Renamed topic. General observations re recent siege changes

[phoenixffyrnig]

Currently (until Heavy treb and/or advanced ballistics are researched) all it takes to make a fort or castle immune from a trebuchet is to research ballistraria and you can burn it to the ground before a shot is fired in anger. The equivalent time necessary to achieve either of these skews too far in favour of defence imo.

If ballistraria was locked behind another tech then this would be less imbalanced. In discussion with another player we wondered whether it would be more fitting to have one of the defensive techs (masonry or massive walls) as a prerequisite, or the archery range techs.

In fact, there is a possibility to bring some added depth into this with the archery techs, eg reduce all tower arrow attack range by two (shooting tower, fortress, forts, castles, xbow and longbow towers - probably not the seldom used guard tower), but bring that range back with the successive range techs, and maybe lock ballistraria behind the second range tech, (or maybe the first if it would be too much of a nerf - I'm on the fence here, but 55:45 in favour of range tech 2) so it would take all three techs to achieve range 9 of the burning arrow attacks.

Siege in general are very vulnerable to ranged attacks with the extra set up stage - longbows for example can cut these solid wooden constructs to shreds. Perhaps an increase to pierce armour in their intermediate set up stage?

Also cannons seem to be in a weakish place even with the attack techs researched, particularly against forts. Possible increase to bonus dam Vs fortifications? Also I recall mention of an exploding cannonball tech (ie area dam) - is this still on the cards at some point? It would be good, but my suggestion to boost bonus Vs fortifications is independent of this addition.

Also, is ballista tower now a bit too strong considering anything that can really do it damage is now twice as slow? Should some HP be taken off base version, to be given back on upgraded version?

Or could all my above points be answered with the simple answer of "Use more rams"?

[L4cus]

agree, nerf ballistraria...with the new tech logic of assets is it possible to make multiple requirements?

[Endru1241]

agree, nerf ballistraria...with the new tech logic of assets is it possible to make multiple requirements?

It was always possible.
The only limitation is that ALL requirements need to be met.
So it's only logical AND and there is no way to have logical OR in reqs.

Or could all my above points be answered with the simple answer of "Use more rams"?

Nah.
Those are valid points.

Although I could argue with proposed solutions.

Cannons having any higher bonus vs fortifications coupled with area damage is bad idea though.
By itself - possible.

Ranged techs affecting towers is some idea, but I am very much against doing it selectively.
Either affect all arrow shooting towers or none.
And along with ballistaria and garrisoned keep it would be too big of a boost imho.

Another thing I wonder about is if we should solve everything by only range or maybe remove burning as a default and only add it with a tech.
Won't that make them too defenceless vs siege?
Or maybe remove 1 action from fort and castle and only add it with tech?

Anyway those 3 - fortress, fort and castle was not touched when everything else was balanced to need longer research to achieve full power.

As for easiest solution - locking ballistaria behind another tech - I think Garrisoned Keep is good candidate.
It doesn't help much against siege machines, so it should be OK.

[b2198]

As for easiest solution - locking ballistaria behind another tech - I think Garrisoned Keep is good candidate.
It doesn't help much against siege machines, so it should be OK.

Nice.

Siege in general are very vulnerable to ranged attacks with the extra set up stage - longbows for example can cut these solid wooden constructs to shreds. Perhaps an increase to pierce armour in their intermediate set up stage?

Not really related to ballistraria, but yeah, this has been a problem recently, it's very hard to set up trebuchets if the opponent has some garrisoned longbowmen waiting for them, because they only have 3 p. armor in the mobile mode, which wasn't a problem before, because tbh no one used mobile mode then, and I've just noticed this problem now that they are mandatory for setting up trebuchets.

[Endru1241]

Also increased tebuchet p.armor 3->5.

[DreJaDe]

No!!!

Honestly. This would make things more hard for me since sometimes, trebs are blocked by trees or obstacles that I can't use cart strat or even just normal saly out.

