Tower issue - Suggestion discussion

[koczis12]

I really think that further disscousion is pointless. Matt and Romo presented very strong arguments about how this new feature that catapults are, can change the game for better. I dont know why some users of this forum just dont want give this a try, I mean what harm will it do, if we have the chance or possibility to change this game to a better one then we should try. If it turn out to be a mistake, we can delete it or improve somehow. In my opinion this feature is a very nice idea, I think tower spam is the main problem nawadays in KaM and we might have a solution in this case. I dont know why there is so many negative answers to this idea, we should be more supportive if we want to make this game a greater one.

[thommerd]

Well I don't really know what the big deal is about towers, I don't really have a problem with them. And I think some are trying to see a problem where there is no.

For example Matt you talk about micro a lot, but why don't you use it to empty towers!? It is quite easy to empty towers with a single horse!! And if the defending enemy brings his archers/xbow in range you can use the same horse as a distraction for your own range to bring in and shoot the enemy.... Not to mention you can easily kill the serfs refilling the tower and you can seriously disrupt someones economy with that. And if hè blocks the tower thats only good right? You have taken one tower out without destroying it... But I thought this is pretty basic stuff.

Also you show us examples of a line of towers behind a bridge/small passage but you do not mention that there are more ways into the base. If you lost the first battle changes are very low that you can defend all passages at the same time with the few troops you have left. Even with a lot of towers... All you need sometimes is a small opening to criple someone.

I have played a lot of games lately and if there is a towerspammer that guy loses all the time.. They are just compensating for their bad economy. I agree this can lead to boring game play but so is just walking in someones base and killing him because hè has no towers and soldiers left after the first attack. Maybe if you dislike this so much this is the wrong game for you?

Im afraid that with the catapult defending will be too hard. Saying that you can easily kill catapults does not work for me... This can be true but if you are drawn back into your city it is almost impossible to get to them, because the attacker can put his Armys in front of his catapult and still use it to destroy towers with their larger range.

And then I did not even mention the idea to only attack towers.... I find this madness and if catas ever get implemented(something im not really against even after all this critisising) I hope they can attack all buildings. Maybe we can let crossbows only attack soldiers and not serfs..!? I say madness, madness!!

Better introduce the bananna throwing monkey, hè can only attack towers throwing 200 bananna's/minute. This will make the recruits too fat and lazy to throw the Stones. I will work on the sprites !............

[EDMatt]

Well I don't really know what the big deal is about towers, I don't really have a problem with them. And I think some are trying to see a problem where there is no.

For example Matt you talk about micro a lot, but why don't you use it to empty towers!? It is quite easy to empty towers with a single horse!! And if the defending enemy brings his archers/xbow in range you can use the same horse as a distraction for your own range to bring in and shoot the enemy.... Not to mention you can easily kill the serfs refilling the tower and you can seriously disrupt someones economy with that. And if hè blocks the tower thats only good right? You have taken one tower out without destroying it... But I thought this is pretty basic stuff.

Also you show us examples of a line of towers behind a bridge/small passage but you do not mention that there are more ways into the base. If you lost the first battle changes are very low that you can defend all passages at the same time with the few troops you have left. Even with a lot of towers... All you need sometimes is a small opening to criple someone.

I have played a lot of games lately and if there is a towerspammer that guy loses all the time.. They are just compensating for their bad economy. I agree this can lead to boring game play but so is just walking in someones base and killing him because hè has no towers and soldiers left after the first attack. Maybe if you dislike this so much this is the wrong game for you?

Im afraid that with the catapult defending will be too hard. Saying that you can easily kill catapults does not work for me... This can be true but if you are drawn back into your city it is almost impossible to get to them, because the attacker can put his Armys in front of his catapult and still use it to destroy towers with their larger range.

And then I did not even mention the idea to only attack towers.... I find this madness and if catas ever get implemented(something im not really against even after all this critisising) I hope they can attack all buildings. Maybe we can let crossbows only attack soldiers and not serfs..!? I say madness, madness!!

Better introduce the bananna throwing monkey, hè can only attack towers throwing 200 bananna's/minute. This will make the recruits too fat and lazy to throw the Stones. I will work on the sprites !............

Reading the first paragraph of your argument , and I am already totally turned off by it. You'r explanation is totally one sided, its like you are describing how an attacker is emptying towers of an AI player, or what? if the defender has enough brains , he wont let your horse anywhere near his towers... nor any foot soldiers , and he can also micro ..

also have you considered the skill gap between you and those (i am going to assume that they are random noobs , by looking at your post about your games vs others) random noobs ? play against any half decent player and then try your pretty tricks ..

obviously if the defender hasnt got enough brains to put a first line and micro with it, then anyone can destroy a tower using range.

