Multiplayer rule: x towers allowed per player

[Shadaoe]

Someone who uses a building that is part of the game is "scary" ? ...
Oh and you often have to do long roads to build towers in good defense points, and you loose a very long time, if you're "not scary" and if you don't do towers or only a few, then you'll have a really better econoy right ? So you've got an advantage, and with a better economy .. you can do a lot of militia to empty the towers of their stone.

[GreatWhiteBear]

Not on lake Wololo, I avoid that map.
Played it, won and never played it again.
Tell me, did you have any tower problems on (one of) my maps?

[Lewin]

If you play Lake Wololo, you are asking for people to build lots of towers and have cat-and-mouse game. If you don't like the game style that map offers, don't play it. We're not implementing features just because people want all the maps to have the same game style.

With 60 minute peace and normal (blocked) map you can't improvise and adapt much

Why not? After peacetime when I send my first units out I see how many towers the enemy has, if it's a lot I start spamming militia. That's adapting and improvising in every sense of the word. Or maybe if I see my ally has a massive wood economy and I've only got iron, I'll ask him to make 100s of militia for the towers.
I don't really see anything scary or frustrating about towers. Once the 5 rocks are thrown, that's it, you can march straight past them like they aren't there. Militia are very cheap and it only takes 3-4 militia to empty 1 tower (if they're charging so the towers miss a lot)
At the same time, defending your base with towers is a legitimate tactic. It will usually buy you some time because your enemy has to get enough militia to push through them (or shoot them all with archers) but you'll also have a very weak economy compared to the enemy, and so probably very few troops. If that person had build 50 crossbowmen to block his entrances instead of 10 towers, you wouldn't be complaining. I find crossbowmen FAR more scary than a tower, crossbowmen don't run out of rocks.

I don't see how building towers means you won't have an active, fun game. I've had many active fun games with enemies building 10+ towers. If you want to restrict towers, you are just limiting the tactics available to players. Varied tactics should be encouraged, they make the game more interesting.

[FeyBart]

I really dislike the idea of having a limit, no matter in what. You could adjust the maps, but implementing a limit will also limit the freedom of the game. That'd be like in Age of Empires, or Rise of Nations, where you can only have a certain amount of citizens at the max. It's frustrating.

[batoonike]

What is boring is the feeling that I know he will never attack me, thus I win, but I can't seize this victory for the next "many minutes" since I have to fight his buildings. This is caused by allowing people to turtle. Turtling is a valid but a very boring strategy, at least for me. Thus I suggest not allowing this kind of strategies but whatever, if it's such integral part of the game then.

We don't give people ability to build 1 "super tower", that uses all starting resources for ammo, has 20 000 health and you have to kill it to win, because this is obviously extremely boring gameplay. However we allow them doing exact same thing, only with larger number of buildings. I think we should protect kid's from hurting themselves and other (ok I'm laughing at my own exaggerations at this point)

[Jeronimo]

I agree with Batoonike, Plaguesworn, Gyula and everyone who knows that massive Towers shouldnt be allowed.

My best suggestion to this was to regulate the "Max Towers per Player" at the Multiplayer Room.
Exactly as they did with the PeaceTime, now also should have a 2nd Bar below, which goes from 0 to 12.
It would be similar to PeaceTime which goes from 0 to 120 minutes, TownDefense will go from 0 to 12 towers.

It will often be likely to set that at 6 towers, similar to playing with 60 minutes Peacetime

[Ben]

I don't see how building towers means you won't have an active, fun game. I've had many active fun games with enemies building 10+ towers. If you want to restrict towers, you are just limiting the tactics available to players. Varied tactics should be encouraged, they make the game more interesting.

People are scared of towers. That what the problem is. I think that many people, myself included, have been wired into the idea of "laying siege" to an enemy and slowly pick off his towers, which is nearly impossible if your opponent counters your archers with his own. People are also unwilling to sacrifice men for a cause that seems less mundane. I have charged people's bases with militia before and their once-thought sealed off entrance is worth no more than squat.

I really dislike the idea of having a limit, no matter in what. You could adjust the maps, but implementing a limit will also limit the freedom of the game. That'd be like in Age of Empires, or Rise of Nations, where you can only have a certain amount of citizens at the max. It's frustrating.

I totally thought of AoE III when I started reading your post. One of the many reasons I like AoK more than AoE III is that there is no limit on buildings. Why was it a problem before? In III, if you lose just one house, you have to build another, while in AoK you can have extras, just in case. Ugh, I just hate AoE III so much...

[Siegfried]

The guys that make the setters 2 remake had the same problems with catapults.

They are offering all solutions, so you can choose. The best option is "proportional", which allows more towers in larger towns. Maybe allow 1 tower each 5 other buildings (and maybe each 10 civilians?), except mining-buildings that naturally have a short life-time.

[Lewin]

They are offering all solutions, so you can choose. The best option is "proportional", which allows more towers in larger towns. Maybe allow 1 tower each 5 other buildings (and maybe each 10 civilians?), except mining-buildings that naturally have a short life-time.

Well that's still an enforced limit, and KaM only has naturally enforced limits such as:
- Your long term army size is limited because you must make enough food to feed them all. The more troops you have, the more food you'll need to keep them alive if you don't plan on using them immediately. I also agree that unit/house limits suck.
- The number of watch towers you can make is limited by the fact that they take valuable time to build and they require space. The more towers you build, the less time/space you'll have to build other buildings and thus you won't have many troops to defend yourself.

[FunambuloCabotino]

If someone really wants to be defensive, just three towers and an horde of iron clothed archers shall do the trick. I don't think there are a problem with towers themselves. And lots of towers are useless, if the recruits want to eat when the enemy arrives.

[GreatWhiteBear]

you mean crossbowmen?

[FunambuloCabotino]

Yes, that's what I mean, sorry for not being specific. There's even a mission where the opponent just had bowmen and crossbowmen, the most difficult in my opinion (I didn't even knew how to approach that deadly zone).Besides, that enemy had only three towers and some scouts to advance, just in case.

[batoonike]

They are offering all solutions, so you can choose. The best option is "proportional", which allows more towers in larger towns. Maybe allow 1 tower each 5 other buildings (and maybe each 10 civilians?), except mining-buildings that naturally have a short life-time.

Well that's still an enforced limit, and KaM only has naturally enforced limits such as:
[...]

...such as your military units can't move for 60 minutes, not even within your town limits?

[caykroyd]

...such as your military units can't move for 60 minutes, not even within your town limits?

That's only temporary, and i think you know that. Later there will be territories, so why complain about something that is already going to be changed?

[batoonike]

Didn't know that. This territory thing sounded like "maybe if we have excessive amount of unlimited time sometimes in the distant future then maybe...". But if it's sure then sure. I don't care about not being abled to move units. Just saying that KaM remake having only natural limits is not true.