Well, though in the first place. I want archers to be weaker as for some reason. Legionary are so weak against ordinary archer spam.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Swift work, nice one Endru.

Cannons having any higher bonus vs fortifications coupled with area damage is bad idea though.

OK, fair enough. I was thinking only of Vs forts rather than general usage.

Ranged techs affecting towers is some idea, but I am very much against doing it selectively.

Fair enough x2. I was excluding guard towers because of their short range and lack of use - perhaps if they were given +1 range base value, and included in this idea it would make them a bit more usable...?

along with ballistaria and garrisoned keep it would be too big of a boost imho.

Not sure what would be too big of a boost, my suggestion is to require techs to bring them up to current strength, not make them stronger.

I think keeping burning attack with no need for a tech is fine since it is only these few structures that use it and it is kind of essential for them in particular as defence Vs ships and siege. Locking the 3rd action behind a (probably cheapish) tech has merit I think, further defining clear and separate tech pathways between attack and defence.

No!!!

Honestly. This would make things more hard for me since sometimes, trebs are blocked by trees or obstacles that I can't use cart strat or even just normal saly out.

Not an issue I don't think, this doesn't make trebs any stronger than before - it just gives them some more durability in the weaker intermediate stage, which as b points out, was seldom used before but now is mandatory. Doesn't change the challenge of dealing with trebs the other side of an obstacle.

More tangential points
Is treb now too weak? It's had its speed of use reduced by half, and also had a significant damage reduction. (I think) I just calculated a max attack of 574 on a high castle (ie all upgrades, heavy treb, area dam plus targeting middle square of the castle) - this would be even less on corner squares. If my numbers are correct, is this too much of a nerf?

Skirmishers Vs Hwacha
Hwacha is tagged as archer, which obviously makes it weaker in the face of anti archer units. For mêlée units this isn't too much of a problem - if you let your hwacha get into mêlée range you deserve to lose it. Vs skirmishers however it's a bit awkward because of the potential range of movement of skirmishers, plus ranged attack, combined with the fact that hwacha is weak Vs skirmishers due to their high pierce armour.
Is their a way of discounting constructs from skirmisher's bonus Vs archers? I'm sure I've seen an instance where a subcategory has been disregarded but can't think of it right now.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Is their a way of discounting constructs from skirmisher's bonus

I've just noticed the same thing with skirmisher attack Vs slinger towers due to them having sling category. I will keep an open eye for any others

[b2198]

More tangential points
Is treb now too weak? It's had its speed of use reduced by half, and also had a significant damage reduction. (I think) I just calculated a max attack of 574 on a high castle (ie all upgrades, heavy treb, area dam plus targeting middle square of the castle) - this would be even less on corner squares. If my numbers are correct, is this too much of a nerf?

I don't think so, it goes from 305 (unupgraded, no area damage) to 574 (upgraded, area damage, targetting middle tile) damage against high castles, which means they could destroy one in 3 (574 damage treb vs 1500hp high castle) to 10 (305 damage treb vs 3015 high castle) shots (and 6 shots if both maxed), and considering that now they can move faster across longer distances (due to advanced wheelwrighting) and fire from 11 range (due to advanced ballistics), so that later in the game they outrange every defensive struture in the game, I don't think they are too weak for the most part. The exception being that very low p. armor in the mobile mode, which Endru already fixed.

Skirmishers Vs Hwacha
Hwacha is tagged as archer, which obviously makes it weaker in the face of anti archer units. For mêlée units this isn't too much of a problem - if you let your hwacha get into mêlée range you deserve to lose it. Vs skirmishers however it's a bit awkward because of the potential range of movement of skirmishers, plus ranged attack, combined with the fact that hwacha is weak Vs skirmishers due to their high pierce armour.
Is their a way of discounting constructs from skirmisher's bonus Vs archers? I'm sure I've seen an instance where a subcategory has been disregarded but can't think of it right now.

