Possible tweaks to Siege Warfare IMPLEMENTED

[b2198]

Following the huge improvements to the naval warfare, I think siege warfare could also be improved significantly:

(disclaimer: these numbers might be way off from balanced, it's Endru's role to have a headache while trying to make them balanced if he agrees with the ideas, not mine , my calculations were not done on a spreadsheet where I could more easily compare things, and I don't have nearly as much experience as him in neither the way the game works nor with balancing in general, so I might have overlooked a lot of things when doing them)

1. Mending: imo a lot of the problems with the current state of siege vs defenses arise from things being repaired too fast once damaged, specially by master builders, so I think there are some changes that would help in this regard:
   1. Remove the mend bonus from master builders' dedicated repair (maybe even make it decrease their mend rate by a bit?), they already get their overall repair rate doubled by having 2 actions
   2. Decrease mending rates of towers, forts and megas in general (I'll put some more detailed numbers on each of them below)
2. Fire Arrows: They are in a weird state, on one side, they are a bit too strong against megas, siege machines and specially ships, on the other, they are a bit too weak against fortifications and armored siege machines, so what I thought for them was:
   1. Decrease the burning bonus against megas from 2200% (+88) to 1900% (+76)
   2. Increase the burning bonus against fortifications and armored siege machines from 50% (+2) to 100% (+4)
   3. Decrease the burning bonus against ships and regular siege machines from 50% (+2) to 25% (+1)
   4. Decrease the fire arrow bonus against ships from 100% to 50%
   5. Keep the fire arrow bonus against great ships and anti-ship ships at 100%
   6. Give forts, fortresses, castles and high castles the same bonuses on their attacks as fire archers (with some changes detailed in their sections)
3. Trebuchets: imho trebuchets are way too strong right now, their limitation of being only able to be produced in megas only makes it so that whoever rushes a mega first has an advantage (and gives huge disadvantages to some players in maps where not every starting position has enough room for a mega), and the area damage buff to them increased this problem, since a normal trebuchet in stand mode with area damage can now 2-shot an unupgraded castle.

   Code: Select all

   damage comparison:
   
   without any other techs{
   	trebuchet stand vs monastery: 409 damage vs 800 hp (2 shots, 51.125% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs castle: 408 damage vs 1000 hp (3 shots, 40.8% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs high castle: 405 damage vs 1500 hp (4 shots, 27% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs fort: 106 damage vs 340 hp (4 shots, ~31.18% hp per shot)
   	
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs monastery: 491 damage vs 800 hp (2 shots, 61.375% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs castle: 490 damage vs 1000 hp (3 shots, 49% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs high castle: 487 damage vs 1500 hp (4 shots, ~32.47% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs fort: 128 damage vs 340 hp (3 shots, ~37.65% hp per shot)
   }
   
   with area damage, aiming for maximum damage{
   	trebuchet stand vs monastery: 652 damage vs 800 hp (2 shots, 81.5% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs castle: 648 damage vs 1000 hp (2 shots, 64.8% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs high castle: 636 damage vs 1500 hp (3 shots, 42.4% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs fort: 142 damage vs 340 hp (3 shots, ~41.76% hp per shot)
   	
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs monastery: 782 damage vs 800 hp (2 shots, 97.75% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs castle: 778 damage vs 1000 hp (2 shots, 77.8% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs high castle: 766 damage vs 1500 hp (2 shots, ~51.07% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs fort: 172 damage vs 340 hp (2 shots, ~50.59% hp per shot)
   }
   
   with area damage, aiming for minimum damage (same damage for forts because they are 2x2 instead of 2x3){
   	trebuchet stand vs monastery: 571 damage vs 800 hp (2 shots, 71.375% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs castle: 568 damage vs 1000 hp (2 shots, 56.8% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs high castle: 559 damage vs 1500 hp (3 shots, ~37.27% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs fort: 142 damage vs 340 hp (3 shots, ~41.76% hp per shot)
   	
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs monastery: 685 damage vs 800 hp (2 shots, 85.625% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs castle: 682 damage vs 1000 hp (2 shots, 68.2% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs high castle: 673 damage vs 1500 hp (3 shots, ~44.87% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs fort: 172 damage vs 340 hp (2 shots, ~50.59% hp per shot)
   }
   
   with masonry and massive walls{
   	trebuchet stand vs monastery: 409 damage vs 1608 hp (4 shots, ~25.44% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs castle: 408 damage vs 2010 hp (5 shots, ~20.30% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs high castle: 405 damage vs 3015 hp (8 shots, ~13.43% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs fort: 106 damage vs 682 hp (7 shots, ~15.54% hp per shot)
   	
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs monastery: 491 damage vs 1608 hp (4 shots, ~30.53% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs castle: 490 damage vs 2010 hp (5 shots, ~24.38% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs high castle: 487 damage vs 3015 hp (7 shots, ~16.15% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs fort: 128 damage vs 682 hp (6 shots, ~18.77% hp per shot)
   }
   
   with masonry, massive walls and area damage, aiming for maximum damage{
   	trebuchet stand vs monastery: 652 damage vs 1608 hp (3 shots, ~40.55% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs castle: 648 damage vs 2010 hp (4 shots, ~32.24% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs high castle: 636 damage vs 3015 hp (5 shots, ~21.16% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs fort: 142 damage vs 682 hp (5 shots, ~20.82% hp per shot)
   	
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs monastery: 782 damage vs 1608 hp (3 shots, ~48.63% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs castle: 778 damage vs 2010 hp (3 shots, ~38.71% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs high castle: 766 damage vs 3015 hp (4 shots, ~25.41% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs fort: 172 damage vs 682 hp (4 shots, ~25.22% hp per shot)
   }
   
   with masonry, massive walls and area damage, aiming for minimum damage{
   	trebuchet stand vs monastery: 571 damage vs 1608 hp (3 shots, ~35.51% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs castle: 568 damage vs 2010 hp (4 shots, ~28.26% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs high castle: 559 damage vs 3015 hp (6 shots, ~18.54% hp per shot)
   	trebuchet stand vs fort: 142 damage vs 682 hp (5 shots, ~20.82% hp per shot)
   	
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs monastery: 685 damage vs 1608 hp (3 shots, ~42.60% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs castle: 682 damage vs 2010 hp (3 shots, ~33.93% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs high castle: 673 damage vs 3015 hp (5 shots, ~22.32% hp per shot)
   	heavy trebuchet stand vs fort: 172 damage vs 682 hp (4 shots, ~25.22% hp per shot)
   }
   

