Tower issue - Suggestion discussion

[EDMatt]

ridculing someone's idea is a form of a personal attack, but besides that.

i think the idea has more potential then adding a unit to the game that renders the other ''unit'' useless. discouraging towerspam is a better alternative because you have to think how many towers you actually need, instead of relying on it as a shield. and if you are prepared to spam them you are prepared to pay the price for it.

U are saying it but infact kam has already got many storng units and counter units, we are all aware of them. Pike- horse is a famouse 1 where piike can render a horse useless indeed, and there are plenty more... Like any other online strategy game where offensive players and defencive players have some strong counters against eachother.

[Da Revolution]

U are saying it but infact kam has already got many storng units and counter units, we are all aware of them. Pike- horse is a famouse 1 where piike can render a horse useless indeed, and there are plenty more... Like any other online strategy game where offensive players and defencive players have some strong counters against eachother.

So we need ballista which is only able to kill swords! Counters for everything! Then we got the ultimate balance, right?

[EDMatt]

U are saying it but infact kam has already got many storng units and counter units, we are all aware of them. Pike- horse is a famouse 1 where piike can render a horse useless indeed, and there are plenty more... Like any other online strategy game where offensive players and defencive players have some strong counters against eachother.

So we need ballista which is only able to kill swords! Counters for everything! Then we got the ultimate balance, right?

Make a topic about this if you like, dont write random nonsense unless you want to develop it into an argument that can be considered as one. you are straying off.

[dicsoupcan]

Revo is right in some point though.

[Pizzaisgood]

Why cant we just test it ?

We have the graphics to do some tests ( the magically moving catapult can get fixed later when the catapult really gets added to the game ) . I think catapults are a nice idea and are worth to be tested in game. It doesn´t mean they have to be added to the game. If the result of catapults will be that towers are completely useless , then i can agree on rebalancing or deleting them again .

But you have to admit that catapults can add a new nice feature to the game. Siegeweapons are a part of mostly every strategygame so why KaM shouldn´t have this feature too ? It can give more variety to the game which imo is really needed for the game. And if it doesn´t work with those catapults we can throw them in the bin again.

At the moment we have a situation where two sides have an opinion about catapults which won´t change. These oppinions are based on personal preferance and experience but by all the preferance and experience we have we can´t definately say how it will look later in the game. So any further discussions about wether adding the catapult to the game or not won´t bring us any further ... so maybe better talk about how to balance the catapults for the beta-tests and test it !
So we can have discussions based on the tests which will give a much better insight about how the catapult will really work and which impact to the game it has.

So let the endless discussion rest and go for the test

[Da Revolution]

Before even testing this it would be nice if we considered more ideas since it a tower issue suggestion discussion. I still have my doubts if it really is a problem, but okay assume it is.
Just a simple example, what will happen if you lower the hp of the tower a bit? It will still be able to counter people sneaking in, but people can kill the towers easier.

Maybe others also have suggestions because implementing/testing before serious considering other options isn't the way it should go in my opinion. This way you might skip better ideas.

[pawel95]

Ok I would make a suggestion to wait now for the first reaction of Lewin and Krom at this topic.

[dicsoupcan]

Before even testing this it would be nice if we considered more ideas since it a tower issue suggestion discussion. I still have my doubts if it really is a problem, but okay assume it is.
Just a simple example, what will happen if you lower the hp of the tower a bit? It will still be able to counter people sneaking in, but people can kill the towers easier.

Maybe others also have suggestions because implementing/testing before serious considering other options isn't the way it should go in my opinion. This way you might skip better ideas.

Might i add to this that testing every idea is time consuming for the developers and results in much wasted work is it will be done without consideration.

[EDMatt]

Before even testing this it would be nice if we considered more ideas since it a tower issue suggestion discussion. I still have my doubts if it really is a problem, but okay assume it is.
Just a simple example, what will happen if you lower the hp of the tower a bit? It will still be able to counter people sneaking in, but people can kill the towers easier.

Maybe others also have suggestions because implementing/testing before serious considering other options isn't the way it should go in my opinion. This way you might skip better ideas.

Might i add to this that testing every idea is time consuming for the developers and results in much wasted work is it will be done without consideration.

I think we all already put forward enough information regarding the catapults, let us just wait for Kroms and Lewins decisions.

[Jeronimo]

I read all, and just want to post some thoughts.

Romek's examples: The correct army to pass through those defences is axemen + archers...
It's a bit costly, but be sure to do it with a decent leather melee force (20-25 axemen is OK). His archers will go back and you go ahead, shoot eveything.
But... If there are many lines of towers , you have to advance close next to 1st tower-line (before reaching 2nd line area).
You have won good space to step forward your archers, having few melee casualties (1st towers stones mostly). Repeat process after reinforcements.

It's simple if you have the soldiers... and some brains.

Because I'd rather try to attack the less protected side, or wider entrance (if exists).
Another psychological trick, is to retreat your army to your base, encouraging your opponent to go out... then try to kill him cutting his retreating rout.
Just try not to screw it, because you will logically have the numeric advantage (survivors from 1st victory + new soldiers).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jero's Conclusion

From the vast replays I have seen, I confirm that Towers are more graphical than effective.
You often see them fail the stone, or also 2-3 targeting 1 same soldier... Towers OP is a Myth.

In any case, the best idea/solution about towers spam (only possible issue IMO) would be "tower restriction" respect a key building.
I think something like 6 Towers x 1 Storehouse -> So you must place them strategically (and build more useless storehouses if you want more defense).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I like the topic official name: Tower issue - Suggestion discussion
Warm and beautiful suggestions visit my mind, but wait!! Oh... Mrs Catapult, is that you? You look very preety

[Ben]

I have a feeling that Lewin and Krom are no longer watching this topic...