Wait, skirmishers deal increased damage against hwachas? I'm not sure if that's a translation issue in my game, but as it is shown here hwachas would need to be [foot], [mounted] or [elephant] alongside [archer] for skirmishers to have bonuses against them.

[phoenixffyrnig]

I don't think so, it goes from 305 (unupgraded, no area damage) to 574 (upgraded, area damage, targetting middle tile) damage against high castles, which means they could destroy one in 3 (574 damage treb vs 1500hp high castle) to 10 (305 damage treb vs 3015 high castle) shots (and 6 shots if both maxed), and considering that now they can move faster across longer distances (due to advanced wheelwrighting) and fire from 11 range (due to advanced ballistics), so that later in the game they outrange every defensive struture in the game, I don't think they are too weak for the most part. The exception being that very low p. armor in the mobile mode, which Endru already fixed.

All weighed against a halved rate of fire...? I'm of the opposite opinion on this one. 6 unanswered shots assuming no repairs take place, and this is optimum attacking scenario. Let's remember that targeting middle square is only really an option when all treb upgrades are done. Essentially trebs are about 1/3 to 1/4 power now all things considered... yes, they were a bit OP before, but surely not 3x or 4x?

Wait, skirmishers deal increased damage against hwachas? I'm not sure if that's a translation issue in my game, but as it is shown here hwachas would need to be [foot], [mounted] or [elephant] alongside [archer] for skirmishers to have bonuses against them.

Right you are - good attention to detail - I did not closely check skirmisher boni, just the categories of mentioned constructs. In that case, something isn't right in execution then because I've just done 9 dam to a hwacha (with 6 PA) with a maxed skirmisher plus 1 from tell fortune, and 10 dam to a slinger tower with a maxed skirmisher plus nothing.

[Endru1241]

I checked and there is a mistake in json causing this "FOOT" to be ignored (if using real category it would have been shown as "Foot").

[b2198]

I don't think so, it goes from 305 (unupgraded, no area damage) to 574 (upgraded, area damage, targetting middle tile) damage against high castles, which means they could destroy one in 3 (574 damage treb vs 1500hp high castle) to 10 (305 damage treb vs 3015 high castle) shots (and 6 shots if both maxed), and considering that now they can move faster across longer distances (due to advanced wheelwrighting) and fire from 11 range (due to advanced ballistics), so that later in the game they outrange every defensive struture in the game, I don't think they are too weak for the most part. The exception being that very low p. armor in the mobile mode, which Endru already fixed.

All weighed against a halved rate of fire...? I'm of the opposite opinion on this one. 6 unanswered shots assuming no repairs take place, and this is optimum attacking scenario. Let's remember that targeting middle square is only really an option when all treb upgrades are done. Essentially trebs are about 1/3 to 1/4 power now all things considered... yes, they were a bit OP before, but surely not 3x or 4x?

Hm, I see your point, though I'd argue that the extra +1 range drops that 3x-4x to about ~2x, because retaliation now has to be done by other units when it gets to that point, so no high castle can actually fight against a 11 range trebuchet alone. Maybe increasing back their bonuses against megas a little bit, so that it goes from:

treb/heavy treb/area damage treb vs corner/area damage treb vs center/area damage heavy treb vs corner/area damage heavy treb vs center

• vs 800hp monastery: 3/3/2/2/2/2 hits
• vs 1072hp monastery: 4/3/3/3/3/2 hits
• vs 1608hp monastery: 6/5/4/4/4/3 hits
• vs 1000hp castle: 4/3/3/3/2/2 hits
• vs 1340hp castle: 5/4/4/3/3/3 hits
• vs 2010hp castle: 7/6/5/5/4/4 hits
• vs 1500hp high castle: 5/5/4/4/3/3 hits
• vs 2010hp high castle: 7/6/5/5/4/4 hits
• vs 3015hp high castle: 10/9/8/7/6/6 hits

to something more like:

