Towers too strong

[DreJaDe]

From my view though, defensive buildings are still more OP than the seige.

I really think there should be a limit to towers while making then more defensible.

[L4cus]

just debuff structures related techs, and mending bonus

[godOfKings]

From my view though, defensive buildings are still more OP than the seige.

I really think there should be a limit to towers while making then more defensible.

I agree, currently everything has a limit, units, factories, megas, but only towers r unlimited plus 1 tower can hold more than 1 unit so u compress lots of units into 1 tower

Wat if we make some rules like for example 1 tc increases tower limit by 4, 3 turns and less costing towers will take 1 limit, 4 turn take 2, 6 turn take 3, and 9 turn towers take all 4 limit so it wont b possible to spam ballista and cannon tower anymore and they will become precious
(btw which tower fills up how many limit should b individually decided for each tower instead of generalising with turn cost)

[Endru1241]

I have split the topic, because it was getting, well - off topic.

I really think there should be a limit to towers while making then more defensible.

But towers have limits. The most powerful of all limits.
IMMOBILITY.
Unlike structures, that produce something - towers, roads, bridges, chapels, traps all have two things in common - they take have limit (apart of space) and they are completely useless out of enemy range. They are only capable of blocking and keeping ground.
But to attack or support attacking player has to build new ones elsewhere.

[DreJaDe]

I have split the topic, because it was getting, well - off topic.

I really think there should be a limit to towers while making then more defensible.

But towers have limits. The most powerful of all limits.
IMMOBILITY.
Unlike structures, that produce something - towers, roads, bridges, chapels, traps all have two things in common - they take have limit (apart of space) and they are completely useless out of enemy range. They are only capable of blocking and keeping ground.
But to attack or support attacking player has to build new ones elsewhere.

At some point it's really just a matter of who invested more in towers that's what I get.

If you can shut each other out, the one that would get the win is not outmaneuver like IRL but who can build the defensive towers in their back. After that, it's just a matter of who can build faster.

This became like the opposite of the catapults imba back in the day NGL

[makazuwr32]

I do not agree with towers' limts but instead i think towers must cost to construct more. And walls as well.

Main problem with them is being cheap.

Fortress can be built in 2 turns with 3 workers, guard tower in 1 turn (ofc with ambidextria). Add to those 3 workers wagon and you will get very high mobile group who can build fortification almost anywhere in an instant.

[Endru1241]

This would mean, that it's rather workers, that should be limited.

As for limiting building speed - flat change of construction speed is rather bad - end game workforce impact would be meager unless, construction was made twice as slower (or even more) and start game would eliminate any effectiveness of towers.
Real representation and much more balanced would be harder to bring:
- partially turn dependant - if under construction maximum current hp would be set as e.g. maxHp/cost (or some other parameter), so then balista tower set as e.g. 6 turns would be limited to having 20hp at 1st, 40 hp at 2nd turn and so on (modified by techs increasing maxHp)
- each mend action sets some counter to have next mend less effective, reseted each turn, e.g. real mend = mend*mendingBonus/(1+counter) - that would make first mend in turn 15, second 7.5, third 5, fourth 3.75

[DreJaDe]

I would actually want to agree with the worker building defenses to be more expensive.

But I don't want it to include the factories (not castles etc) and also the roads and some other defences like trench and canals.

Though then being more expensive should also give them some more tankyness. With this, I hope tower offensive starts would be more unviable.

I don't think it wouldn't make them less effective but more of change of use.

Like instead of building instant defensive towers, players might use the other terrain buildables for their defenses.

Though this might change the game to a more of ww1 scenario, I hope this shouldnt be the case.

[makazuwr32]

In aof we decided to give players two sets of fortification type structures:
1. Cheap and weak, can be used for offence, easily destroyable by infantry (alas cavalry and other units without anti-building bonuses they can hold for a bit of time).
2. Tough, sturdy and costly fortifications which can't be made quickly. They also can't be destroyed by infantries fast and if you want to deal with them fast you need actual siege.

Why don't try similar approach here?
Costly towers — ballista tower, fortress and cannon tower — can become more tough and more costly (and also stone wall and stone gate), while palisades, watch tower, guard tower and such will be kept cheap and fast buildable.

[godOfKings]

Wen i compare the scenario of in-game multiplayer battles, it becomes like this

Send an army of workers in wagon to the farthest captured tc from start, build a ballista tower, may b if possible cover enemy tc in range, build shooting tower a little farther, then spam as many cannon towers as possible as long as ur workers r not within atk range, 1 big advantage of towers over siege is their sight

And anyways in my opinion a ballista tower and cannon towers combo is indeed very op as it can counter everything except trebuchet whose amount has been greatly reduced ever since mega factory limit was implemented, basically it takes a longer time to make new trebuchets than to spam ballista and cannon towers, even if i can successfully destroy 1 cannon tower, there is no guarantee my trebs will survive next turn if enemy uses cavalry wagon, and if they die i will have to wait another decade for new batch of trebs by which they spam more cannon towers, and sending infantry to destroy cannon towers is almost useless as they will b protected by the ballista tower behind

[makazuwr32]

That is why i suggest to highly increase cost and moderately toughness for those 3 towers.

