Countering builders emptying towers

[Krom]

It would have been funnier to keep this change secret up until RC, to let players that rely on this unfair strategy discover it by surprise

[Lewin]

It would have been funnier to keep this change secret up until RC, to let players that rely on this unfair strategy discover it by surprise

Haha, I didn't think of that. But quite a lot of people read our Google Code changes so I think the news would have spread quickly through TeamSpeak and other places.

[Bence791]

Awesome idea! I mean the solution

[pawel95]

Haha, I didn't think of that. But quite a lot of people read our Google Code changes so I think the news would have spread quickly through TeamSpeak and other places.

Exactly

[Ben]

Towers are going to be even more overpowered now...

But I do like this change. I, myself, never liked this unethical tactic

[The Dark Lord]

Towers are just as powerful as they used to be and should be. The fact that you considered them less powerful before shows how broken and abusive 'builder rush' was.

[pawel95]

I agree. Towers are perfect now. In the RC before they were to underpowered(in comparing with TPR)

[Ben]

Towers are just as powerful as they used to be and should be. The fact that you considered them less powerful before shows how broken and abusive 'builder rush' was.

Nah, I don't believe so. I never (well, almost never. I did do it once or twice ) used a builder rush. Lately, I've been building many towers. With the right placement, 12 towers can be a crazy strong defence, and it's not hard to do it in 60 minutes. 20 laborers aren't that effective against this.

Anyway, towers are, without doubt, too powerful in the long game. by 1:20, one could have so many towers, it isn't even funny. Games that last to 2:00 could have, literally, hundreds of towers on them if people abused them. Most players aren't low enough to do it, but it is possible.

[Siegfried]

But towers are the only defensive building. Troops take a long time to make, so there needs to be an easy way to defend.
There are good counters to a tower-camper. As in every RTS the camper spends too many resources on defending, so you can counter this with a enormous army of cheap units - also known as "the rush(tm)".

[Ben]

As in every RTS the camper spends too many resources on defending, so you can counter this with a enormous army of cheap units - also known as "the rush(tm)".

Wrong.

In the long game, 3 timber and 2 stone is nothing, just as the time needed to make the tower. In 1 hour, 45 minutes, I could easily make 40+ towers. That is way too many. If the enemy attacks you where he has to go through 25 towers, and each tower kills 3 units, that's 75 units! If the towers are reloaded at all, that is even more. Don't say that "Players can just counter towers with militia." Well, they can if they have already won the game, (That is, militia rush to just end the game) but not if the game is undecided. In the end, towers will just lead to defensive playstyles being too strong and they will drag out games.

In shortgames/ rushes, I don't have a problem with towers. In long games...there is a problem.

Also, many RTS games, there is a strong limit on how many defensive buildings one can place. In Age of Empires 1, 2, and Empire Earth, this was done by making stone the rarest and most limited resource on the map. In Age of Empires 3, this was done by limiting how many players a player can make (I don't like this artificial limitation, but that's beside the point). In KaM, timber in unlimited, and stone isn't a problem. Towers can be spammed like crazy.

I'd also like to mention a game I played recently. I screwed up big time (6 soldiers by 60 minutes). By 50 minutes, I realized that I wasn't going to be able to have a good army, so I started spamming towers. By 60 minutes, I had about 10 towers. Even though my enemy played much better (probably about 20 swords by 60 minutes), he still lost to me because of a tower rush.

[Krom]

Also, many RTS games, there is a strong limit on how many defensive buildings one can place. In Age of Empires 1, 2, and Empire Earth, this was done by making stone the rarest and most limited resource on the map. In Age of Empires 3, this was done by limiting how many players a player can make (I don't like this artificial limitation, but that's beside the point). In KaM, timber in unlimited, and stone isn't a problem. Towers can be spammed like crazy.

I'm not sure there are that many games with such limitations (WC, SC, C&C, RA, Generals, Settlers, etc)

I'd also like to mention a game I played recently. I screwed up big time (6 soldiers by 60 minutes). By 50 minutes, I realized that I wasn't going to be able to have a good army, so I started spamming towers. By 60 minutes, I had about 10 towers. Even though my enemy played much better (probably about 20 swords by 60 minutes), he still lost to me because of a tower rush.

This is interesting, so you could counter the offence from amateur player (only 20 swords) and win the game by better tactics. Would it be better if you had lost?

[Siegfried]

Ben, you don't mention your map surrounding. If you play on a map with one single narrow entrance, than of course camping is easy and you'll have to fight through all 50 towers. But that's a bullshit-map anyways.

In better maps you have several and broad entrances. So you don't have to fight through all 50 towers to get access to the base and destray the enemy economy. Many maps have at least 2 entrances that are at double the range of a tower. So you'll have to pass maybe 13 towers losing 40 units. The enemy had to spend 100 timber and some hunderds of stone, not to mention the serfs, 50 recruits or the time needed.

It's hard to further draw comparisons here because we first needed to agree on an environmental setup. It depends heavily on the map you're playing. But don't accuse KaM with towers being too defensive when you're playing a defensive map.

[Ben]

Ben, you don't mention your map surrounding. If you play on a map with one single narrow entrance, than of course camping is easy and you'll have to fight through all 50 towers. But that's a bullshit-map anyways.

Wrong again. I considered many maps when I wrote that post; along with other factors that you did not consider.

In 1v1, the long game probably won't happen anyway since the rush is so much stronger. In teamgames, you are likely to have fewer entrances to your base. Think about it: Back in the Desert: 1-2 ways in for most locations, The Final Frontier: 1-2, Western Desert: 1, The Same Rocks: 1-2, Cursed Ravine: 1. And with 40 towers, you don't need to consider the "maps surroundings."

Here is a picture of tower abuse on a very wide open entrance. If I can do this in 60 minutes, think of what a good player could do in 1:45

[Siegfried]

I considered many maps when I wrote that post; along with other factors that you did not consider.

Then tell me them.

[Ben]

In 1v1, the long game probably won't happen anyway since the rush is so much stronger. In teamgames, you are likely to have fewer entrances to your base. Think about it: Back in the Desert: 1-2 ways in for most locations, The Final Frontier: 1-2, Western Desert: 1, The Same Rocks: 1-2, Cursed Ravine: 1. And with 40 towers, you don't need to consider the "maps surroundings."

Anyway, I see that there is no convincing you. You believe what you want and your not changing your idea, so I'm not going to pester you anymore, nor will I blow this topic up with my posts.