Knights and Merchants.net Forum

@Wolf:Towers can't be an effective measure against early attackers, since it usually take a lot of time to build road to a narrow passage and build adequate amount of towers there. Even then we saw that single militias can successfully run through a tower with stones missing them. The idea is to make town as a whole more defendable and what represents a town better than its blood cells - Serfs. They are evenly spread everywhere.

@sado1: I agree with you, lategame attacks are an element of the game. Your described scenery certainly should work Serfs need to be just as good to oppose several militias, a few scouts. Nothing more. Also, maybe serfs would not react at attackers destroying houses if they are not in direct contact with serfs. So sabotage attacker can still harm the town, but at a much slower pace. I would imagine force of 12 pikes should be enough to destroy several houses and 20 pikes be enough to pierce like a knife through butter to destroy one of the vital houses (Store or Barracks).

I don't think this is a good idea. Maybe as a mutator, but nothing more than that. You see, if serfs would be able to defend themselves, that would promote a mass ranged gameplay. Especially when camping, you only need ranged units to defend yourself because the serfs will stop the enemy long enough to shoot them down. Secondly, it will be very hard to invade a village, especially if the player also has watchtowers. At the moment you can make up for wasting soldiers (by rushing through towers) by killing serfs, and so deal a lot damage to a player's economy. If serfs fight back, it will take longer to kill as many of them and you will even lose soldiers of your own, therefore reducing the 'award' you received by rushing through the defences. As a consequence, we will have even more camping.

TDL: But the idea is to make serfs powerful against militia only. They can still deal some damage to other units, but it should be exactly as effective as a fight between someone who has only fists, and someone with a nice shiny sword and iron armor (the serf should die from 1-2 hits, giving almost zero damage to the swordman).

@TDL: I was hoping to get some ideas on how to negate the ranged rushes

As sado1 said it is still an option to attack a base with several soldiers, you will just need to be more careful to not to let serfs attack you. Just like now you would like to avoid serfs to be able to move without delays towards towns heart.

I read all this... and I think is worth trying the change (if the benefit is NO peacetime).

I guess stats of serfs will be: 2 hit points, 15% melee attack.
Serfs have 15% (0,5 attack icon)
Lancers have 25% (1 attack icon)
Most fighters have 35% (2 attack icons)
Sword/Knight have 55% (3 attack icons)

If you give serfs more attack, it will be cheesy.
I also consider that items being carried will be lost, when they switch to dagger defensive weapon.

VS ranged units: As Revolution suggested, nothing. Rushing archers through Market is costly, you won't have more archers than the player making militia.
But in my opinion this could be more dull if you say: always militia + archer mass? We need to re-incorporate Townhall as defensive structure.

"Serfs combat + internal Towers" will stop enough the enemy militia, but for fighting archers rush, I recommend adding Townhall for more diversity.
Their you could use the Vagabond as fast counter, or the crappy rogues to deal vs enemy archers rush.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on Maximilian + Lewin posts... I think a new Townhall could work like this:
Costs: Gold chests (max 5 storage as School) ---> Rebel: 1 / Rogue: 2 / Vagabond: 3 / Barbarian: 5
Removed Militia (because has to be a Barracks ONLY unit), and removed Warrior (because doesn't fit very much in the Townhall's units catalogue).

These hired soldiers are permanents, but cannot move away from your "Kingdom" ---> this last new concept consider it very important since it's also the concept in which my new "Fog of War" proposal is based.

"Kingdom" (K) is the total revealed map area of own buildings (its bounderies are what "lines of sight" of buildings can reach).
For knowing with exactitude how large is your Kingdom at any stage of the game, you press K, and thin stitched lines show up marking your "territory".

1) Kingdoms of allies don't share domain, so you cannot help a far away ally... his walk will be frozen (same effect as labourers rush fix).
2) However all kingdoms territories can overlap, so you actually can fight townhall vs townhall units in a very close frontier with the enemy.
3) Aclaration: If a Vagabond is standing inside a tower's sight and you delete that tower, then Vagabond stays there immobile (you can regain his movement control by expanding the Kingdom again, everything according the system rules).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The appearance of a new concept missing in KaM... "Kingdom" (total revealed map of own buildings), can be used to define a new type of "Fog of War" something not seen in other RTS games (AFAIK).
This may sound strange, but is the best only option if we want to keep maneuvers in open map, and add some visual protection at the same time.

My proposal is that "one's Kingdom" is "enemy's Fog of War" and vicerversa. Km = FoW
So basically you build up your own fog of war, and you destroy fog of war when destroying opponent structures.

This centralizes visual protection in bases, not allowing your opponent to see if you have food problems or defensive army (as long it stands behind towers).
The only thing he will see is the typically grey shading and the buildings he could reveal (tough new buildings won't be updated, as in any RTS).
But consider this... for every "advancing building" (such as new tower), he will be extending his FoW across the revealed map.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this too much to read? Well take your time to read it step by step. Is the compillation all in 1 post, explained as understandable as possible.

