Battering ram defensive capability nerf with pack idea

[godOfKings]

@Endru1241
Battering ram upgrade tech cost should b increased to 6 turns at least so by the time player gets access to 3rd upgrade of battering rams, cannons will also b available

[SirPat]

True

[phoenixffyrnig]

Why for, for reasons of countering? Granted, cannons do it from range, but swordsmen, mace men, zweihander, shielders, highlanders, in fact, pretty much all foot melee have a decent bonus Vs siege machines and an increased bonus Vs armoured siege machines. Best way to counter rams (imo) is to have a standing army made up of warriors.

[Squirrel5555]

Lol the only thing i want from this game is a major rework of siege engines, but that is just my opinion

[phoenixffyrnig]

How do you mean Squirrel? I feel we are too biased towards siege machines, and not enough focus on fighters (be they foot, cav, or missile).

I actually feel the balance of rams is quite good, they will eat up factories for breakfast but barely scratch the paint off the door of castles.

[godOfKings]

Pheonix it is much faster to make battering rams with workers than make warriors, and warriors and knights get killed too easily by ballista and spearman, and i m only suggesting to make it harder to UPGRADE battering rams so u will have to stay with 100 hp battering rams for longer time, even h. Zweihanders needs at least 4 hits to kill 1 battering ram, not to mention their upgrades have more hp and armor

Honestly considering wat happened last game, i thought even u would support me

[Squirrel5555]

My unpopular opinions incoming, as an answer to Phoenix these ideas still need to be developed

1)i think(not many people will like this) that range siege engines shouldnt be buildable by builders. This would encourage using builders to create defensive structures, and really reduces the amount of siege engines in play. Late game you can produce catapults and definitely ballista much faster than producing units not even using factories, just builders

2)rams shouldnt be able to be stored in wagons. 2 units in each ram, 3 rams in each wagon and in one turn your secure base can be overrun with 3 super tanky rams and 6 (for example) zweihanders. You cant come back from that. However, to make rams viable without being able to transport them with caravans, make them much easier to build using builders, so you can send a caravan forward with some builders and quickly set them up close to your targets

3)maybe add a special siege master who can build siege engines like normal builders currently can. Super expensive but acts like a miner, other builders can help him finish the engines after he begins building it

Currently i feel games are decided by siege engines, normal units just end up acting like clean up, or fighting irrelevant fights against each other until one player floods the other with rams/other siege like Phoenix has done to me and me to him. Siege engines become main battle lines instead of being support units like they should be. I know what my enemy will do but i still cant counter it, i think there is a problem with that

[L4cus]

Well, i dont think so. U can win in a lot of ways (im sure u agree with me at this) even without using siege machines. Also, there are a lot of ways to counter them.
I agree with u about a siege engineer. I was thinking too about make different types of them, like roman siege engineer, normal siege engineer only able to work on structures(siege machines) they can create (not like labourer)
Maybe to complicated...
I have used the rams on the wagon tactic too (full of workers to make more of them close to the enemy) its funny and too op

[Squirrel5555]

I disagree with you there, if you try to play no siege engine against an opponent using them you wont win, atleast if they know what they are doing
There are ways to counter single siege engines, not when they are produced more quickly than regular units

[SirPat]

For me Seige units are balanced cause remember they vahe that minimum range which makes catapults and trebs useless ones youve sent enemies beside them and wagons shouldnt really carry those rams its insane but it is quite expensive if you ask me

[Squirrel5555]

Minimum range is basically irrelevant, how are you going to get close to the trebs and catapults? If you are so close you should be able to kill them, if you dont they will just shoot something else. I really dont see how that mechanic makes siege spam balanced for you

But rams are the real problem lol

[Endru1241]

Actually, there is a way to make it all more balanced:
1. Make range siege incapable of movement, but with transformation that can move, cannot shoot. I am not sure it would work currently, but ballista and hwacha advantage would be one action left after transformation.
2. Make rams not able to go into wagon, but tranformable to version capable of so, but without any carry (that would require some engine change - e.g. requirement to be empty).
3. Wagon transformation (maybe one, that doesn't require action) to version capable to only carry foot units, but e.g. 5 or 6.

Huge disadvantage:
Requires "packed" images for all siege.

[L4cus]

There are some in aof...

[phoenixffyrnig]

Honestly considering wat happened last game, i thought even u would support me

Haha, GoK, seems like every time we are interacting, either one of us is hammering the other on the battlefield (normally you hammering me, admittedly) or we are on opposite sides of a debate. Really hope you don't think I'm just trying to be confrontational with you... because I think we want the same thing, (the onus taken away somewhat from siege weaponry overload ) but I think we have different ideas of how to go about it...you seem to want to weaken siege weapons from their current powerful status, whereas I want to have foot soldiers being much more necessary than they currently are, not just relative to siege weapons, but on a pound for pound basis against everything, cav and missile, after all, infantry is the backbone of an army. (Obviously you are much more experienced than me in this game, so I appreciate there may be many things you know about that I don't, in particular previous balancing)

Actually heavy zweihander (plus others) do about 44 plus damage after blacksmithery (I think) which means only 3 hits for first two tiers. But since rams don't do much damage to foot, means you can easily swamp them with foot and win the attritional battle. Like I say, rams can mash up a few misplaced buildings, but against proper defences, ie castles, upgraded towers, walls, they are really the siege weapon equivalent of skirmishers.

