Knights and Merchants.net Forum

Hello,

Here is a screen of an actual game we played the other day showing the 2 biggest problems imo.
1. Massing only lancers and crossbows.
2. Some serious towers abuse.



We discussed the 1st point in another topic so lets talk about towers. With the new food changes it's impossible to train as many troops like we did in the current release. And with towers being too good again it's almost impossible to win against tower spammers. First of all I think it's no fun to break through, I think the battle should be vs. troops instead of vs. towers. Because the spammer has less troops then you have it's easy for him to train more troops after peacetime while his towers protect him from being attacked at all. While you lose troops in an atempt to break through he just camps and trains more troops to counterattack you when you lost most of your troops. I think skill is based on what a player can achieve in peacetime. With towers being this good you get longer games so people with less skill only have to camp inside their base and as a result buy themselves more time taking away the need for a peacetime imo. You might think that people spam towers in the current release because when towers are not that good you need many of them. Yes it sounds logic but in fact it's the other way around. Now I see players build more towers then ever because they are overpowered and prevent them from being attacked at all. So in fact the offensive player is punished for taking initiative now. So the situation is created where people are encouraged to camp insight their base till someone attacks them. I remember when I started to play the remake I used to build only towers to prevent players from scouting me. Nowadays towers are abused because they are simply too good (while still cheap) so players use things like a builderrush which we also dislike but thats exactly what happens if towers are spammed. Since some of you don't like the idea to put a limit on towers (or maybe even better; create a building radius for them) the problem isn't solved. Some people also say that players who build towers waste their time and resources so it's easy to defeat them because they can't focus on more troops. I disagree because first of all they can set up their weapon production and then spam towers WHILE producing weapons at the same time. About wasting resources, can you compare some stones and timber (towers) to iron and coal (troops)? Not only are resources for towers less worth but they also take way less time to be produced. Towers need stone from the quarry, that's all. To create a single swordman (for instance) you need 10 coal, 3 iron ore and 1 goldore processed in all buildings involved so not only are the resources more worth but it also takes way more time. In other words it's logic that people rather spam towers then training more troops. To take it even a step further I think towers don't fit the rock/paper/scissor system used in KaM since 1 stone can kill the swordmen. To conclude I say towers are usefull but the fact that they are spammed takes away balance/skill level and fun for me and result in unnecessary long games. Luckely many people agree towers are overpowered so hopefully we see it fixed in the near future.

To

Yeah but I think, the towers setting is now nearly optimum. The tower shoots not to less and not to often a unit,which is going/running.

There was a idea for a mutator or other thing to "SET MAX. Towers" for each player. This would be great. So the host could choose in bigger map: max.10 tower/in smaller map:max. 5 towers and this problem with the tower-spammers would be away.



pawel95

Yea since the improvement some players really like spamming towers which indeed takes away a lot of the fun. We didn't even try to get through it (possible with teams). I also agree with your point that towers are too strong now when used like this.

Towers look fine on that pic, who is this player who spammed those towers?

I agree with towers being overpowered, something like a max limit is badly needed.

i still think my idea of a radius between towers is better.

@ Pawel95: I don't know how time consuming it is to implement something like that but if it could be realized I would host many games again I think

I've considered to disable towers on my maps but in the end thats not the right solution either. Lewin, is it an idea to create a new command in the editor to allow mapmakers to limit towers on their maps? Lets say no more then 10. I don't know if it's possible but this would also solve the problem.

No i think the idea, which I have written here is better, because a player can choose.
If he want 6 towers make at 30m², or 6 towers for 6 exits, thats his problem and decission, i think.



pawel95

Well considering that radius is a direct solution for all maps, amount of towers will give the same result, but requires a lot of work.

Especially in team games, I don't see a problam at all. Let him make towers, he just wastes his time and resources if you attack a different player with less towers. As you said you will have more troops so if he comes to rescue his ally you can still beat up his army.
Building so many towers is an achievement as well. I dislike the tactic too, but it's something people can choose for.
That's exactly what I just wrote. Sure they can set up weapon production first and then spam towers. But you can make +10 woodcutters and a lot of sawmills and start spamming militia. Obviously it depends on the map, but on the image you posted it's not at all required to empty every single tower.
That's why you don't send in these units in front...

Personally I don't think towers are overpowered at all, I think they are just about right now. They finally do their job with more accuracy. I don't need 5 towers anymore to stop a scout from sneaking into my town, which was extremely frustrating.
I only see frustrated players who didn't manage to get through the wall of towers.