• vs 800hp monastery: 3/3/2/2/2/2 hits
• vs 1072hp monastery: 4/3/3/3/3/2 hits
• vs 1608hp monastery: 5/5/4/4/4/3 hits
• vs 1000hp castle: 4/3/3/3/2/2 hits
• vs 1340hp castle: 5/4/4/3/3/2 hits
• vs 2010hp castle: 6/6/5/4/4/4 hits
• vs 1500hp high castle: 5/5/4/4/3/3 hits
• vs 2010hp high castle: 6/6/5/4/4/4 hits
• vs 3015hp high castle: 9/8/7/6/5/5 hits

(not really sure if these are possible values)
And maybe also increase high castle upgrade cost from 4 to 5? Not sure about this one.

[phoenixffyrnig]

though I'd argue that the extra +1 range drops that 3x-4x to about ~2x

I'm glad you can debate/disagree/play Devil's advocate with me b. I make no secret of my bias towards attacking play in the hope that someone will act as a restraining influence

Yes, fair point - I should not so readily disregard the extra range. Let's split the difference and call it 2.247x weaker (joking aside, I think your numbers mind and attention to detail and my scatty-yet-well-considered general approach work well together - thank the Gods we have Endru to make final decisions on things because I get the feeling you and I could argue all day about topics we actually agree on, let alone points of divergence! )

Let's just assume I wish for stronger values than you suggest (and vice versa) and save time by not getting bogged down in numbers, (in other words, I'm too drunk to do the maths). That is a good presentation of scenarios though, nicely clarified. I don't suppose I could request something similar for fully upgraded forts Vs trebs from my favourite Brazilian calculator?

What I don't like from your suggested values is that in the later stages they do not reward going for the middle tile by costing one hit less (admittedly that difference can be easily made up by other means, but we are talking about castles Vs castle killers here). Given that it takes approx 17 (or is it 15?) turns of research to gain that range of 11 I think it should be noticeably stronger to hit the bullseye.

I would also argue that one high castle couldn't defeat a 10 range treb with repairer behind anyway, so we are always reliant on other means anyway, but I accept your point that there is a big difference between being in or out of high castle treb range.

And maybe also increase high castle upgrade cost from 4 to 5?

Interesting suggestion. Although rather than increasing cost, what about following the trend and locking high castle behind a different tech, because it is a biggie? Either masonry or massive walls would be the obvious contenders.

[b2198]

though I'd argue that the extra +1 range drops that 3x-4x to about ~2x

I'm glad you can debate/disagree/play Devil's advocate with me b. I make no secret of my bias towards attacking play in the hope that someone will act as a restraining influence

Yes, fair point - I should not so readily disregard the extra range. Let's split the difference and call it 2.247x weaker (joking aside, I think your numbers mind and attention to detail and my scatty-yet-well-considered general approach work well together - thank the Gods we have Endru to make final decisions on things because I get the feeling you and I could argue all day about topics we actually agree on, let alone points of divergence! )

True XD

Let's just assume I wish for stronger values than you suggest (and vice versa) and save time by not getting bogged down in numbers, (in other words, I'm too drunk to do the maths). That is a good presentation of scenarios though, nicely clarified. I don't suppose I could request something similar for fully upgraded forts Vs trebs from my favourite Brazilian calculator?

Lmao XD. Ok, but trebuchet damage against forts is still the same, since only their bonuses against megas were lowered last time, so currently they are:

treb/heavy treb/area damage treb/area damage heavy treb

• vs 340hp fort: 4/3/3/2 hits
• vs 455hp fort: 5/4/4/3 hits
• vs 682hp fort: 7/6/5/4 hits

What I don't like from your suggested values is that in the later stages they do not reward going for the middle tile by costing one hit less (admittedly that difference can be easily made up by other means, but we are talking about castles Vs castle killers here). Given that it takes approx 17 (or is it 15?) turns of research to gain that range of 11 I think it should be noticeably stronger to hit the bullseye.