   They also have the longest range of any attack in the game (tied with high castle's trebuchet shot, which... is a trebuchet shot without the area damage), cost only 6 turns to make, and are hard to kill at a range. My suggestions is to change them to be a long ranged, medium damage, spreaded damage, anti-building units:
   1. decrease trebuchet damage from 6 to 5
   2. decrease trebuchet stand damage from 10 to 6
   3. decrease heavy trebuchet damage from 7 to 6
   4. decrease heavy trebuchet stand damage from 12 to 7
   5. give all trebuchets power range 1 by default, with powerRangePenaltyPercent = 5 and powerRangePowerDrop = 0.5, so 100%/5% without area damage and 100%/25%/12.5% with area damage
   6. slightly increase their bonuses against U_SHIPS, U_SIEGE_MACHINE, U_SIEGE_MACHINE_ARMORED and U_SHIP_SIEGE_RANGE so that they don't lose that much damage against those (also probably against U_UKNOWN_MACHINE too lol)
   7. increase trebuchet cost from 6 to 7
   8. decrease bonus against U_MEGA_BUILDINGS from 4000% to 3000%
4. Fort: with weakened trebuchets, I feel like forts will become too strong right away, so I think they should be changed so that they are weaker but cheaper, not defensive high castles like they are now (really, check the damage comparisons, they tank almost as much as a high castle against current trebuchets):
   1. decrease their base hp from 340 to 200
   2. decrease their construction aff from 152% to 135% (from 16 turns to 11 turns for ambidextria builders)
   3. decrease their mend aff from 220% to 180% (from 11 to 8 turns to fully repair with normal builders, same 4 turns with master builders)
   4. decrease the cannon damage from 20 to 14
   5. increase cannon range from 6 to 7
   6. increase armor from 4 to 5
   7. following fire arrow changes, copy bonuses from fire archer, reduce their damage from 6 to 4, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can be benefited from ranged damage techs
5. Castle: following the trebuchet, mending and fire arrow changes:
   1. increase armor from 2 to 4
   2. keep the mend aff the same, I think the removal of the mend rate bonus from master builders already takes care enough here
   3. copy bonuses from fire archers, decrease their damage from 6 to 5, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can benefited from ranged damage techs
6. High Castle: following the trebuchet, mending and fire arrow changes:
   1. decrease their trebuchet shot damage from 8 to 6, but make it deal area damage with 1 range, with damage being 100%/25% for target tile/adjacent tiles
   2. increase armor from 5 to 6
   3. keep the mend rate, I think the removal of the mend rate bonus from master builders already takes care enough here
   4. copy bonuses from fire archers, decrease their damage from 8 to 6, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can benefited from ranged damage techs
7. Fortress: following the mending and fire arrow changes:
   1. decrease their mend aff from 150% to 130% (from 5 to 6 turns to fully repair with normal builders, from 2 to 3 turns with master builders)
   2. copy bonuses from fire archers, decrease their damage from 6 to 5, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can benefited from ranged damage techs
8. Guard Tower:
   1. decrease their mend aff from 200% to 150% (from 2 to 3 turns to fully repair with normal builders, from 1 to 2 turns with master builders)
   2. copy bonuses from normal archers, decrease their damage from 5 to 4, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can benefited from ranged damage techs
9. Reinforced Guard Tower:
   1. decrease their mend aff from 220% to 180% (from 2 to 3 turns to fully repair with normal builders, from 1 to 2 turns with master builders)
   2. copy bonuses from normal archers, decrease their damage from 6 to 5, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can benefited from ranged damage techs
10. Crossbow Tower:
    1. decrease their mend aff from 175% to 150% (same 3 turns to fully repair with normal builders , from 1 to 2 turns with master builders)
    2. copy bonuses from pavaise crossbows, decrease their damage from 8 to 6, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can benefited from ranged damage techs
11. Longbow Tower:
    1. decrease their mend aff from 175% to 150% (same 3 turns to fully repair with normal builders, from 1 to 2 turns with master builders)
    2. copy bonunes from normal archers, decrease their damage from 6 to 5, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can benefited from ranged damage techs
12. Shooting Tower:
    1. decrease their mend aff from 150% to 120% (from 3 to 4 turns to fully repair with normal builders, from 1 to 2 turns with master builders)
    2. copy bonunes from yumi samurais, decrease their damage from 4 to 3, but add U_ARCHERS to their trnCategories, so that they can benefited from ranged damage techs
13. Ballista Tower:
    1. decrease their mend aff from 250% to 150% (from 4 to 6 turns to fully repair with normal builders, from 2 to 3 turns with master builders)
14. Cannon Tower: imo cannon towers are too strong from the get-go, I think they should be weaker and then have an upgrade that gives them the firepower they have currently:
    1. keep the mend aff the same, I think the removal of the mend rate bonus from master builders already takes care enough here
    2. decrease damage from 20 to 16
    3. create an upgraded version (similar to the way guard tower is upgradeable to reinforced guard tower) that has 20 damage and a little bit more hp and p. armor
15. Cannoneers: I think the only thing they might be needing is a softer version of the nerf their naval counterparts got, that is, make them unable to attack after moving
16. Catapults: I think there should be a little more separation between their role and the role of trebuchets, my idea is to make them somewhat like a general purpose hwacha:
    1. increase their base power range to 2, with powerRangePenaltyPercent = 60 and powerRangePowerDrop = 0.25, so that their damage is 100%/60%/45% without area damage, and 100%/80%/60%/45% with area damage
    2. decrease catapult damage from 10 to 9
    3. decrease stand mode catapult and catapult ship damage from 16 to 14
    4. decrease heavy catapult damage from 12 to 10
    5. decrease stand mode heavy catapult and heavy catapult ship damage from 19 to 16
    6. decrease bonus against U_MEGA_BUILDINGS from 520% to 400%
    7. decrease bonus against U_STRUCTURE and U_SHIP_LINE from 125% to 100%
    8. decrease bonus against U_SHIP_SIEGE_RANGE from 75% to 50%
17. Ballistas: They are also in a weird spot right now, since they are near useless early on (except for ballista ships), have too low mobility without a wagon and/or roads to help them, and only really become useful later on with 7 range siege mode, so my idea is to make them a more anti-siege anti-foot weapons:
    1. remove siege mode entirely (?)
    2. increase turn cost of ballista and heavy ballista from 4 to 5
    3. increase stand mode ballista range from 5 to 6
    4. increase stand mode heavy ballista range from 5 to 7
    5. increase ballista hp from 12 to 15
    6. increase heavy ballista hp from 14 to 20
    7. increase stand mode ballista hp from 14 to 20
    8. increase stand mode heavy ballista hp from 17 to 26
    9. increase ballista construct aff from 7% to 8% (from 12 to 13 turns to build with builders)
    10. increase heavy ballista construct aff from 8% to 11% (from 12 to 13 turns to build with builders)
    11. increase powerRangePenaltyPercent from 72 to 75
    12. decrease speed of ballista and heavy ballista from 2 to 1
    13. add a new mode: packed ballista, that has speed 4, and make them lose actions on move (so that the 2 actions don't allow for stand mode -> packed mode -> move -> stand mode again in a single turn)
    14. increase bonus against U_SIEGE_MACHINE from 0% to 50%
    15. increase bonus against U_SIEGE_MACHINE_ARMORED from 100% to 200%
    16. increase bonus against U_FOOT from 0% to 10%
18. Rams: I think with the changes discussed in their thread (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12034) they will be fine.
19. Siege Towers: While way more balanced than they were previously due to not being as spammable, I still think they are a bit too strong from the start, so my idea is to make them weaker initially, but get upgrades that gets them stronger than current, similar to rams:
    1. decrease hp from 120 to 100
    2. decrease mend aff from 180% to 150% (same 5 turns to repair with normal builders, from 2 to 3 with master builders)
    3. decrease p. armor from 15 to 12
    4. decrease carry capacity from 3 to 2
    5. first upgrade has 120 hp and 14 p. armor
    6. second upgrade has 150 hp and 16 p. armor, and gets the carry capacity increased back to 3
20. suggestion for new unit: Encampment
    1. see main thread: viewtopic.php?f=82&t=12085
21. suggestion (not mine) for new unit: Scaling Ladders
    1. see main thread: viewtopic.php?f=82&t=8335
22. Siege Mantlets: I really think they should be a little easier to kill in melee range, given that they can be heavily spammed
    1. decrease hp from 25 to 24
23. Turtle Machines: imo they are fine at the moment, they are monsters when in range, but it's hard to get close enough to anything with them due to their limited mobility
24. Hwachas: after their weapon effect bugs are fixed, I think they will be fine too (currently they are unrealiable unless you have a stationary target to fire at, or at least 4 or 5 units around another one, so that the odds of hitting at least one of them are high)

