Ideas - New Units and Buildings (Brainstorming)

[caykroyd]

Comparing to militia:
Militia: Die easily by arrows, so even if they charge the towers, most will be dead b4 getting to the building and wasting the rocks. Charge makes some rocks miss. Extremely cheap to make.

Ram: Hardly suffer damage at all from arrows. Two rocks from towers, ram is dead (so in that sense is similar to militia, because militia will make the rocks miss while ram has defense against them). Very Expensive to make.

Wait a second, kridge wrote three rocks, ram is dead:

Ram is able to survive 2 stones from the towers (because of the hides, no specialty).

Yes. You saw that correctly.

ah sorry then

[batoonike]

@ lots of rams to attack a town: I doubt they had 10 rams with an army of 40 units. I don't care about history or realism much but some people do Why not double it's health, cost, production time and damage?

[tekK]

i saw this picture of a tower from the alpha version (the right one)



the idea was to take 2 bowmans on the top. But it was canceled.

this would be a nice feature for the remake, i think.

[caykroyd]

i saw this picture of a tower from the alpha version (the right one)



the idea was to take 2 bowmans on the top. But it was canceled.

this would be a nice feature for the remake, i think.

i have the impression something like this was already discussed... i don't remember the outcome though :x

[Encaitar]

The idea was to take 2 bowmans on the top [of the tower]. But it was canceled.

this would be a nice feature for the remake, i think.

i have the impression something like this was already discussed... i don't remember the outcome though :x

I can't remember a brainstorm about this alfa tower. But I do think i know why it was canceled. In KaM archer units whom stand higher can shoot further than normal range*. So archers can shoot further if standing upon a mountain. Logically the 2 bowman would have a greater range when standing upon this tower than those whom not standing upon a tower (normal range).

With this tower it would become very dificult to invade the village for a attacking player as the defender player has a greater range. So I would object to this building! Maybe siege stuff would revise my opinion, I am talking about the implementation of this tower to the current game.
______________________________________________________
*Not implemented in the Remake yet. Next version probably will:

Archers on a hill get slightly longer range (calculated from height of archer tile relative to target tile)

Source: http://code.google.com/p/castlesand/sou ... uglist.txt

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

Lol, I'm not sure about you guys, but I wouldn't be scared of a tower that has 2 archers on it.. the chance that they will kill more than 0 units is like 1%..

[GreatWhiteBear]

But what if we'd increase the amount of archers to 3 and give them 13.99 range? A suiting solution to Crossbow sieges and it would call for a battering ram.

[krisdw]

Hah! I'm a fan of that tower. It's realistic and looks nice too.

Just some minor questions/concerns:

-How do the archers enter the tower? Automatically, just like recruits go to the barracks, or do we select and command them ourselves?
-Only archers, or also Crossbowmen/Slingers?
-How are the archers going to be fed? Can we command them to come out of the tower, or do serfs go inside the tower and when they come out the units are fed?


Curious to see what Lewin thinks of this tower

[The Dark Lord]

I don't like the idea. If archers can get up the tower, than crossbowmen should be able to as well and that way this tower will be completely overpowered.

[GreatWhiteBear]

I disagree, 3archers or crossbowmen in a tower isn't that OP, but it makes the game more defensive.
So, I think it is a good idea, but lets not have it any time soon. Lets first find out how best to counter a good tower defense.

[caykroyd]

Hah! I'm a fan of that tower. It's realistic and looks nice too.

Just some minor questions/concerns:

-How do the archers enter the tower? Automatically, just like recruits go to the barracks, or do we select and command them ourselves?
-Only archers, or also Crossbowmen/Slingers?
-How are the archers going to be fed? Can we command them to come out of the tower, or do serfs go inside the tower and when they come out the units are fed?


Curious to see what Lewin thinks of this tower

Should EVERYONE be allowed into the tower? If bowmen are allowed, why not crossbowmen, slingers... all non-cavalry units and also enemies maybe?

I disagree, 3archers or crossbowmen in a tower isn't that OP, but it makes the game more defensive.
So, I think it is a good idea, but lets not have it any time soon. Lets first find out how best to counter a good tower defense.

i agree

[The Dark Lord]

But 3 crossbowmen in a tower with increased range?! I mean, I guess a tower like that comes with increased range, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be useful at all.
Also, another point that has to be conisdered is the entrance/exit for the archers/crossbowmen/slingers which is always at the bottom. If you're getting besieged and your enemy is getting very close, you may want to evacuate the towers to save your archers. If your enemy attacks you from the north that's no problem, but if he attacks from the south your archers may get in range of the enemy when they leave the tower because they go one tile down. So players in the north would have a disadvantage.

[Shadaoe]

Pros and cons for the tower discussion :
-cons :
I think it's against the kam style, because the military units are completely different of the citizens, how would the archers/crossbowmen be fed ? Should they go to the inn (a military unit ? no !) or be fed like normal military units ? (strange too).
It's already hard to kill towers, but with an archer/crossbowman with increased range on top of it ? Let's imagine, you would have to kill towers with a looot of archers, and most of them will die because of the great range of the tower. Being able to kill the archers on top of the tower while the tower is still alive would be ridiculous too, let's see how you want to balance that
-pros :
But ! It'd be quite realistic too. (more than recruits throwing rocks :p)
Maybe the use of a new citizen unit, the "town defender", that'd be totally strange too.

-> As it is now, I think it's a bad idea.

[caykroyd]

Pros and cons for the tower discussion :
-cons :
I think it's against the kam style, because the military units are completely different of the citizens, how would the archers/crossbowmen be fed ? Should they go to the inn (a military unit ? no !) or be fed like normal military units ? (strange too).
It's already hard to kill towers, but with an archer/crossbowman with increased range on top of it ? Let's imagine, you would have to kill towers with a looot of archers, and most of them will die because of the great range of the tower. Being able to kill the archers on top of the tower while the tower is still alive would be ridiculous too, let's see how you want to balance that
-pros :
But ! It'd be quite realistic too. (more than recruits throwing rocks :p)
Maybe the use of a new citizen unit, the "town defender", that'd be totally strange too.

-> As it is now, I think it's a bad idea.

I thought the tower would only serve as a sort of "plateau" --- a high ground, where units could climb and gain extra range.
That meant, any soldier could climb (just not cavalry), including your enemy.
Cons: I cant see how they would do that without a ladder without disappearing at the bottom and appearing again at the top (that would be strange). If it had some sort of ladder or ramp, a soldier could go on top of it as if it were some normal terrain...

AND, it wouldn't be overpowered AT ALL, because the tower would not throw rocks, so how can u say "It's already hard to kill towers, but with an archer/crossbowman with increased range on top of it"
sorry if im a bit harsh in this last paragraph, but i need to express myself

[GreatWhiteBear]

Yeah, it would be nice, but, I'd suggest not needing to build roads to it, if it is just a plateau AND the enemy can capture it.