I'm not sure if it should be rewarded more than it already is though, because it would make castles way more suitable for "horizontal defense", and way less so for "vertical defense", and since there's no way to rotate a castle when placing, I think it shouldn't matter that much, at least not until that is a thing, If that gets implemented someday, or if castles become 3x3 at some point, then yeah, hitting that "weak spot" should give a higher reward imo too, but without the player being able to decide which side to defend against, I'm against that idea, since it would be more "map position dependant".

I would also argue that one high castle couldn't defeat a 10 range treb with repairer behind anyway, so we are always reliant on other means anyway, but I accept your point that there is a big difference between being in or out of high castle treb range.

Yeah, true, but a 10 range treb couldn't defeat a high castle alone even if it had nothing to repair it, because it could fire back and destroy the treb in 2/3 shots (for normal/heavy), now a 11 range treb can defeat it if no other units are present (which is almost never the case, but just for the sake of this argument), so that increases their threat value by forcing more action by other units to either repair the castle or to destroy the treb.

And maybe also increase high castle upgrade cost from 4 to 5?

Interesting suggestion. Although rather than increasing cost, what about following the trend and locking high castle behind a different tech, because it is a biggie? Either masonry or massive walls would be the obvious contenders.

[/quote]
Yeah, I think that could work better than just increasing the upgrade cost, basically pushing high castles to be less early-game-y

[phoenixffyrnig]

vs 340hp fort: 4/3/3/2 hits
vs 455hp fort: 5/4/4/3 hits
vs 682hp fort: 7/6/5/4 hits

Obrigado. These tallies (imo) are better for a maxed treb.

because it would make castles way more suitable for "horizontal defense", and way less so for "vertical defense"

a very good point (one which I chose to ignore ) however, in some cases it is possible to choose the angle of approach in order to hit the sweet spot - obviously my attack bias would lead me to say it should still bring rewards even if it is not always possible. Benefit of the doubt to the attacker I would say, but i appreciate this is a scenario that is sometimes out of our control.

so that increases their threat value by forcing more action

yes, again, valid point (and another illustration of why I value our back and forth). Just for the sake of it is always justifiable for rational debate (ie quite plausible scenarios such as this rather than highly unlikely "in isolation" scenarios that require atrociously bad play to be possible ).

basically pushing high castles to be less early-game-y

Exactly. With a many start units game, I consider myself slow if I don't have my first castle up by turn 10 (normally turn 9, occasionally even turn 8 or earlier if the situation calls), therefore by extension high castle by turn 14 or earlier. This is probably a bit too much.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Hmm, I do think we have slipped back towards favouring towers. Most end games (I'm talking when it's all over bar the shouting, and you've more or less got your opponent beaten back to his starting area - assume all relevant upgrades done) seems to be waiting for more trebs to arrive to deal with the numerous defences the opposition has had all game to build. If anything, I'd say we have made treb spam crucial (as opposed to previously when it was too effective), and even greater numbers of them are required/desired than before.

Even a hefty superiority of numbers isn't much help because it really doesn't take too much in the way of fortifications to cut many men to ribbons, particularly as we are right next to the opp's production line and multiple units garrisoned in defences can easily cope with hand to hand. And it just doesn't feel right launching a mad, uneducated charge knowing that almost all your men are going to killed by vastly inferior forces.

As usual, I will declare my conflict of interest due to my attacking bias, but just cos I'm biased it don't mean I'm wrong and I have yet to attack a really well defended base since these changes, only moderately so - but Vs a whole load of towers/forts etc I can see this being a real grind.

As I see it, the reasons for the grind is an interconnected mix of factors, chiefly

the number of hits needed,

the number of different tiles that need targeting (eg each 1x1 tower needs addressing separately, unlike megas where 1 target tile could clear 4 or 6 squares of ground),

the reduced rate of fire of siege weapons,

and the impracticality of attacking certain defences with certain weapons. (not an issue that needs dealing with - a simple statement of fact. My hope is that by including this I can avoid being given a simplistic counterexample in isolation when it is clear I am taking a panoramic view of many variables). 7 or 8 turns into a siege, you simply may not have what is needed where it is needed, therefore more turns are needed to redeploy.