I like the accuracy of the towers, they are just fine now :p

I agree with The Green Lord. Towers are OK with average effectiveness-> 3/5 stones hit (my tests results).

Sending a wave of militias/spears/workers first, is enough to activate some and go through... Anyway it would be nice to shoot them down with many archers (I hope they get their attack rate faster, from 1.8 to 1.5 secs).

And it is true, that you should pass through his weakest side, not activate all towers.
At least 1 half of towers will be useless (if you avoid them). Players are afraid because looks impressive, but actually isn't.

Tower spamm will be a problem on certain maps or in 1v1 and even in 2v2. It is quite dangerous when you play against an equal player really. Almost none of those towers was completely filled though.

I could have walked through it. 170 lancers, but you just lose too much.

I agree with The Dark Lord, towers are good now. All those towers in the screenshot take a long time to build, during that time you could make maybe 5 woodcutters, 2 sawmills and 2 weapons workshops. Maybe more. Towers are only OP if you just sit there doing nothing while he builds then. Ok, so he has a small weapon production behind his towers, but while he's building his towers, you build a weapons production 3x larger and then march through his towers with cheap units like militia/lance carriers. The impact on your economy of spamming towers is massive, the labourers are all busy for ages, the serfs have to fill them up because they're usually quite a long way. You'll need more serfs if you still want other stuff to be delivered while the towers fill up, that requires more food. You'll need recruits for the towers, that also requires more food. This all greatly reduces the amount of weapons production you can build compared to a player who doesn't spam towers.

In that screenshot you can avoid most of the towers anyway. If you go along the bridge and straight up you'll pass 7 towers are the absolute most (probably less). If you go along the far right edge of the map you'll only pass 5 towers at most. So if you march through both of those positions with militia you'll lose maybe 40 at most (counting for the fact that he'll be shooting you and killing some), then follow the militia up with your archers to kill his archers.

Sure, if you march right through the middle of his defence past every tower then you'll lose a massive amount. But if you go around the edges, attack from multiple positions at once, or just attack his allies instead, what's he going to do about your army that's 2x larger than his?

Each tower kills about 3 units, and when they are packed together it's more like 2 units if you rush them, because they target the same guy again and again. So 5 towers take 10-15 militia, maybe 20 militia once you count for the fact that they'll be shooting your militia with archers while you charge. So he spent 10 minutes building towers to kill 20 militia, that doesn't sound at all overpowered. Once those towers are empty you just march in with the rest of your force (which will be much bigger than his) and crush him. But as The Dark Lord says, unless all players on his team tower spammed you can usually find an easy way in, and then all his towers that he spent so long making are useless

Maybe on some maps with really narrow entrances tower spam is annoying. For example on Lake Wololo if the entire bridge is filled up with towers you're in for a long game of cat and mouse. But if you're playing on a map like that, you're expecting a long game of cat and mouse anyway. I don't see how tower spam is a problem in a map like Dead of Winter when there are so many alternative ways into the player's village.

In 1vs1 then tower spam will delay you a bit, but I don't see why that's a problem. KaM is more than just "build for 1 hour then the player with the largest army wins". If you have a slightly smaller force, without towers the enemy can beat you and win instantly. But towers give you a bit of extra time to build your force up. It makes the game more dynamic and interesting. If you have a battle with all your soldiers and one player survives with say 6 lance carriers, without towers they have basically won, they can march into your village and sit in front of your barracks. I've had this happen to me and I don't see the fun in that. It's game over as soon as one player wins by a small amount. Unless they won by a significant amount they should be delayed a bit while they counter the towers, to give you a chance to rebuild.

However towers you can make in PT. If you are not ready after 60 min with your army, you have more time to complete your army, because you have spamed towers. The enemy´s soldiers maybe will die, and the Spamer will win. This is the problem I see it. Soldiers you cant make in PT, but towers you can. So if you make about 30 bowmen, which destroy one tower in(i think) about 2 minuts, the enemy will build one half-one new tower and have more time to make more soldiers?!
And rushing with labours is nice, but not professional/realistic (for me). Except that you are bad King

pawel95

I don't see the problem with making towers and less troops during pt. That's a choice, towers are like troops that you can't move.

And you say they can make their army after pt, well so can the non-spammer. So he'll end up with a much bigger army. The spammer has a small army and some towers, that sounds balanced to me. If the spammer made crossbowmen instead of towers that would be a similar result, they still kill enemies from a distance. But nobody complains about crossbowmen campers.