As always, sorry for the wall of text, and I've spent many consecutive hours writing this, so there are probably many errors in it, feel free to correct any that you find.

Edit: after more calculations, I still thought trebuchets were a bit too strong, specially against megas, so now I've added an increase to their cost and decrease to bonus damage against megas.

[DreJaDe]

I have a different take on this though I know people will really dislike it though.

What if trebs and cats mobile mode would be removed and instead make them cheaper to build and is available to be built by workers. All of them would still have a mode for 1 speed or just make them have one speed without modes.

Given their low damage to infantry (or further decrease their damage if I'm wrong), I am thinking that spamming them for the anti-unit is not that desirable anymore.

I do know that the mobile mode is the lore for transporting and the change mode is for the assembling stage. Though I think this lore could be changed to another one that also kinda makes sense.

(Still cant be put inside wagons yes.)

[phoenixffyrnig]

Uh-oh, b is at it again
I probably won't comment on everything, and I'm certainly going to stay as far away as possible from all your scary numbers...and I'm getting my other phone so I can read on one and write on the other!

*enter Medieval Town Crier, rings bell, "Hear ye, hear ye" and all that, then lets b's massive scroll unroll*

Overall, after the resounding success of naval rebalance, yes, there could be a bit more depth added to the siege side of things.

1 Mending - I don't feel this is such a big issue for megas since trebs attained area damage (we have also had mentions of possible exploding cannon balls in the future), so for me only slight downward revision needed here.

3 Trebs. We would have to be careful here, treb is the main thing that deals with tower spam, plus I think it is important to have the most powerful thing in the game an attacking option. Rushing a mega is a big risk, therfore should be a big reward.

I have been wondering if we have too many mega buildings? Could the limit scale downwards, eg first 2 megas req 2 TCs each, next 3 megas req 3 TCs, etc...? ie, I'd rather make them rarer than nerf them.

One simple idea (independent from yours, but inspired by them) - drop range of normal treb by one in both attack modes, have range of 8 and 10 only for heavy trebs.

14 Cannon Tower - Agreed, good idea.

15 Cannon Yes, this would be good too. It would stop a wagon full of cannon being usable the same turn. I think the same must also apply to hwachas (OR could there be such a thing as *unit in transport takes action*, so they could still be moved and used on the battlefield, but not transported large distances?

17 Ballista - yes, totally agree, please buff.

Some interesting ideas, obviously a lot of thought gone into it. I have an extra one I have been toying with for a while, which would address some points you raised.

25 Anti-siege siege unit.
I'm thinking something between a ballista and catapult (in cost, range and strength) that lobs some sort of fiery barrel of nasty with boni Vs Siege and Armoured Siege. I don't know what this would be called, but I'm thinking a movement takes action rather than packed/unpacked, so it's speed would act as defense Vs other siege. (might need a new category to avoid zero chance of miss from trebs and cats).

[b2198]

I have a different take on this though I know people will really dislike it though.

What if trebs and cats mobile mode would be removed and instead make them cheaper to build and is available to be built by workers. All of them would still have a mode for 1 speed or just make them have one speed without modes.

Given their low damage to infantry (or further decrease their damage if I'm wrong), I am thinking that spamming them for the anti-unit is not that desirable anymore.

I do know that the mobile mode is the lore for transporting and the change mode is for the assembling stage. Though I think this lore could be changed to another one that also kinda makes sense.

(Still cant be put inside wagons yes.)

I feel like that would not solve the issue in smaller maps well enough, and would make larger maps painfully slow to play and tower spam would become a way bigger issue in them.

But maybe adding a middle step between packed and stand, so that it takes 2 turns instead of 1 to setup them, like L4cus suggested in the Encampment topic (viewtopic.php?f=82&t=12085)? That could help for sure with the right numbers.

Uh-oh, b is at it again
I probably won't comment on everything, and I'm certainly going to stay as far away as possible from all your scary numbers...and I'm getting my other phone so I can read on one and write on the other!

*enter Medieval Town Crier, rings bell, "Hear ye, hear ye" and all that, then lets b's massive scroll unroll*

lmao

Overall, after the resounding success of naval rebalance, yes, there could be a bit more depth added to the siege side of things.