(PS - I have previously suggested a murder hole tech for castles and towers that could make mincemeat of rams, thereby slightly reducing the impact of ram spam. Plus also asked about the possibility of an upgraded burn effect for siege weapon countering too)

[phoenixffyrnig]

3)maybe add a special siege master who can build siege engines like normal builders currently can. Super expensive but acts like a miner, other builders can help him finish the engines after he begins building it

Squirrel, I think this is a brilliant idea! (Maybe only siege masters can start the build, and workers and labourers build points only count for half value with siege weapons). As I said, yes I do think there is too much focus on siege weaponry, however...

Re your point 1) we have to be careful about making things too defensive...most football fans would rather lose 5-4 than win 0-1 - positivity should be rewarded more than negativity

2) if it really is OP to load six guys into 3 rams into 1 wagon, how is it that in almost a hundred games with some of AoS's finest, hardly anyone has done this to me?

And may I please restate, with proper scouting/ recon, it is easy to destroy a wagon en route to your base, and thereby immediately destroying two thirds of the units contained within.

[godOfKings]

U dont understand, battering rams r actually more useful as defensive units to protect catapult and trebuchets inside tcs, u need a lot of turns to make zweihanders have 44 damage and u still need 3 zweihanders to kill a battering ram inside tc, how else do u think was i able to defend against u without losing a single battering ram or worker despite daring to make a fortress next to ur castle

If it took longer to upgradebattering ram, my defending battering ram might have had only 100 hp and it would have been easier for u to destroy it

[phoenixffyrnig]

1. Make range siege incapable of movement, but with transformation that can move, cannot shoot. I am not sure it would work currently, but ballista and hwacha advantage would be one action left after transformation.

This idea has legs too, I think, Endru. But possibly with a distinction between anti building siege weaponry and anti personnel siege weaponry. I feel that if anti personnel units can't both move and attack then it isn't much use at all against mobile targets. But this is a great way of replicating the time it would take to move, set up, calibrate, and finally use, destructive weapons like cat or treb in a TBS situation.

See elsewhere for my thoughts on disallowing rams into wagons, but considering that with drummer, almost everything can move almost as far as wagons, what else is wagon for except for transporting our slowest units? (Ok, slingshot effect too, but really, it is for transportation purposes isn't it?)

[Squirrel5555]

Endru, i love this idea

1)This all depends on the map, phoenix. Such as the 2vs2 on desert we are playing right now. I have the whole no mans land between our castles scouted well, however a caravan with rams and units can cross that in one turn with no way to destroy it. On larger maps intercepting wagons would be much easier, i admit.

2) maybe its a new idea, im not sure, but this tactic makes it much easier to destroy entire formations, defensive structures, infrastructure, and TCs in one turn than it would be without it. Are you really going to argue that this isnt a powerful tactic? In one turn you can jump your opponent with a whole army, ruining them before they can even react, since it is a turn based game. One ambush and i can lose lets say 20 turns worth of units with no loss to you, and i have no way to prepare because caravans move 5, rams 3, infantry 3. Thats 6 infantry units moving 11 tiles in one turn haha, with one caravan and some rams.

[godOfKings]

If it costs an action to change from mobile to attack mode, how will the treb b able to attack the castle without suffering attacks from enemy trebs inside castle that r already in attack mode?

This suggestion of requiring packaging of siege is completely biased towards defender player, and wat about cannons and siege ships?

Anyways this overhauling idea is a big idea and should b in separate topic, this topic is about how to defeat an enemy tc defended by battering rams and ballista wen u stil dont have catapults.

And my two suggestions r first raising cost of upgrading battering rams to 6 turns (or even 7 turns if others agree) and secondly nerfing ballista according to this idea

http://ageofstrategy.net/viewtopic.php? ... a24ba96dd1
That is ballista will have 1 action at start and will require a 7 turn cost tech similar to area damage tech of catapults to get 2 actions, this suggestion alone increases survivability of most 2 and 3 turn melee infantries, allowing them to actually last long enough to destroy the battering ram

[Squirrel5555]

Of course its biased towards defender, that is the point i would think ,it should be harder to attack well defended positions than to defend them , something this game really lacks currently imo

[godOfKings]

Of course its biased towards defender, that is the point i would think ,it should be harder to attack well defended positions than to defend them , something this game really lacks currently imo

Hah u would rather have a game last 100 turns with no side getting the advantage than actually finish yet, can u really not understand the implication of for example a catapult having to move in a cannon tower's range without being able to attack it and dying next turn? This game will never finish if such a big disadvantage is given to attacking side

Honestly speaking it is already quite hard to attack well defended sides, u need to expose 2 trebuchets to destroy a single fortress and they become vulnerable to catapults and cannons next turn

[Squirrel5555]