I don´t like the idea. It is not completly bad but like it was presented at the beginning its a huge changing in the gamesystem.
The only really argument to implement this is the early milita. So when they could defend their town against milita only, it would be worth an intensive test, but in my opinion nothing more. Why?

When your enemy rushes you with every other unit, for example 2 swordmen. At the same time you could just make many Militas. So the only need I see is fighting against milita only and it makes sense because
"A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/,[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters"Wikipedia.
A normal civilian would "never" fight against a axefighter or a group of xbows. So thats the sense behind it.

However I dont think this big change to the system will have many suporters in the KaM universe.

As I wrote above, the townhall/fog of war additions are better combined with a "Kingdom (K)" new feature (total revealed map area of own buildings).
This could just be in the todo list for a posterior version... because it makes everything fit interestingly.

Those last 2 parts of my post are oriented for a less boring gameplay, since militia/archer spam is the new ONLY thing you will see if PT is removed (beyond the fact of serfs defending themselves). Opponent spamming cheap units from Barracks... and you are given the choice to fight back with spamming Townhall mercenaries.

Big change system? Possibly... but seems like Krom/Lewin are "open to all kind of ideas", so why not adding the "Kingdom feature" someday?
It will add good complexity to the gameplay. Coming soon in... KaM Remake r6189

@Jeronimo: Please keep this thread about serfs fighting back and peacetime removal. K deserves a separate topic.

What about citizens changing to town hall units temporarily at the press of a button, so you could drive out the attackers? It would need to be temporary in some way so you could not use it as a cheap way to produce an army and use it to rush your enemy (defensive only). I think that would look better than a serf punching and kicking a soldier
It also means there is some cost to using this defence mechanism, your economic slows down for a while until the citizens return to work.

And also if we used this option, all the things which serfs carry should be lost (no matter if food, weapons or anything). That would be good for "outweighing" the good side I think

Actually this idea has been proposed before. Maybe that idea can give a new insight.

Well my idea some months ago was similiar with the "temporary aspect" to like "rent" the soldiers ,or only the citizens as attacker, for a certain time and when this time ends they just go back to the townhall. We could also use the tpr units like the stonethrewer, that some recruits just went angry and go to defend the base(just look at vas campaign )

Wow, that escalated quickly, forgive me I won't read everything now, but let me introduce a solution against archers you talked at the begining. If we're so unorthodox today I sieze my chance - how about archer tower?
Using this slim alpha watchtower model for creating building which shoots as powerfull as single archer. This way, it's completly useless against organied attack of melee troops, I wonder if it's ever able to kill single moving axeman shooting for a minute... HOWEVER even a single arrow is dangerous for archers and crossbowman who often die from single shoot. The model for tower is ready as far as I understand, the problem is building animation made just like with marketplace.

Also, did anyone ever considered fortress actually shooting? Again even with single arrow, perhaps with 3 as it's so massive.

LETS GO FURTHER (I have a good day ) PLease give back the siege engines the people were arguing in the chatbox days ago.
JUST - Catapult have 2 range more than archers and shoots single stone only against buildings. And Balistae is only strong as x-bowman but with 12 range. Simple as this. This way a catapult would be used as is should in a siege, and balistae will be somehow universal with bonus against buildings (still not as good as catapult)
And forget about the lack of crew, it's just a game. And with options I presented doubly anyone would have more than 3 catapults.

So to sumarize: greatly improve the defensiveness of the city, but give a specialized units to counter it. Everything well themed, shiny and medievish.


AH, about simple Townhall implementation - just leave it the way it is orginally, but you can only recruit troops when enemy unit is within 8 tiles from your buildings, as simple as you can get. Dunno the orginal chest capacity, but it should be around 10 for beeing able to recruit 2 warriors at once. (I'd prefer if it only gives you warriors, and barbs stil untrainable and special)

@Lewin: I see a few issues, 1st if we ever return TownHall this will cause a collision of logic, where do units belong (and I think we are likely to return it someday). 2nd they will be hard to control in groups or one by one. 3rd artificial limits on their actions (time or territorial) will certainly look odd. 4th at the start there are only enough serfs and laborers, so we could limit just to them. 5th ignoring 4th not all citizens have equivalents in TH units.

@Menszu: These are good ideas, but they are not good for an early game. The main idea is to replace peacetime with something else, that will keep players town safe BEFORE defense structures and forces are erect.

I haven't precized it but I mean those changes in addition to fighting serfs. Or just having the townhall unlocked very early. With posibility of having 10 emergency rebels, and single archery tower right next to a storehouse rushing wouldn'tbe so easy. Not to mention players might build fortress as soon as thay can if it can fire. It's just about new building priority, right after sawmill it'll be advised to erect a fort and workshop, and optionaly a townhall.

Even more, players would probablly build Fortressess as strong defensive structures just like castles in Age of Empires 2.
For those who fear the old tower will become useless - I don't think so, even 3 archers have no chance to stop simple bypassing knight, while stones can. But destroing a fortress, suported by 3 stone towers against meele would be real challenge without a catapult. Well, all those are quite major changes, but I find playing without PT so radical it neads equally radical measures. And since almost all graphics are in place it seams "easy" to implement.