1 Mending - I don't feel this is such a big issue for megas since trebs attained area damage (we have also had mentions of possible exploding cannon balls in the future), so for me only slight downward revision needed here.

Yeah, for megas it's not an issue rn, but only because they are being taken out too quickly when you don't have an army of builders repairing them, and for towers and forts it's already an issue imo, so this nerf is more focused on keeping the balance after the trebuchet nerf

3 Trebs. We would have to be careful here, treb is the main thing that deals with tower spam, plus I think it is important to have the most powerful thing in the game an attacking option. Rushing a mega is a big risk, therfore should be a big reward.

Yeah, but specially against megas, they are dealing too much damage, 4-shotting fully upgraded high castles and 2-shotting unupgraded ones. Also, taking tower spam into account, I suggested reducing their early game damage (keeping or sometimes increasing slightly their late game damage, but requiring techs to do so) to give some time to prepare siege attacks against them, reducing their mend rate, so that they aren't as easily repairable, and with the trebuchet and specially catapult damage being more spreaded out, single towers might not be as easy to deal with, but lots of them close together surely are.

I have been wondering if we have too many mega buildings? Could the limit scale downwards, eg first 2 megas req 2 TCs each, next 3 megas req 3 TCs, etc...? ie, I'd rather make them rarer than nerf them.

I also feel that at higher TC counts we have too many mega slots, so I agree here, but trebuchets shouldn't be basically just for getting trebuchets, so I still think they should be nerfed more directly, as to not be that much of a better choice compared to other options (possibly some changes to castle roster would help too, but that goes to another thread)

One simple idea (independent from yours, but inspired by them) - drop range of normal treb by one in both attack modes, have range of 8 and 10 only for heavy trebs.

I disagree, dropping the range of normal treb would only delay the problem, not fix it, because the problem lies in the 10 range + area damage version dealing 766 damage to high castles per shot (even unupgraded ones still deal 636 damage to them, which is way too much imo, considering that heavy trebuchets used to deal 487 damage to them when there wasn't area damage in the calculations, and they were still strong).

15 Cannon Yes, this would be good too. It would stop a wagon full of cannon being usable the same turn. I think the same must also apply to hwachas (OR could there be such a thing as *unit in transport takes action*, so they could still be moved and used on the battlefield, but not transported large distances?

Not sure if we have that, if we do, then yeah, it's probably a better solution

Some interesting ideas, obviously a lot of thought gone into it. I have an extra one I have been toying with for a while, which would address some points you raised.

25 Anti-siege siege unit.
I'm thinking something between a ballista and catapult (in cost, range and strength) that lobs some sort of fiery barrel of nasty with boni Vs Siege and Armoured Siege. I don't know what this would be called, but I'm thinking a movement takes action rather than packed/unpacked, so it's speed would act as defense Vs other siege. (might need a new category to avoid zero chance of miss from trebs and cats).

I agree with this, anti-siege is something that could use some improvements, since cavalry and infantry are not always an option (think a trebuchet on the other side of a mountain or river) and archers aren't really good at dealing with them (I mean, sure, an elite longbow fully upgraded could take a heavy trebuchet stand in 10 shots, or 6 with morale buff, even 5 with both morale and onmyoji buffs, assuming the enemy doesn't have a battlefield blacksmith buffing/repairing the trebuchet, but that's not really efficient, and they are still outranged, so they would have to move closer, leaving them vulnerable), so in a bunch of situations it devolves to "whoever has more trebuchets wins"

[DreJaDe]

But the current siege is slow in the first place. Or did some changes happen?

Though I guess yeah. If the towers are still cheaper than siege units in terms of the building then it's kinda useless.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Are trebs really that unbalanced? They seem OK to me Vs towers, other siege weapons etc. If the problem is down to the amount of damage dealt to Megas should we just reduce area damage percentage?


One stand mode treb is a challenge to the enemy, Here I am, come deal with me or I'll hurt you. 4 trebs set up to attack the same high castle sounds like the result of an overwhelming advantage on the field, or a very well co- ordinated attack... perhaps it deserves to be decisive if the enemy cannot respond.

I agree with you that 4 hits seems a bit light (I believe it was 7 before the changes, but that was too much), perhaps 5 direct hits would be better...? But I would be very wary of weakening then Vs towers, ballista tower especially is a tank.

One point I would like to make is that I don't feel people in general have fully adapted to the recent changes in game. Not long ago, all you needed to counter trebs was a wagon full of axemen and a couple of fire archers. Since then, all the changes have swung the balance of play towards having a larger standing army (not worker and siege spam with just a few fighters). Time was at start of the game you could pump out the techs, and not worry about your army until later - these days that will punish you.

People need more fighters on the field. A varied mix of units ready and waiting to deal with any threats as they arise. Trebs are much harder to kill now, so people need to fight smarter. (Except for small map situations), to allow a treb to be set up to attack your mega suggests you have either neglected to have a strong enough army, or have already been beaten back. The impetus is more on attack than defense now, that is good imo, but play styles need to adapt.

15 Cannon Yes, this would be good too. It would stop a wagon full of cannon being usable the same turn. I think the same must also apply to hwachas (OR could there be such a thing as *unit in transport takes action*, so they could still be moved and used on the battlefield, but not transported large distances?

Not sure if we have that, if we do, then yeah, it's probably a better solution

We don't have that, but if it's possible I like it.

.... so in a bunch of situations it devolves to "whoever has more trebuchets wins"

Yeah, pretty much. Trebuchet is king, and I believe it should be. But they need to be used well by the owner, and they certainly need to be countered better by the opponent.

A couple of the other points might be better off addressed in a new topic.

[b2198]

Are trebs really that unbalanced? They seem OK to me Vs towers, other siege weapons etc. If the problem is down to the amount of damage dealt to Megas should we just reduce area damage percentage?

One stand mode treb is a challenge to the enemy, Here I am, come deal with me or I'll hurt you. 4 trebs set up to attack the same high castle sounds like the result of an overwhelming advantage on the field, or a very well co- ordinated attack... perhaps it deserves to be decisive if the enemy cannot respond.

I agree with you that 4 hits seems a bit light (I believe it was 7 before the changes, but that was too much), perhaps 5 direct hits would be better...? But I would be very wary of weakening then Vs towers, ballista tower especially is a tank.

