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.