercosts for sth like 3 ironbars or sth like that.
There is also no point to set sth like a "max. tower/player setting" (There were already discussions about a mutator or so), because it depends from map to map. Until you need like on GoldenCliffs bottom-right corner lets say 8 towers at least(playing top vs bottom), the same number of towers on cursed ravine would make it impossible to attack this player. SO I can´t see any normal way to get out of this problem really.
Btw the siege on TPR was implemented to have a strong support and get a little boost for the attackers. They were OP because they could kill like 3 units at one hit, but the idea to destroy only towers/buildings with that is no way, not to try it in my eyes. I still think, that the defender should have a little advantage in comparison to the attacker, but not that big like it actualy is

[EDMatt]

I feel like in every topic you bring a nice set of questions to challenge ones suggestions , and often enough rightly so. I will try to answer your questions .

Thanks for taking my questions serious. I asked because I have a light feeling that the towers are not the main cause of the problems described.

when one encounters a line of towers, it usually means that he would have to tower dive to see what is behind the towers, and if there is range on the frontline such as on romeks post (picture that he attached) , it is impossible to send 1 or 2 militia to scout it and so you are forced to tower dive or try to micro your way through to destroy the tower which will be very difficult

keep in mind that you have no idea what is behind the towers, as there could be more towers, so basically player A Made a good move and defeated many soldiers and is forced to give the advantage away by sending the extra soldiers that he has left over to the towers to equalize the situation and often enough it is crippling his army, more so if there is another line of towers behind , player A has an advantage and is forced to give it away.

This is so very true. The towers are used as a first attack line, not just a defending building. That is a problem and that should be adressed.

But there is one more question that arises to me.
You mentioned the Romeks screenshot. Just imagine for one second: what would change if each tower would be replaced by a 3x3 squad of pikemen or knights? Let's assume, player B still sits at his place, not planning any attack. Would it be easier to attack now?

I am asking this, because I think it would not be easier. You would encounter the same amount of losses as with towers. You still cannot flank them, so if you want to attack, you have to run into it. It probably feels better so have a fight between armies than seeing your troops dying because of a soulless building. But the effect would be the same.

So I conclude, that the problems come from the fact, that kam is a defensive game. The defender has the advantage that his archers shot first. Always. The attacker has a disadvantage, regardless of towers of units.


But, of course, there is one thing that is defferent between towers and a line of knights - the cost. A 3x3 squad of knights is harder to produce than a tower. So maybe that's the point where we should work on. Make the tower more expensive. Let it need 3 bars of iron for construction.

The issue is that towers if not destroyed and are protected well after they got emptied can be refilled, not like a knight or a pike , when you fight off your area, you "spent" them or rather sacrificed them to fend off the enemy troops while towers on the opposite side kill as much as an army would and it takes nothing away from your produced army,.

So I conclude, that the problems come from the fact, that kam is a defensive game. The defender has the advantage that his archers shot first. Always. The attacker has a disadvantage, regardless of towers of units.

That is not the case in field with no towers or even some passages that have no towers deep inside as you can lead with horse or a few of them to take the first blow of enemy arrows while moving with foot soldiers to catch the main melee and bringing your range to shoot the enemy footsolders, at this stage you can then back out with your horse and anticipate an opening for clever flanking.

I guess towers is a strategy that should be allowed and catapults can be a nice counter strategy, and I don't see anything wrong with countering towers or at least being able to counter it.

[EDMatt]

You can destroy the towers with bowmen attack his allies, force him to attack you because of hunger. There are things you can do, and as i mentioned before those spaces on the screenshots are defensive already so the attacker already needs more numbers to attack. It is not the fault of the towers. If you have an open space it is impossible to defend that with towers so in my opimion the towers are not op and there is no need to make them completely useless.

I am so glad to hear that a counter of towers is waiting for hunger. But also in open space, such situations can also be created, have you not seen my towers on location 1 back in the desert? I haven't seen anyone ever successfully go through my 20 towers ever whenever I spammed towers, and keep in mind that field is quite open. quite an optimistic point.

Also keep in mind dicsoup that this is a 1v1 situation I are referring to.