Well... a simpler way of solving that than what I suggested would be removing those mend rate changes on towers, keeping the trebuchet base damage and power range as it is, but reducing its bonus against megas from 4000% to something like 2700%, that way the damage to a high castle would go down from 766 to about 518 (it was 487 before the area damage buff), so it would take 6 hits to destroy a fully upgraded one (currently 4, previously 7), and keep the nerf to master builders, so that they "only" get 2x repair rate compared to normal builders, instead of ~2.67x repair rate like they do now. (would still be a bit too strong against forts, though).

There are only 3 ways that I'm aware of to reduce the area damage of trebuchets:
1) reduce the trebuchet damage directly
2) reduce the area damage of everything that is affected by the area damage tech (so also catapults, siege mode ballistas and catapult ships)
3) make area damage not affect trebuchets anymore
Because all the area damage it gets is the 20% that the area damage tech grants to it (and when hitting a mega, it hits 3 secondary tiles, which makes that become a 60% increase in damage, or 40%, if you hit only 2).

Yeah, if you allow 4 trebuchets, (or maybe even 3, I still think the threshold should be 4, but I'm conceding this one) trebuchets directly attacking with no retaliation you there is an issue with your defense, but my point was that even with just 2 trebuchets, you currently have only a 1 turn window to either repair the (fully upgraded) high castle or destroy the trebuchets, or else you'll lose it. It also 2-shots high castles without mansory or massive walls, so same 1 turn window with a single trebuchet, and 3-shots if you have only 1 of them. And 2 shots castles if they don't have both hp upgrades. Also, you usually have to spend a lot more turns in cost to stop a trebuchet than to set it up, so I still think an increase to its cost at least to 7 turns is needed.

One point I would like to make is that I don't feel people in general have fully adapted to the recent changes in game. Not long ago, all you needed to counter trebs was a wagon full of axemen and a couple of fire archers. Since then, all the changes have swung the balance of play towards having a larger standing army (not worker and siege spam with just a few fighters). Time was at start of the game you could pump out the techs, and not worry about your army until later - these days that will punish you.

People need more fighters on the field. A varied mix of units ready and waiting to deal with any threats as they arise. Trebs are much harder to kill now, so people need to fight smarter. (Except for small map situations), to allow a treb to be set up to attack your mega suggests you have either neglected to have a strong enough army, or have already been beaten back. The impetus is more on attack than defense now, that is good imo, but play styles need to adapt.

That is a good point, and I agree, I still find a lot of people making builder armies and expecting it to work as they used to, and trebuchets should still be the main siege weapon against megas imo, my point is just that the balance is a bit too much on the side of the attacker, while giving the defender almost no window for reacting once trebuchets are coming out in mass.

.... so in a bunch of situations it devolves to "whoever has more trebuchets wins"

Yeah, pretty much. Trebuchet is king, and I believe it should be. But they need to be used well by the owner, and they certainly need to be countered better by the opponent.

I partially disagree, they should be the main siege weapon against structures, but there needs to be more room and options for the opponent to deal with them, without having to spam trebuchets back. (have I mentioned that a trebuchet can currently destroy a castle faster than another trebuchet can destroy it, if it attacks first or is repaired by 2 laborers after taking the first hit?)

[Endru1241]

1. Mending:
a) Dedicated Repair mend rate decrease:
Agree - master builders may have been hastily given too much of an advantage.
Mostly because back then - repairing almost weren't used (pretty much only to remove burning or in rare situations, when preserving building was more important).
b) Mending rates: Numbers were set like that to avoid ridiculous situation, when repairing costed more turns, than constructing it back again.
But it was before getting construction slower.
Maybe it has to be recalculated once again.
2. Fire Arrows:
While I could agree to decreasing fire damage bonus vs mega (it is unusually high), fortifications and armored siege are supposed to be more resistant towards it.
The rest here seems to be balancing out giving defensive structures additional damage bonuses.
3.Trebuchets:
I only see comparison against megas really proved with numbers.
So easiest solution is just to decrease damage vs mega buildings.
4. Fort:
I see no need to make complete overhaul.
Currently fort stands for ultimate defensive structure, but without limitations of megas.
5. and 6. Castle:
Armor increase would only make it more resistant to weakest of attacks, but sued in higher number, e.g. from infantry.
Everything else has so much damage bonuses, that this change is abysmal, so no need.
14. Cannon Tower:
Agree, but needs an image.
15. Cannoneers
You seem to have forgotten, that they are NOT buildable by workers, unlike most other siege engines.
They could be limited by such spec, but only if some other changes followed to give them some advantage.
16. Catapults:
There is clear distinction between trebs and catas - spammablity, range, area range and damage.
Catapult can be amassed, have higher damage and area damage, thus much more potential damage vs foot or mounted units.
General purpose hwacha is terrible idea. We had once catapults with simply much higher damage and catapult spam was practically a must back then.
We do not want it back. Believe me.
17. Ballistas:
I am actually thinking of making much different rebalance.
To make default mode having no area damage, but also no miss chance and higher range (7?).
Possibly lowered damage, but armor ignore.
Possibly adding IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION.
Current stand mode would only be unlocked by Area Damage tech, but with 6 range on start.
Both of those with other rebalance idea of making all stand modes capable of movement. I'll explain on the end.
19. Siege Towers:
And upgrade to siege tower was already agreed on, but lacks an image.
Not sure if making it 3 units in line is really needed.
But surely if upgrade was available - original one could be nerfed somehow.
22. Siege Mantlets:
They are very easy to be destroyed by melee infantry.
Distinction between 25 and 24 HP is pretty much only if cavalry would be able to one-shot it.
And without 1 more hit (e.g. from archer or tower) it won't, unless buffed or full blacksmith + morale.
Unlike 2 cost broad swordsmen with morale or +1 blacksmith. Or man-at-arms.
Which is good. Infantry has to have some advantage.


Standing siege move possibility is an idea to reply to all those, that find current siege mechanics too tedious.
It is balanced upon assumption, that Advanced Wheelwrighting tech already exist (+1 speed to wagon and packed siege), which is still under making in reality.
It would consist of adding Advanced Siege Logistics tech, which would give +1 speed to all siege machines not affected by Advanced Wheelwrighting.
I have actually 2 different solutions to changes following, which I am not sure what to decide on:
a) limiting bonus to only standing mode siege engines (and armored siege) and adding IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION spec along. It would probably require changing images to have wheels.
b) instead making default speed 1, but always with IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION and stand mode damage, while replacing stand modes.
For ballista there is idea already.
For catapult there could be fire projectile mode, unlocked by something in hellenic gymnasion or advancement center.
Lower damage, but burning added and bonuses changed.
For trebuchet I have nothing.
What could possibly be added to not give it any advantage?
On the other hand removing is impossible (crashes), so the only option left would be making map-editor only shadow remaining in the json.