Look, you either give the attacking side the overwhelming advantage, or the defending side a manageable advantage. The attackers already call the shots, the defender has to react and is always a step behind, if the side you attack isnt defended then you will probably collapse it before the defender can send reinforcements. Currently as the defender you can be in a pretty damn good position and still get blitzed in one turn. You would rather have 20 turn games decided by 1 push?
Even if you dont like 100 turn games, both playstyles should be equally viable

[godOfKings]

If the attacking side can actually kill 20 turns of units and wagons in a single push, then there is obviously something wrong with the defending side's defenses lol, like exposing ur high damage units out in the open or not defending ur tc with a high hp unit etc. Cuz in all my life i played aos, the only time i ever suffered 20 + turns of damage was wen my castle was assassinated in a map where our starting points were barely 20 tiles apart

Most of the time i won was because attacking side exposed too many vulnerable units without dealing proper damage, and i was able to kill them all THEN take over enemy place with a single push

[phoenixffyrnig]

garrrhhh I typed up a big, well thought out message to both of you guys, but my bloody phone didn't upload it when I hit submit and now I'm too drunk and P***ed off to reply. I'll talk to you guys tomorrow when I'm sane! x

[Squirrel5555]

Ok lol i guess ill just go and git gud then, want to play a match? i know ill get completely stomped but it will be good practice for me

[L4cus]

I'd like a match with any of u too. I am a begginer so...

[Squirrel5555]

I'd like a match with any of u too. I am a begginer so...

Ok well set up a match and let me know the password and we can smash through some turns right now. Sorry gok for the topic invasion better if we pm from now on l4cus

[L4cus]

Give me 40 min plis and we will have a great match i promise

[Endru1241]

If it took longer to upgradebattering ram, my defending battering ram might have had only 100 hp and it would have been easier for u to destroy it

100hp is still very powerful, while longer research weakeans rams offensive capabilities.
I would rather weaken defensive side of rams.
Why not disallow attacking/carrying version any entry to tc? Tc could produce only carryable version instead, which could have less hp.

This idea has legs too, I think, Endru. But possibly with a distinction between anti building siege weaponry and anti personnel siege weaponry. I feel that if anti personnel units can't both move and attack then it isn't much use at all against mobile targets. But this is a great way of replicating the time it would take to move, set up, calibrate, and finally use, destructive weapons like cat or treb in a TBS situation.

Ballista and hwacha could be tweaked to have 1 shot in mobile version, while two after setting up in stationary form.

See elsewhere for my thoughts on disallowing rams into wagons, but considering that with drummer, almost everything can move almost as far as wagons, what else is wagon for except for transporting our slowest units? (Ok, slingshot effect too, but really, it is for transportation purposes isn't it?)

The idea behind rams is to transport units on it's own, when close to defensive structures/defenders, that wagon would never survive. All while still being quite stronf punch vs structures.

If it costs an action to change from mobile to attack mode, how will the treb b able to attack the castle without suffering attacks from enemy trebs inside castle that r already in attack mode?

This suggestion of requiring packaging of siege is completely biased towards defender player, and wat about cannons and siege ships?

Not necessarily.
Packing allows more precise balancing.
E.g. castle could produce packed trebuchets and sieges in the attacking form could be allowed only in selected few buildings.

Anyways this overhauling idea is a big idea and should b in separate topic, this topic is about how to defeat an enemy tc defended by battering rams and ballista wen u stil dont have catapults.

And my two suggestions r first raising cost of upgrading battering rams to 6 turns (or even 7 turns if others agree) and secondly nerfing ballista according to this idea

http://ageofstrategy.net/viewtopic.php? ... a24ba96dd1
That is ballista will have 1 action at start and will require a 7 turn cost tech similar to area damage tech of catapults to get 2 actions, this suggestion alone increases survivability of most 2 and 3 turn melee infantries, allowing them to actually last long enough to destroy the battering ram

That would take some advantage those have over catapult and other units. My approach is more versatile.
We already have a ton of research nobody does.
And siege overhaul have to come sooner or later.

[DreJaDe]

Of course its biased towards defender, that is the point i would think ,it should be harder to attack well defended positions than to defend them , something this game really lacks currently imo

Hah u would rather have a game last 100 turns with no side getting the advantage than actually finish yet, can u really not understand the implication of for example a catapult having to move in a cannon tower's range without being able to attack it and dying next turn? This game will never finish if such a big disadvantage is given to attacking side

Honestly speaking it is already quite hard to attack well defended sides, u need to expose 2 trebuchets to destroy a single fortress and they become vulnerable to catapults and cannons next turn

I actually agree to disagree with this. I have this game where it lasted 1 year to finish even though i can play my turn 2 times a day. We got to the point where even with 3 wagons of trebs and catapult won't make my opponents defense buldge, with me also being the same. Our problem is thst, we get to the point where we set up an ultimate defense that is super hard to penetrate because of limits like 200 population. Well the only reason why it ended is because I can't play in 2 days and got kicked.

The idea of the packed form is what is like in AOF. If this became a reality then the maybe anyone will relly on the Assasin strat or the cannons in-game.

Though the surprise siege attack would be useless now so it kinda works.

Also instead of seiges they would be like towers that can move which is basically what seige are....