Also trebushets i think must be producable at siege workshop as well.

[Endru1241]

What exactly are differences between costly and cheap defensive-wise? How are costlier ones harder to deal with infantry?
I opened AoF help page and some of them don't even have twice the hp difference and the same categories.
Is it only being discussed for now?

As for AoS, hypotetically if we tried to bring such approach:
What could be required number of actions for towers?
Where to place crossbow, longbow, slinger/handcannon tower - costly or cheap? Or somewhere in the middle?
Isn't placing all towers capable of defending against ships in one costlier category a mistake? Or should it be resolved by cheaper tower with anti-ship capability and/or burning effect?

And also very important question - how would that affect siege machines? Wouldn't they once again become better option cost-effective? Or should they be affected by some split too?

So many questions, so little answers.

[makazuwr32]

They are put on hold for a while because each race firstly requires proper siege units but stats are ready.

Humans for example:
Guard tower — 500 hp, 10/50 armor, construction speed planned — 3 worker + laborer actions (3 worker + 3 laborer actions, counting maxed ones). Maxed orcish warrior for 3 turns with 80 attack and 200% bonus can deal to it 240 damage.
Fortress — 1500 hp, 10/50 armor, construction speed planned — 10 worker worker + laborer actions (10 worker + 10 laborer actions). Same other categories.
Difference in hp is 3 times.
Also, siege:
Orc crusher maxed has 54 attack and 800% bonus which result in 486 damage.
Human trebushet maxed has 45 attack and 2000% bonus which result in 945 damage.

There also some other differences are planned like:
Fortress will have less heal rate than guard tower;
Guard tower will be able to carry all units while fortress only infantries.

Also about siege:
In aof there are 3 siege types:
1. Melee siege
2. Ranged siege with good damage and very high miss chance
3. Ranged siege with pinpoint accuracy and average damage (better than infantries but worse than second one cost-wise)

1st ones are depend from race to race and from types as well;
2nd ones always have low attack values which are compensated by bonuses to buildings;
3rd ones have good attack values but average bonuses which result in a bit worse damage/cost values.

Now to aos:
Crossbow and longbow towers: as for me they can be put as cheap ones.
Handcannon tower - do not remember but probably cheap.

Fortress can be put as cheap as well if its health will be somewhat comparable to guard tower (i will base all other cheap towers on it).

Another variant is to give for guard tower researchable ability "Ignite arrows" which will give burning weapon effect to it for some time upon activation.

Ranged siege must not be able to move and act in the same turn though as for me (implemented in aof) so defenders will be able to counterattack if they notice enemy siege.

[Endru1241]

Oh, I see, that makes some sense.
But I'd change something to give more holding power to pricier ones - either bigger mend bonus or armors (especially melee), as pure hp difference makes them equally defensive compared to cost (even on a worse side, I'd say).
But I don't know the details so just treat it as a little nagging comment.

Coming back to AoS:
Splitting into subcategories could work, but I still think the main problem here will remain always active. Increasing build time of towers will force increasing siege and ships construction time too.
And it will only shift the turn count of investment return for workers. Problem itself will persist probably.

Also even in such event of deciding to increase build time, I'd leave only guard tower as strictly cheap, along with walls and gates (which are currently underused).
Ability for burning is great idea.

Crossbow, longbow, fortress and handgonne could be something in the middle, costlier and set as specialised (fortress left alone and the other 3 boosted to similar cost with specialisations).

Balista, Cannon and long planned Catapult tower could be made costlier without any boosts or maybe only defensive ones (hut does any of them need it?)

But that is not anything planned - only loose thoughts.

What is planned on the other hand and may shift balance of towers:
Gate upgrade bringing garrison space of 1.
Wall upgrade with more armor, hp and possibly some attack power.
Siege and ships range and power increase techs (+1 range only, possibly some more for attack) - multiple, split techs!
Medium shield infantry +p.armor tech, possibly with separate cheap tech for ability, giving p.armor and lowering attack or/and speed.

And one thing that starts to bother me more and more - possible change in archery (split to 2 separate techs for range and attack, possibly only 1 range tech).

[makazuwr32]

Higher mending rate is fine. Higher carry capacity, higher heal rate or some other bonuses are fine as well. They indeed are planned. Melee armor for buildings in general is still planned though and these values are not final.

If siege can move OR shoot than it will be fine i'd say. Even without changes to construction speed for siege units.

[Endru1241]

Well, I originally never planned to keep shoot and move form.
But stratego insisted on behalf of AI.

[makazuwr32]

The thingy is that we have 2 new spec unit actions:
IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION
IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ALL_ACTION

With these 2 you can use only 1 form for siege.