[Leeuwgie]

I've seen some nice new ideas in this topic. But first about the catapult, I don't think it will harm gameplay if we implement it into the game. All other decent startegy games I ever played had some sort of siege equipment to take down defenses. Towers are too strong if you play against someone who is as equally good as you. So when you manage to win the first battle you have too less troops left to attack the town. If your opponent has only a few towers built its no big deal but when he has multiple layers of smartly placed towers its impossible to break through most of the time. The catapult I know from TPR was very expensive and slow to create (compared to building towers) and besides that died from a few arrows. I think its better to make it a little bit stronger and of course let it take down any building, not just towers. A tower needs no micro, a catapult does so dont make it more complicated by refilling it or something. And why not making it during PT. I rather spend my resources on troops then on catapults, they are just too expensive. Another ridiculous but brillant idea I've seen here is to make towers more expensive. I also like the idea to let militia die in one shot but horses only with multiple shots. Someone here in this topic said that KaM is a defensive game, I think its not true, its just what we made of it. All the latest changes (the foodchanges for example) are in favor of the defender. Unfortunately this game is slowly turning into a camping game, resulting often in games that are longer then expected. For me those particular games (where alot of towers are built) are just not fun to play. The creator of this topic of all people used to be the mastermind behind these lame towerspam tactics. Back then I told him its just not fun to play this way. I'm glad he also came up with a nice solution. Of course it needs some testing but I cant see how a fragile, expensive, slow to build machine who can only take down buildings could be considered overpowered.

[thommerd]

[
also have you considered the skill gap between you and those (i am going to assume that they are random noobs , by looking at your post about your games vs others) random noobs ? play against any half decent player and then try your pretty tricks ..

obviously if the defender hasnt got enough brains to put a first line and micro with it, then anyone can destroy a tower using range.

Sure I considered the skill gap but most of the times its those randoms that build the crazy mass towers, at least thats from my experience.... And sure if you play against better players that place their towers more thoughtfull then ofcourse its going to be harder... but thats why they are better players right?

I still have to find a impenetrable defense, because until now I have not found one yet... Or else you would have noticed that already;) There is ALWAYS a weak point... I know it can be boring to play such games but yeah sometimes it happens.
I am just really afraid that catapults will destroy towers too easily... wich I think is already quite easy(but I seem to be the only one)

Maybe a different idea that does not really change the game but is more a mapwise change:
Reduce the amount of stone on maps... Towers need stone and if you dont have much its harder to mass towers.
Sure I know stone is cheap at the market but still, you need to build a market and sacrifice resources/serfs for stones.

[dicsoupcan]

[
also have you considered the skill gap between you and those (i am going to assume that they are random noobs , by looking at your post about your games vs others) random noobs ? play against any half decent player and then try your pretty tricks ..

obviously if the defender hasnt got enough brains to put a first line and micro with it, then anyone can destroy a tower using range.

Sure I considered the skill gap but most of the times its those randoms that build the crazy mass towers, at least thats from my experience.... And sure if you play against better players that place their towers more thoughtfull then ofcourse its going to be harder... but thats why they are better players right?

I still have to find a impenetrable defense, because until now I have not found one yet... Or else you would have noticed that already;) There is ALWAYS a weak point... I know it can be boring to play such games but yeah sometimes it happens.
I am just really afraid that catapults will destroy towers too easily... wich I think is already quite easy(but I seem to be the only one)

Maybe a different idea that does not really change the game but is more a mapwise change:
Reduce the amount of stone on maps... Towers need stone and if you dont have much its harder to mass towers.
Sure I know stone is cheap at the market but still, you need to build a market and sacrifice resources/serfs for stones.

You are actually not the only one and i agree with your post, and yes i still think it is a flaw in map design. but instead of giving less stone i think it is more wise to remove the narrow chokepoints near the bases and then towercamping suddenly become much harder. you can have chokepoint, but those must be far enough so players cannot go overthere and build mass towers.

[EDMatt]

I'm glad he also came up with a nice solution. Of course it needs some testing but I cant see how a fragile, expensive, slow to build machine who can only take down buildings could be considered overpowered.

I am glad that there are more people who support the catapult idea, and I still can't see a good argument against this(Siegfried and Shadoe actually did put forward some nice feedback , but did agree that the range of the catapult is the most sensitive part of this discussion). by the looks of it, there are plenty of people who agree that the idea is worth testing, even more than the opposing people that are against this idea

[Jeronimo]

Don't worry thommerd/dicsoupcan... I also think this aims to screw towers.
Because even without towers, those passages with only "bowmen + melee" will be impossible to pass.

Good examples to look at (replays ) are games such as : Pizza vs RomeK
Pizza vs Mullberry
Matt vs Kozchies

I have seen these games... in all of them the "winner of first battle" is victorious. Did ever defender turn over result of match?

@Romek: with "having brains", I was more referring to avoid a costly assault in a choke point.
a) Walk to the next, and less defended entrance (there will always be one).
b) Encourage enemy to go out of base, and defeat him in 2nd battle with more troops (survivors + new army).

Remember that Matt's main focus is in 1v1... So option (A) should be 100% possible. While option (B) is more for team-games.

