Ideas - New Units and Buildings (Brainstorming)

[Shadaoe]

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

You just didn't understand. Even with only an archer on it, it's overpowered, read what I write before saying that what I say is stupid, thanks.
With an archer, the range would be far greater than with rocks, and it would be almost impossible to kill a tower.

[caykroyd]

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

You just didn't understand. Even with only an archer on it, it's overpowered, read what I write before saying that what I say is stupid, thanks.
With an archer, the range would be far greater than with rocks, and it would be almost impossible to kill a tower.

Read what I say, before saying that too is stupid
If you put an archer in it, you have to kill the archer, and not the tower (i didn't say that, but from what I said of the tower being only "an elevated terrain" you could suppose this as well...) And as another point, the archers don't kill on one hit, as boulders do.

[The Dark Lord]

The most ideal tactic to destroy watchtowers is with archers, as they can stay out of range. A tower with archers on top of it with INCREASED range will make it extremely hard to get close enough to kill those archers because they will kill you first. If you make a mix with normal towers and towers with archers, not a single unit will be able to get close.

[GreatWhiteBear]

ONE ARCHER, he shoots from the tower and fires at least two shots before the enemy is in place to kill him. Since every ranged unit can die in one shot, there is a fair chance he gets a kill before the enemy can shoot him.

[Shadaoe]

Read what I say, before saying that too is stupid
If you put an archer in it, you have to kill the archer, and not the tower (i didn't say that, but from what I said of the tower being only "an elevated terrain" you could suppose this as well...) And as another point, the archers don't kill on one hit, as boulders do.

As you say, you didn't say it at first, so how could I know that the archer on the tower was killable while the tower was still up with lifepoints ? Just don't say that I'm stupid without any reason just because you think it'll improve the way your ideas are seen. Nothing personal, but you just didn't think and said that I wrote something wrong, that was true, but you do'nt have to write it in such a way, I won't talk about it furthermore, but think about it. I just wanted to give ideas to the debate.

A tower with archers on top of it with INCREASED range will make it extremely hard to get close enough to kill those archers because they will kill you first. If you make a mix with normal towers and towers with archers, not a single unit will be able to get close.

I totally agree with TDL here.

[caykroyd]

The most ideal tactic to destroy watchtowers is with archers, as they can stay out of range. A tower with archers on top of it with INCREASED range will make it extremely hard to get close enough to kill those archers because they will kill you first. If you make a mix with normal towers and towers with archers, not a single unit will be able to get close.

Towers are not so cheap. I don't see a problem here.
The towers cannot support many units on top (2 or 3). If they make many, they will pay for that with stone, wood, and time. If they make 5, they can man it with max 15 (or 10, if each tower is 2) archers. Is that so bad? Maybe it is, i dont know.
There are maps with hills on them. Is this any different than putting an archer on that hill? However I now do see a problem. If you make one of these towers ON a hill, you will have a 'super-ultra-big range'?

[The Dark Lord]

I don't think it really matters whether towers are cheap or not. If you can't break through a defence, how could it be cheap anyway?



Take a look.

X = Archer/crossbowman
T = Tower (which throws stones)
A = Tower with archers/crossbowmen

The attacker in the north has 12 crossbowmen. The defender in the south has 7 crossbowmen between and next to his towers and 2 towers with crossbowmen in them (lets assume we can stash 2 crossbowmen in a tower). That makes a total of 11.
The enemy is moving forward and gets in range of your towers with archers. Maybe 1 or 2 crossbowmen die before they are close enough to shoot back. But now they are being fired at by the crossbowmen next to the towers as well. The crossbowmen next to the towers will probably shoot first and are likely to kill quite some hostile crossbowmen. The hostile crossbowmen will pick random targets within their range and might not even kill the crossbowmen on the tower, making it more difficult to send a next wave because you still have the same problem.
Imagine what it would be like if there are more towers a little more to the south. If those towers are filled with crossbowmen as well, they too might be able to hit the hostile crossbowmen thanks to their increased range. So you have a second defence line that can shoot at the same time as your frontline! Guess that would be quite a slaughter. You could also replace the regular watchtower by another tower with archers and build regular watchtowers just below the towers in the front (so you have 3 towers with archers in the front, but the enemy still can't use his melee units because your regular watchtowers on the second line defend them).

[caykroyd]

The attacker in the north has 12 crossbowmen. The defender in the south has 7 crossbowmen between and next to his towers and 2 towers with crossbowmen in them (lets assume we can stash 2 crossbowmen in a tower). That makes a total of 11.
The enemy is moving forward and gets in range of your towers with archers. Maybe 1 or 2 crossbowmen die before they are close enough to shoot back. But now they are being fired at by the crossbowmen next to the towers as well. The crossbowmen next to the towers will probably shoot first and are likely to kill quite some hostile crossbowmen. The hostile crossbowmen will pick random targets within their range and might not even kill the crossbowmen on the tower, making it more difficult to send a next wave because you still have the same problem.
Imagine what it would be like if there are more towers a little more to the south. If those towers are filled with crossbowmen as well, they too might be able to hit the hostile crossbowmen thanks to their increased range. So you have a second defence line that can shoot at the same time as your frontline! Guess that would be quite a slaughter. You could also replace the regular watchtower by another tower with archers and build regular watchtowers just below the towers in the front (so you have 3 towers with archers in the front, but the enemy still can't use his melee units because your regular watchtowers on the second line defend them).

You convinced me

[The Dark Lord]

Great! If this hadn't worked I probably would have given up. :p

[krisdw]

No that was really insightful and shed light on some very clear issues this tower would provide. Best to leave it out of the game If it wasn't for people like you TDL...

[GreatWhiteBear]

With the coming of this tower, the archer would be more valuable because of it's shorter reload time, it would be able to shoot more arrows before the enemy got in range.

[caykroyd]

How could I know that the archer on the tower was killable while the tower was still up with lifepoints ? Just don't say that I'm stupid without any reason just because you think it'll improve the way your ideas are seen. Nothing personal, but you just didn't think and said that I wrote something wrong, that was true, but you do'nt have to write it in such a way, I won't talk about it furthermore, but think about it.

Did i say you were stupid?? sorry if i did, but i don't remember that. could you please quote it? i didn't mean to hurt anyone here.



yeah, and im out of the discussion i think (i grew short on arguments )

[SirCabbage]

- The contents of this post has been reworked and rewritten in a better way on the next page. Please look there -

[Remake 2012]

Hello. I am very, very, I would like to see in the KAM:

- A new type of terrain
- More variety of stones
- More diverse pieces of wood, tree trunks
- Wooden bridge

[Kridge]

Thats quite some text for a first post, sir. I agree andI not agree. I will explain myself further this evening. and a bridge f wood would look very nice, andwe could use the bridges above the black tiles. Erase the black part, some designing... It could be done. And I think it would add something aswell