And btw. I am currently trying to add Advanced Ballistics (+1 range to [Catapult]), Hoop-and-stave Cannon (+1 range to [Cannon]), Field Balistics (+1 range to non-[Catapult], non-[Cannon], [Artillery]). Two latter still lack images, so they are up to name changes.
Along with it some default range values could be changed, I think (e.g. trebuchet is surely getting -1 range).

[b2198]

1. Mending:
a) Dedicated Repair mend rate decrease:
Agree - master builders may have been hastily given too much of an advantage.
Mostly because back then - repairing almost weren't used (pretty much only to remove burning or in rare situations, when preserving building was more important).
b) Mending rates: Numbers were set like that to avoid ridiculous situation, when repairing costed more turns, than constructing it back again.
But it was before getting construction slower.
Maybe it has to be recalculated once again.

I actually think it makes some sense (not currently, but in general) to have some repairs cost more than constructing it back, both flavor-wise and balance-wise.

Flavor-wise: fixing things is sometimes harder than getting a new one, even to the people who actually make them. I don't know that much about structures in general, but isn't there a limit on how many times they can be repaired before it gets unviable to do so? And for something I do know a bit about, computer programs: sometimes it's easier to rewrite the code from scratch than trying to fix a bunch of obscure low level bugs that piled up with time.

Balance-wise: Specially for buildings that take a long time to be built, e.g Castles, the building is only useful after you spend all of the turns building it, and is still useful while being repaired, but even if building a new one is faster than repairing, you will most likely lose turns by doing so, because the building will not be firing/producing anything in the time it takes to rebuild it, so even if it's shorter than the time it would take to repair, it can still be more worth repairing than rebuilding it.

(Again, not suggesting to make the buildings in the game behave like that, just my take on that hypothetical situation.)

2. Fire Arrows:
While I could agree to decreasing fire damage bonus vs mega (it is unusually high), fortifications and armored siege are supposed to be more resistant towards it.

Fair enough.

The rest here seems to be balancing out giving defensive structures additional damage bonuses.

Actually, it was meant to reduce some of the early damage to most defensive structures, but increase by a small amount their mid and/or late game damage (depending on how soon you research those techs). And also giving different bonuses to them, so that there's a better distinction of which tower to use against which types of enemies, for example, by having the Pavaise Crossbow bonuses, Crossbow Towers would be a good choice against heavy infantry and heavy cavalry, being able to do some damage to them even despite them usually having high p. armors, and Shooting Towers would be better against melee light and medium infantry without shields, like Yumi Samurais. Though maybe some of those numbers might be too strong or too weak in some cases.

3.Trebuchets:
I only see comparison against megas really proved with numbers.
So easiest solution is just to decrease damage vs mega buildings.

(And to Forts?) Yeah, that was my main point there, the rest of the changes there were just an idea for a small rework of trebuchets, but if it's not good just disregard it, decreasing their bonus against megas would be a way easier solution (though not for Forts, unless those numbers I mentioned are fine for them).

4. Fort:
I see no need to make complete overhaul.
Currently fort stands for ultimate defensive structure, but without limitations of megas.

Got it.

5. and 6. Castle:
Armor increase would only make it more resistant to weakest of attacks, but sued in higher number, e.g. from infantry.
Everything else has so much damage bonuses, that this change is abysmal, so no need.

That was actually with the trebuchet and catapult changes in mind, because armor is multiplied vs area damage, but without those changes you can just disregard this too.

14. Cannon Tower:
Agree, but needs an image.

Unfortunately, I'm bad at making images, so I wouldn't be able to make one good enough to be added :\

15. Cannoneers
You seem to have forgotten, that they are NOT buildable by workers, unlike most other siege engines.
They could be limited by such spec, but only if some other changes followed to give them some advantage.

Fair point, and looking at the new techs you are making, I think cannoneers will probably be in a good state afterwards.

16. Catapults:
There is clear distinction between trebs and catas - spammablity, range, area range and damage.
Catapult can be amassed, have higher damage and area damage, thus much more potential damage vs foot or mounted units.
General purpose hwacha is terrible idea. We had once catapults with simply much higher damage and catapult spam was practically a must back then.
We do not want it back. Believe me.

Yeah, I have some faint memories of losing to catapult spams back in 2018, and I can kinda guess how strong they were based on some campaign maps that give you them and then assume you can defeat a huge army easily, that's why in my idea their damage was reduced, but I can see it still making them too strong in some cases.

17. Ballistas:
I am actually thinking of making much different rebalance.
To make default mode having no area damage, but also no miss chance and higher range (7?).
Possibly lowered damage, but armor ignore.
Possibly adding IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION.
Current stand mode would only be unlocked by Area Damage tech, but with 6 range on start.
Both of those with other rebalance idea of making all stand modes capable of movement. I'll explain on the end.

Ooh, interesting, that would be great, but wouldn't 100% armor ignore be a bit too strong? (I also think that is the case with flailmen, but that's for a future topic, after zerks are officially out of TCs) Unless you decrease some of the bonuses it has along with the base damage.

19. Siege Towers:
And upgrade to siege tower was already agreed on, but lacks an image.
Not sure if making it 3 units in line is really needed.
But surely if upgrade was available - original one could be nerfed somehow.

22. Siege Mantlets:
They are very easy to be destroyed by melee infantry.
Distinction between 25 and 24 HP is pretty much only if cavalry would be able to one-shot it.
And without 1 more hit (e.g. from archer or tower) it won't, unless buffed or full blacksmith + morale.
Unlike 2 cost broad swordsmen with morale or +1 blacksmith. Or man-at-arms.
Which is good. Infantry has to have some advantage.

Hm, that makes sense.

Standing siege move possibility is an idea to reply to all those, that find current siege mechanics too tedious.
It is balanced upon assumption, that Advanced Wheelwrighting tech already exist (+1 speed to wagon and packed siege), which is still under making in reality.
It would consist of adding Advanced Siege Logistics tech, which would give +1 speed to all siege machines not affected by Advanced Wheelwrighting.

:O nice

I have actually 2 different solutions to changes following, which I am not sure what to decide on:
a) limiting bonus to only standing mode siege engines (and armored siege) and adding IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION spec along. It would probably require changing images to have wheels.
b) instead making default speed 1, but always with IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION and stand mode damage, while replacing stand modes.

