We can even send you the replay, you'll see how much less troops Matt had in that game.
It just required +5 builders and +1 stone quarry.
So what's the problem here? He has less troops than the others, but he has towers. So that's a trade off. Just think of towers as stationary troops. You made lots of normal troops, he made lots of towers. Either way you can both defend yourself against attacks. Your strategy is more risky, if you lose your troops then your village can be overrun. Matt's tactics are safer, if he loses his troops he still has some static defences left, but there's a tradeoff because he can't play so aggressively, can't help his allies as much and can't take as much territory. It's all tradeoffs and tech choices. You seem to think towers are not a valid tactic/choice, so I think you should just play without towers once we have the mutators implemented. As Krom said, what's the fun if you build for 1 hour then only fight for 10 minutes? Towers allow longer games, sieges, capturing territory, etc. It's much more varied and interesting than 1 hour of building and 10 minutes of fighting until one side loses. You don't have to like this style of play, and in that case you should play without towers if you want only 10 minutes of fighting.
Now if you had said Matt had the same number of troops as those who did not build towers, THEN I would agree there's a problem. But you said he had considerably less, so that balances it because he made towers instead of troops
But hey since everybody is equal here I'll just call my grandma and the rest of the family, I'll explain it to them, and they will share their oppinion because their oppinion is AS IMPORTANT AS EVERYBODY ELSE.
You could, but they wouldn't be able to provide convincing arguments because they don't know the game, so nobody hear would agree with their opinions. They wouldn't be able to respond logically to counterarguments, they wouldn't be able to provide evidence. Whereas YOU should be able to do these things because you say you say you are experienced. I personally haven't seen evidence of anything that looks like a problem to me, To's screenshot shows that you need to empty 5 towers before you can attack, and that Matt chose to make towers instead of troops, but it looks like it didn't pay off for him because he's surrounded by soldiers. So maybe next time he should try a few less towers and a few more troops. Where's the problem in all this? Making towers instead of troops is a choice, and it's not going to pay off if you spam lots of towers, there's a balance between towers and troops that is most effective.
I also don't think you've answered my counterarguments effectively. This forum is for debating, providing evidence, countering arguments. That's how you get people to understand your point of view, not by saying "what I wrote is right because I'm experienced."
We're talking about balancing the game, for every style of game, and not for optimising our style of game.
If towers only kill 1-2 units out of 5 stones then the game will be very badly balanced for people who like to be able to defend their villages with some towers, have sieges, and play a game that lasts longer than 10 minutes after peacetime ends. A lot of people here seem to like these styles of game. So how is it balanced for every style of game? I really do think you're just optimising it for a game with no sieges, where a player who wins a fight with just 6 units left can defeat his opponent by marching past the towers which won't kill them and destroying his barracks, and where there's no opportunity for more than one battle after peacetime, and no chance to quickly build up a new army after losing most of your first one. With weak towers your village is a big open door, people can just waltz in with only a few units and destroy you. With strong towers you need to have a reasonable number of soldiers before you can move in.
Maybe you don't find it fun to have to deal with enemy towers at all. Personally I like it, trapping your enemy inside his village, expanding your village to capture more resources across the map, building up an army then executing a massive attack that breaks through his defences. I think that's fun. Sure it's not the same as tactical combat where troops are the only important aspect, but IMO it's another aspect of KaM that is fun. If you don't think that's fun and want troops to be the only important aspect, play without towers. We're not going to make towers very weak just because you only like to play with troops, not towers. That's your choice, don't force it upon everyone else.
It's like the food change, some people don't like it because they enjoyed playing without food playing a noticeable role in the game. We got a lot of complaints about it when the RC was first released, including from a number of experienced players. But now everybody seems to be used to it. People will always complain about changes because their old strategies need adapting. People who don't like hunger can play with it disabled as a mutator. People who don't like towers can play with them disabled.
But yes, what I think is wrong about your argument?
Here it's like about what you want, your style of game.
What is this link supposed to be showing? I don't understand.
(having even 5/5 hit chance), but as we know... Who were PRO back then?
