Attackers being punished?

[Ben]

In my opinion, defensive tactics are far too powerful. Maybe some people can afford spending four-six hours playing a single game, but I cannot (in consideration of time and health). I don't think that the towers by themselves are the problem, but just camping in general is way too common in the Remake (Although good efforts have been made to prevent this). Camping is just not an ethical thing for RTS games. A defensive strategy is fine, but camping is another problem alltogether.

Lewin made some excellent points on how the current maps favor camping. There should be more maps like Battle Sun where there are few natural defences. The Problem is, everyone (including myself) is scared to play on a map like that.

[Jeronimo]

KaM is more about rushing the player with less troops after PT, or in case rush fails, then it's about accumulating army (here is when having a bigger base makes more impact) and crushing opponent in a strong siege (first you will be pressing on him, so he will camp behind towers with no other choice).

Enemy behind towers can only make "breaker army" if he wants to break your pressure. This just means having more forces than you.
Another opportunity for campers is when you "siege too early" and if they are able to defend, then as result they break your pressure earlier.

When this repeats, it's what we call a going back and forward... resulting often in a GG for everyone at the end.

-------------------------------------------
Beyond map designs and stuff, camping with "breaker army" is what should be condemned... having army superiority and not going out from towers is what we call a Lame player. There cannot be excuses about bad calculation of forces since there isn't fog of war...

[Ben]

I still think that crossbowmen and bowmen should have a x2 attack bonus against towers. Just to make sieging easier