I think I prefer idea A, as to require a turn investment in siege research before being able to move standing mode siege engines. maybe it could be applied to mobile mode too, without adding IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION?

For ballista there is idea already.
For catapult there could be fire projectile mode, unlocked by something in hellenic gymnasion or advancement center.
Lower damage, but burning added and bonuses changed.

Nice ones too.

For trebuchet I have nothing.
What could possibly be added to not give it any advantage?

I think being able to move in stand mode with Advanced Siege Logistics will already be a good enough improvement for them.

On the other hand removing is impossible (crashes), so the only option left would be making map-editor only shadow remaining in the json.

Yeah, I'm aware of that, that's what I meant by "remove siege mode", should've worded it better.

And btw. I am currently trying to add Advanced Ballistics (+1 range to [Catapult]), Hoop-and-stave Cannon (+1 range to [Cannon]), Field Balistics (+1 range to non-[Catapult], non-[Cannon], [Artillery]). Two latter still lack images, so they are up to name changes.
Along with it some default range values could be changed, I think (e.g. trebuchet is surely getting -1 range).

:O very nice set of additions and changes in this one, so trebuchets can be "countered" early on by Balistraria tech, and only truly outrange most defenses after researching Field Ballistics.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Soooo....
If trebs have reduction to mega bonus, this will give a basic treb (no area damage or anything) a rather weak attack Vs a mega (but without really impacting how it does elsewhere).

As the aforementioned siege techs are researched (at presumably hefty cost in total) , this will bring treb back up towards its current powerful state?

I like this for a number of reasons. Also seems like a good midpoint between mine and @b2198's opposite points of view - means you have to work hard to achieve their high level of destruction, but they can still be used as a catalyst on the field of play.

This also adds a window of little utility to both cats and trebs (while waiting for area dam plus other necessary upgrades), which opens the door to the lesser used rams and ballistae being a viable choice for that period of early-mid game...OR... might make the rush to gunpowder more desirable because there is less research needed on that side of things.

So (you can probably see this coming from a long way off Endru)... Can we double lock Gunpowder behind techs? Eg, presumably one would have to research Ballistics before doing Advanced Ballistics? What if Gunpowder required Advanced Ballistics too before we could research it?

It would keep the subtler siege play from getting swamped by cannon and hwacha, and would also stop the Gunpowder Rush (galleons and cannon towers out by turn 15) style of play that I'm not particularly fond of (see various ranty topics elsewhere )

[Endru1241]

1. Mending:
a) Dedicated Repair mend rate decrease:
Agree - master builders may have been hastily given too much of an advantage.
Mostly because back then - repairing almost weren't used (pretty much only to remove burning or in rare situations, when preserving building was more important).
b) Mending rates: Numbers were set like that to avoid ridiculous situation, when repairing costed more turns, than constructing it back again.
But it was before getting construction slower.
Maybe it has to be recalculated once again.

I actually think it makes some sense (not currently, but in general) to have some repairs cost more than constructing it back, both flavor-wise and balance-wise.

Flavor-wise: fixing things is sometimes harder than getting a new one, even to the people who actually make them. I don't know that much about structures in general, but isn't there a limit on how many times they can be repaired before it gets unviable to do so? And for something I do know a bit about, computer programs: sometimes it's easier to rewrite the code from scratch than trying to fix a bunch of obscure low level bugs that piled up with time.

Balance-wise: Specially for buildings that take a long time to be built, e.g Castles, the building is only useful after you spend all of the turns building it, and is still useful while being repaired, but even if building a new one is faster than repairing, you will most likely lose turns by doing so, because the building will not be firing/producing anything in the time it takes to rebuild it, so even if it's shorter than the time it would take to repair, it can still be more worth repairing than rebuilding it.

(Again, not suggesting to make the buildings in the game behave like that, just my take on that hypothetical situation.)

Not for ancient or medieval buildings.

Deliberately destroying building to construct new one is 20th century idea.
Earlier it didn't make sense.
Even with total destruction - foundations are often left intact.
And total destruction was really rare occurrence.

What's more - what we see as destroyed building - an empty place could sometimes be seen not as actually destroying, but making it unusable.
Walls breached, crew killed, nothing to stop advancements.

In that view - as a representation - repairing would need to be much easier, than constructing anew.

Balance wise - castle is very wrong example. It is only 1, but changes are proposed for many more.
For all towers - the whole idea of taking longer to preserve is not good, as there is not very much advantage of preserving them.

And truthfully - there could be different numbers scheme for factories and castle among them or even for megas only.

The rest here seems to be balancing out giving defensive structures additional damage bonuses.

Actually, it was meant to reduce some of the early damage to most defensive structures, but increase by a small amount their mid and/or late game damage (depending on how soon you research those techs). And also giving different bonuses to them, so that there's a better distinction of which tower to use against which types of enemies, for example, by having the Pavaise Crossbow bonuses, Crossbow Towers would be a good choice against heavy infantry and heavy cavalry, being able to do some damage to them even despite them usually having high p. armors, and Shooting Towers would be better against melee light and medium infantry without shields, like Yumi Samurais. Though maybe some of those numbers might be too strong or too weak in some cases.

Both heavy cavalry and heavy infantry already have enough counters.
Not sure there is any need to add any more to that.

Proposed changes are in effect a buff to towers.
If we wanted to just make better distinction - [Archer] category and further boost with tech is not really needed.
E.g. Crossbow Tower|with +1 from Garrisoned Keep|same vs samurai|samurai with +1 blacksmith|hatamoto with +2 blacksmith:
8-1=7 | 9-2=7 | 9-3=6
after proposed changes (Crossbow Tower|with +1 from Garrisoned Keep|additional +2 from projectile damage):
FLOOR(6*1.4) -1 = 7 | FLOOR(7*1.4) -2 = 7 | FLOOR(9*1.4) - 3 = 9
So effectively it gets +50% damage vs unshielded infantry on endgame.

17. Ballistas:
I am actually thinking of making much different rebalance.
To make default mode having no area damage, but also no miss chance and higher range (7?).
Possibly lowered damage, but armor ignore.
Possibly adding IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION.
Current stand mode would only be unlocked by Area Damage tech, but with 6 range on start.
Both of those with other rebalance idea of making all stand modes capable of movement. I'll explain on the end.

Ooh, interesting, that would be great, but wouldn't 100% armor ignore be a bit too strong? (I also think that is the case with flailmen, but that's for a future topic, after zerks are officially out of TCs) Unless you decrease some of the bonuses it has along with the base damage.

