Multiplayer rule: x towers allowed per player

[batoonike]

Just had a 5 hour game, 1 vs 1, 1 hour no rush. After that was around 20 minutes of action. After that both of us had a decent number of towers set up so we camped our towers for next 4 hours. Occasionally trying to make progress but quickly realising its hopeless even if you have 2x better army.

Now of course you can shoot towers with ranged units safely etc, but its way too hard if there is a swarm of bowmen and crossbowmen guarding the towers. Wich results in extremely passive game.

To avoid that Id suggest using this rule: players cant have more than 4 towers at any moment in the game.

You can make up to 4 towers, if you lose one you can make a new one. If you have more than 4 towers at any moment in the game you instantly lose the match. Towers being built also count as towers. So you cant even start building a new tower if you already have 4. This should result in much less passive games.

You might still want to have some towers though, otherwise sending 1 militia into town is too effective. If you have 2-4 towers covering the key points in town then its not too easy to harass.

[Categoricus]

I was considering for a moment whether to agree with you but actually I have to. We must still note that most of the multiplayer maps are unfair and one player can have his starting warehouse in a safe chain of mountains while another must build his town on a wide plain. We shall reconsider how much towers the first and the second player should be allowed to build on such a map. Probably 4 is an appropriate maximum for a naturally protected area but for an absolute plane one it should be about 6.

Anyways, the idea that buildings should be able to be limited to a certain number is something that might be considered in the remakes as we don't have this opportunity in editing a mission for the original game.

[The Dark Lord]

I absolutely disagree. If you choose to play with a 1 hour treaty you can expect things like that to happen. Disallowing players to build more than 4 watchtowers is completely rediculous in my opinion.

[batoonike]

Sadly people are afraid and dont wanna die before 1 hour, so they demand 1 hour no rush. Havent seen anyone who wants to play with rush allowed, yet.

In my opinion you are not supposed to use towers in the first place. It creates the situation of "well I cant attack you but you cant finish me, haha". However with zero towers a single unit can cause too much trouble, so its ok to have like... 1 near your storehouse-inn-school and other to also cover the barracks.

So maybe 3 towers per player? I think youre not supposed to be abled to complitely wall off your town. With 3 towers even the one with mountain ranges couldnt complitely wall off. If he decides to place those 3 towers at chokepoints, a single unit that passes by will have free time in his town. So he is pretty much forced to place at least one in the middle of town.

Which should result in much more active and fun games

[Ben]

Well I have played multiplayer over system link (if that is the right term) about 3 times, so I wouldn't really know how it would turn out, but every time I have played it is always: "He who makes the first militia wins." I would think that making lots of towers would be a good idea. one would have to slowly make progress on the enemy's border....I think it is quite possible.

[batoonike]

On the paper it seems possible yeah. But in (virtual) reality its rather boring, at least for me.

[The Dark Lord]

Well there is always the possibility to start with soldiers? In that case, one militia wouldn't make the difference if you play well. And you could make a 'rule' saying that you're not allowed to attack with those starting troups for a certain amount of time, so you can only attack with newly trained soldiers. The slower player doesn't need to build lots of watchtowers, because his initial army is enough to stop those militia's. And when the amount of time you agreed upon has passed, you're free to attack with everything.

[KnightsaMerchants]

I think the idea is rediculous.
And i know i have to support my opinion so here i go.
You recently wrote, "So maybe 3 towers per player? I think youre not supposed to be abled to complitely wall off your town."

Says who?
In my opinion you should be able to defend your town as you please.
three watch towers can kill 15 units (Best case scenario)
With one full load of stones. So what if they attacks with lets say an average of 60 units? That leaves around 45 units to invade your town.

My strat is to First of depending on the case Build around 6-9 watch towers, then get food. So i average have around 10 suageges in my storehouse.
While im getting food, with three watch towers i can die easily...
You said to defend barracks, store house etc.. What about your gold mines.. iron mines.. coal mines.. farms... Your branches of supplys are defenseless!

[Categoricus]

I don't remember making a redicule of The Dark Lord's or KnightsaMerchants' opinion about the given idea but actually it's rediculous to mistake human opponents for artificial ones, regarding to the chosen kind of strategy. And it's also very rediculous to always return to the word rediculous. I really love building watchtowers in single player mode since 1999 but unfortunately - or maybe fortunately - I occasionally had similar experiences to Batoonike's while playing against a living opponent.

I have to add by the way that I usually find very predictible to play only against one person, three is unbalanced unless diplomacy changes all the time so I prefer four players at least. Not just to make the game more exciting but to practise cooperating with allies beyond offence and defence.

[Plaguesworn]

I totally agree with batoonike's and Gyula's statements. I played
1vs1 a while ago and we needed to end the game because of the huge
amount of watchtowers. No matter how many crossbowmen you have, they can't destroy watchtowers quickly enough before they get shot by other crossbowmen. Then an other experience I had an opponent walled
of his entire town, this was no problem to get behind all those watchtowers. I didn't have to destroy one, I just made sure to empty 1
watchtower by preforming a storm attack with a small group of militia. Then I sent some crossbowmen and other miltia+axefighters though and he's dead. However I you randomly build watchtowers in your city, no way you're getting in. Especially if there are crossbowmen behind those watchtowers. The maximum of 4 watchtowers is a very wise decision.

[The Dark Lord]

Well there is always the possibility to start with soldiers? In that case, one militia wouldn't make the difference if you play well. And you could make a 'rule' saying that you're not allowed to attack with those starting troups for a certain amount of time, so you can only attack with newly trained soldiers. The slower player doesn't need to build lots of watchtowers, because his initial army is enough to stop those militia's. And when the amount of time you agreed upon has passed, you're free to attack with everything.

?

]And it's also very rediculous to always return to the word rediculous

KnightsaMerchants and me both said it only once.

[batoonike]

Now that I've played a lot more multiplayer and realized the power of 100 militia vs towers, I would STILL suggest a tower limit. Not 4, not 6, but 15 maybe? If you are really, ever, planning to make any military units you never need more than 15 towers in a multiplayer match. But some people make 30, and that pisses me off. Considering of remake, maybe introduce a really high limit to avoid these rediculous situations like having to fight 30 towers? It would also promote play styles which don't rely on massing towers.

It could be introduced similarly to peace time: if you place your 10th (first?) tower, you will get warning that 15 is maximum. If you try to place 16th, you can't do it + you get explanation. Just like when you are trying to train a military unit while it's peace time.

[Lewin]

If some guy has built 30 towers, that's probably taken him around 30 minutes of focusing his laborers on that. In that time you could build weapons workshops and hundreds of militia, and he won't even have any military units because he spent all his time making towers. Those towers don't gain him anything, you'll have a much bigger army, he'll have no army and no space to build other buildings.
I still think a limit is pretty pointless.
Also, if he's building them after peacetime then you should be able to stop him, it only takes a few arrows to destroy a construction site. If he's building them before peacetime ends, then he obviously has very little weapons or food production and you should be able to swarm over him with militia.

[GreatWhiteBear]

I do not agree that towers are op or that they should be limited.
Improvisation and adaptation those are the keys to victory.

[batoonike]

With 60 minute peace and normal (blocked) map you can't improvise and adapt much. With no peace time and open map towers are not scary. Actually they are not scary in any case, they are just frustrating. People build 10+ of them cause they are afraid of losing, not because they want to have an active, fun game.