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

As thommerd, I thought that if ever catapults are implemented, they must be available to attack ALL buildings -> "only towers" is nuts (for this expensive unit).
We were all talking of lack of defensive options in KaM in the "PT removal topic", and now this topic is about screwing the only defensive building the game has.

[Leeuwgie]

Ah, I forgot about this. Another solution (as already suggested) can be to play on maps that have wider entrances. But then again It can be a problem here too. I like to show some pictures to show you what Matthew means.

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.

Note here that it doesnt matter if he has a decent/mixed army. He just needs his blockade and ranged units only.....


...to stop both Da Revo's and Romeks (to my knowledge not the greatest noobs) fully armored forces on his own.


They are foolish enough to try but fail of course. So we find another entrance at Mullies base who has only a few towers. After that they manage to break through Matt's defenses but only because he lost his main force elsewhere.


So, in the end it is possible to break through, and 8 towers is already hard enough but it comes at a price. I'm not sure what is the biggest problem, the blockade or the towers. Thats why I suggest (if you implement the catapult) to not only take down towers but any other structures aswell.

[dicsoupcan]

this case showcases once again a narrow chokepoint that is even blockaded, and AFTER that come the towers, so basically the narrow chokepoint made it hard to attack already and gave heavy losses. the towers did nothing else but finish what came out of the chokepoint alive, so it is a design flaw in maps in my opionion.

And as you can see the right side was was less defended, so it was a matter of they picked the wrong side to attack.

[EDMatt]

this case showcases once again a narrow chokepoint that is even blockaded, and AFTER that come the towers, so basically the narrow chokepoint made it hard to attack already and gave heavy losses. the towers did nothing else but finish what came out of the chokepoint alive, so it is a design flaw in maps in my opionion.

And as you can see the right side was was less defended, so it was a matter of they picked the wrong side to attack.

and What would happen if the other entrance also had towers like mine? yet another invalid argument. To already said that it was the only reason they got in, so if the guy also had towers and block, then they wouldnt get in, so it is a perfect example.

[Pizzaisgood]

Good examples to look at (replays ) are games such as : Pizza vs RomeK


I have seen these games... in all of them the "winner of first battle" is victorious. Did ever defender turn over result of match?

Pls don´t say that you watched the games if you didnt watch them...

I lost the first fight against Romek , i had to defend the first minutes and by smart placing of my towers and a nice attack from the flank i managed to come back to the game and won .


And who said we want to screw the tower ??? Noone !
Towers in my oppinion are not made to kill a big part of the enemy army. They should protect the city from enemy units trying to sneak in . Towers will still have exactly that job. Or you think someone will sneak around a catapult which will destroy that one or two towers to protect the flank of your city so his 5 militia can sneak in? Well that must be a pro ninja move !
Towers should be a cheap way to protect all sides of your city and not a cheap way of killing the attackers army !

[dicsoupcan]

this case showcases once again a narrow chokepoint that is even blockaded, and AFTER that come the towers, so basically the narrow chokepoint made it hard to attack already and gave heavy losses. the towers did nothing else but finish what came out of the chokepoint alive, so it is a design flaw in maps in my opionion.

And as you can see the right side was was less defended, so it was a matter of they picked the wrong side to attack.

and What would happen if the other entrance also had towers like mine? yet another invalid argument.

that would not have mattered since the most losses would be made in the chokepoint, so those towers would also just finish off what was left and that probably will not be much.

[EDMatt]

this case showcases once again a narrow chokepoint that is even blockaded, and AFTER that come the towers, so basically the narrow chokepoint made it hard to attack already and gave heavy losses. the towers did nothing else but finish what came out of the chokepoint alive, so it is a design flaw in maps in my opionion.

And as you can see the right side was was less defended, so it was a matter of they picked the wrong side to attack.

and What would happen if the other entrance also had towers like mine? yet another invalid argument.

that would not have mattered since the most losses would be made in the chokepoint, so those towers would also just finish off what was left and that probably will not be much.

I don't think that the game works like this Dicsoupcan I am also certain that you will just keep denying the inevitable by agreeing with everything against the catapult and disagreeing with any arguments (even if there is some truth to it) for the catapult, a perfect example is this where you have been clearly proven wrong (this enterance is larger than any golden cliffs entrance or even Torn empire enterance, map made by no other than yourself) and yet you keep writing nonsense to the point where it doesn't even make any sense. I am sorry but this is the truth.

To provided perfect example on how towers are extremely hard to counter, and the only argument you put forward against this is that YOU CAN JUST CHOOSE ANOTHER ENTERANCE WITHOUT TOWERS, but what i f there isnt one? gg

[dicsoupcan]

Well the entrance is still not large, maybe bigger then the entrance at golden cliffs but it might make 2 tiles difference, the fact is that there is being argued in circles which is the reason many comments are the same. but i do find it funny that it is a tower suggestion discussion and any other idea but the catapults get's dismissed without someone cnosidering it. I still think siegfried his first suggestion is one of the best if it get's tweaked a bit.