Possible solutions/ improvements / creases to iron out (call them what you will)

Ballista tower - it's a beast! 3 treb shots by end of play, double action, (does it still have AoE dam - if so, with or without area damage tech?) well fair enough, let it be a beast, I have no problem with that - but suggestion to add in a minimum range to give melee troops a fighting chance. Realistically, its up in a tower, it can't really be aiming straight down to ground floor level.

As I previously mentioned, bring back some bonus dam for treb Vs megas. Or... is there a possibility to increase percentage of area dam? That would have the same effect but also help somewhat Vs tower/fort spam where tiles are adjacent.

Is there any practical way of slightly increasing fire rate of treb? When having to advance slowly clearing many defences it really is advancing slowly! Because of enfilade, treb is often the only way of dealing with the next fortification - even moving range just 1 square forward is a drag. I presume allowing a stand mode treb to move 1 tile when all research is done is out of the question? What about in the presence of a potential new specialist unit such as a siege engineer (applying to all stand mode weapons, obviously complying with the move or attack rule)?

Both hwacha and cannon have got little in exchange for movement takes action, except for that slight movement boost with tech - essentially halved in value. cf ballista, which in return has been given a clearer and more useful role. Hwacha attack seems less powerful Vs pierce armour now with all techs - good, a necessary downwards tweak imo - but seems rather flimsy now it can't defend itself so well. Slight increase to hp or mêlée armour? For cannon, what about increase base speed to 3 in recompense, -> 4 with tech. This one in particular didn't seem OP x2, but here it is halved. What about (an old, previously mentioned) grape shot/canister ability?

[godOfKings]

Btw do u guys think turtle machine should have movement cost action since it has bigger advantage than same cost catapult (or even heavy catapult)?

[phoenixffyrnig]

Specific answer - No (even though it has double attack, it has rather low range, slow movement, and can't be built).

Tangential answer - I don't like it all. I agree with what Endru said somewhere a few weeks back, them and ornis should be booted to fun unit. In a game that tries to be closer to historical fact than based on a true story, these two "concepts" don't really belong. They may have (arguably) been proved possible, but that doesn't mean they were practical or even usable, let alone viable to mass produce. Was either one ever actually created (outside of TV shows) let alone used in combat?

Although considering their historical authenticity as a workable plan, part of me wonders if instead of booting out entirely perhaps they could actually be boosted somewhat and given the unique one per player tag that Inquisitor has. I still wouldn't like them, but that doesn't really give me the right to erase them from history.

[Endru1241]

There is still damage techs yet to be added for siege.

Plus something to nerf 8 range buildings in the start.

Plus high castle requiring later game, but that one doesn't change anything in mentioned late game.


As for turtle machine - I added it exactly because ornithopter was already in game.
But I think both being fun unit would be best solution.

No need to think hard about balancing and trying to explain how they fit historically.

[phoenixffyrnig]

I checked and there is a mistake in json causing this "FOOT" to be ignored (if using real category it would have been shown as "Foot").

You probably already know Endru, but to be sure, I've just noticed this same capitalising problem in all skirmisher type units, routier, horse, auxillary, atl atl, velites... I think that's the lot.

[Endru1241]

I checked and there is a mistake in json causing this "FOOT" to be ignored (if using real category it would have been shown as "Foot").

You probably already know Endru, but to be sure, I've just noticed this same capitalising problem in all skirmisher type units, routier, horse, auxillary, atl atl, velites... I think that's the lot.

Yup.
There were 21 hits, so 7 unit definitions had that.
Plus few more which had bonuses directly copied from other units (by copyFromUnitBonus field).

The fix would have already been at least in dev version if not for me trying to fit too much in one pack.