There are lots of things that would be nice to test. Revo's lowering tower hp sounds like it might be nice, but that doesn't fix that "a few towers is okay; tower mass abuse is not."

I love Seigfried's idea of making towers take away hitpoints, but I'd like a few modifications to his idea before I'd support that (maybe I'll share that later ).

Concerning catapults, maybe we could make them have an extra two or so tiles of range (in comparison to bowmen/crossbowmen) but little attack. That way, it is easier to take out towers, and people can't just watch their city get pummeled. For those who support "realism," that's the way sieges worked: The besieged couldn't just hang out forever while the enemy blockaded them or they'd starve. Sallying was essential. For gameplay purposes, you could compare this to other RTS games: Stronghold, AoK, Empire Earth, Galactic Battlegrounds, Tzar-- they all had long-range siege equipment that were used to counter terrible camping.

There, I just made yet another idea. There are just too many for Krom and Lewin to handle. Perhaps we should collect a few of the more popular ideas and put them in a poll so it is easier for the developers to see that they should focus the next RC on?

[Krom]

@Ben: That's a good thought, if you could collect the ideas named here and put them in a list with a short description of each and its pros/cons below.

IdeaA: Add catapults to counter tower spam
Pros: cat-s are returned to the game, attacker has a way to clear towers effectively
Cons: defender has less chances to fight back
Variants: cat-s range, cat-s might need stones refilled after each 1-2 towers, cat-s can only attack houses, cat-s cost, etc.

IdeaB: ...

[Esthlos]

Hi,

I have a vision of towers that perfectly fits the purpose they currently have :

-towers are the only defensive buildings in KaM
-defensive buildings are done to annoy the enemy attacking you and buy you time to fight back
-time to fight back gives you a chance to overcome the loss of the first fight and make the game winnable even when you lost the first fight in the middle
-making the game winnable even after losing the first fight is a matter of gameplay and balance
-balance is what we seek

-the attacker who won the first fight just needs to feed his army (yes I do mean making a viable economy that allows you to feed soldiers)
-feeding his army lets him have a greater army than the one who lost the fight because : he lost fewer soldiers, and he should produce more new soldiers (well, don't produce them right now otherwise food problems), and if he doesn't manage to have more soldiers even after winning the first fight, then he just didn't have a good enough economy to feed a better army
-if he doesn't have more troops he loses, if he does he has a great chance of winning, that's a matter of balance
-balance is what we seek

Basically, yes it is annoying to counter a huge amount of tower but I have several points that tend to make me think that the towers are perfect as they are now (as always, my humble opinion, that can have flaws and errors).
You say that when one lost the first fight, towers make the game winnable for this person : I don't see any problem in that. Should all the games be : 60 minutes of building -> one fight -> end ? No, in my opinion !
-if the defender manages to fight back, that might possibly mean that he focused less on the first fight and did a better economy, allowing him to overcome the enemy
-if the attacker won the first fight, he has a greater army, and if at the same time, he was good enough to have a viable economy, he's going to win, as he can afford meat shields. By the way, if he won the first fight thanks to his "micro skills", and has a good economy, then he has : more" micro skills", more troops, a better economy. I don't see what is wrong with that ! With an easy way to destroy tower it would (in my opinion) be impossible to win after losing the first fight, which would destroy KaM Multiplayer for me, as fighting 10 minutes after 60 minutes of building a city is the wrong direction to me.

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.

That's, in my opinion, the basic principle of defensive buildings : allowing you to kill more enemies than you lose troops and have a chance to fight back if you defend well and use your army efficiently. It's still very much possible to win against a defensive player if you have more army ! Especially with "micro skills".
That means, having both a good army (maybe not as big as we can see sometimes) for the first fight, and a really good economy that supports the feeding of soldiers to keep an advantage over the enemy, because if he can't feed soldiers, you'll always end up with a larger army.
I would hate it if when you focus a lot on economy you have no way to fight back ! Towers are that way in my opinion

It's just my opinion and I'd be happy to change my mind if I'm proved wrong with arguments (because yes, the principle is that if someone who doesn't agree with you at first reads good arguments, you can change your mind and finally agree).
Thanks for reading.

I completely agree with this post.

Also, I never played KaM in multiplayer over the internet yet, but in single player games usually all you need to break a tower line is a few Horsemen and some ranged troops... horsemen are fast enough to make it possible to send 1 unit in to run erratically at the edge of the towers' range, depleting them without getting killed too often (if killed, take another one and do that again)... it usually works even if there are enemy ranged units defending (Knights especially are good at this).
(By the way, off topic... how do I judge if my "KaM skill level" in the profile is correct?)

[Ben]

(By the way, off topic... how do I judge if my "KaM skill level" in the profile is correct?)

Yeah that's off topic.

But since you already asked, if you haven't played multiplayer then it's pretty easy -> beginner

[Romek]

I read all, and just want to post some thoughts.

Romek's examples: The correct army to pass through those defences is axemen + archers...
It's a bit costly, but be sure to do it with a decent leather melee force (20-25 axemen is OK). His archers will go back and you go ahead, shoot eveything.
But... If there are many lines of towers , you have to advance close next to 1st tower-line (before reaching 2nd line area).
You have won good space to step forward your archers, having few melee casualties (1st towers stones mostly). Repeat process after reinforcements.

It's simple if you have the soldiers... and some brains.

Jero please..... The example shows only that it is almost not possible to destroy towers made in this way with archers or xbows. There is no axemans on screen ....
Even if you will have mega army here think about that guy can have it even more than you... You cant effectivly push that guy because space here is limited and that guy propably have some brain to