Possibly. But depending on damage decrease I am not sure it would be needed.
Or maybe something completely the other way around - give bonuses vs flesh and blood and leaving maybe only against ships, effectively transforming ballista usage to proper, dedicated field artillery with only a possibility to be used vs siege and buildings in siege mode.

I have actually 2 different solutions to changes following, which I am not sure what to decide on:
a) limiting bonus to only standing mode siege engines (and armored siege) and adding IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION spec along. It would probably require changing images to have wheels.
b) instead making default speed 1, but always with IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION and stand mode damage, while replacing stand modes.

I think I prefer idea A, as to require a turn investment in siege research before being able to move standing mode siege engines. maybe it could be applied to mobile mode too, without adding IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION?

I am afraid in such case cannons, hwachas, ballistas would need to be affected too and we'd loose all distinction between archers and siege in terms of difficulty of usage.
They'd finish with 3 move and being capable of attacking after movement.
And heavier anti building ones with the same, but 2 movement.
Imho it's too much.

For trebuchet I have nothing.
What could possibly be added to not give it any advantage?

I think being able to move in stand mode with Advanced Siege Logistics will already be a good enough improvement for them.

I meant in case of b) solution - what would standing mode be replaced with.
Only a shadow copy of moving mode with exact same stats, but no longer possible to be acquired?

And btw. I am currently trying to add Advanced Ballistics (+1 range to [Catapult]), Hoop-and-stave Cannon (+1 range to [Cannon]), Field Balistics (+1 range to non-[Catapult], non-[Cannon], [Artillery]). Two latter still lack images, so they are up to name changes.
Along with it some default range values could be changed, I think (e.g. trebuchet is surely getting -1 range).

:O very nice set of additions and changes in this one, so trebuchets can be "countered" early on by Balistraria tech, and only truly outrange most defenses after researching Field Ballistics.

Trebuchets would be affected by Advanced Ballistics.

One of the ideas is to have them requirements for ones before, so:
Field Balistics -> Advanced Ballistics - > ( + gunpowder of course) Hoop-and-stave Cannon

Soooo....
If trebs have reduction to mega bonus, this will give a basic treb (no area damage or anything) a rather weak attack Vs a mega (but without really impacting how it does elsewhere).

As the aforementioned siege techs are researched (at presumably hefty cost in total) , this will bring treb back up towards its current powerful state?

I like this for a number of reasons. Also seems like a good midpoint between mine and @b2198's opposite points of view - means you have to work hard to achieve their high level of destruction, but they can still be used as a catalyst on the field of play.

This also adds a window of little utility to both cats and trebs (while waiting for area dam plus other necessary upgrades), which opens the door to the lesser used rams and ballistae being a viable choice for that period of early-mid game...OR... might make the rush to gunpowder more desirable because there is less research needed on that side of things.

So (you can probably see this coming from a long way off Endru)... Can we double lock Gunpowder behind techs? Eg, presumably one would have to research Ballistics before doing Advanced Ballistics? What if Gunpowder required Advanced Ballistics too before we could research it?

It would keep the subtler siege play from getting swamped by cannon and hwacha, and would also stop the Gunpowder Rush (galleons and cannon towers out by turn 15) style of play that I'm not particularly fond of (see various ranty topics elsewhere )

I always have in mind, that cannons needs to be placed under some more tech walls.

But I didn't want to decide too hastly on something existing, as I have this vague idea of important unlocking techs.
Something like:
Metallurgy or Cast Iron, Steel
Chemistry or Alchemy
Horse breeding
And more.
Possibly some with levels.

The whole idea would be to lower turn cost of specific unit upgrades, but make them require something.
Just as well as some stronger units without upgrades could be requiring some.
Or just go with Age techs.

[b2198]

Deliberately destroying building to construct new one is 20th century idea.
Earlier it didn't make sense.
Even with total destruction - foundations are often left intact.
And total destruction was really rare occurrence.

What's more - what we see as destroyed building - an empty place could sometimes be seen not as actually destroying, but making it unusable.
Walls breached, crew killed, nothing to stop advancements.

In that view - as a representation - repairing would need to be much easier, than constructing anew.

Oh, I see.

Balance wise - castle is very wrong example. It is only 1, but changes are proposed for many more.
For all towers - the whole idea of taking longer to preserve is not good, as there is not very much advantage of preserving them.

And truthfully - there could be different numbers scheme for factories and castle among them or even for megas only.

Yeah, megas were what came into mind first when thinking about this, it would surely not be a good idea to do that on something as cheap as towers. But again, I wasn't suggesting for their number schemes to be changed, just discussing about the idea of a number scheme like that, if it ever was needed.

The rest here seems to be balancing out giving defensive structures additional damage bonuses.
Both heavy cavalry and heavy infantry already have enough counters.
Not sure there is any need to add any more to that.

Proposed changes are in effect a buff to towers.
If we wanted to just make better distinction - [Archer] category and further boost with tech is not really needed.
E.g. Crossbow Tower|with +1 from Garrisoned Keep|same vs samurai|samurai with +1 blacksmith|hatamoto with +2 blacksmith:
8-1=7 | 9-2=7 | 9-3=6
after proposed changes (Crossbow Tower|with +1 from Garrisoned Keep|additional +2 from projectile damage):
FLOOR(6*1.4) -1 = 7 | FLOOR(7*1.4) -2 = 7 | FLOOR(9*1.4) - 3 = 9
So effectively it gets +50% damage vs unshielded infantry on endgame.

That would be too strong indeed.

Possibly. But depending on damage decrease I am not sure it would be needed.
Or maybe something completely the other way around - give bonuses vs flesh and blood and leaving maybe only against ships, effectively transforming ballista usage to proper, dedicated field artillery with only a possibility to be used vs siege and buildings in siege mode.

Hm, that would be interesting.

I am afraid in such case cannons, hwachas, ballistas would need to be affected too and we'd loose all distinction between archers and siege in terms of difficulty of usage.
They'd finish with 3 move and being capable of attacking after movement.
And heavier anti building ones with the same, but 2 movement.
Imho it's too much.

Fair point. Thinking back on this, with the extra range of siege machines locked out behind the new techs, I think it would be fair to give then solution b: 1 speed + IS_MOVEMENT_COSTS_ACTION from the start and replacing stand modes.

I meant in case of b) solution - what would standing mode be replaced with.
Only a shadow copy of moving mode with exact same stats, but no longer possible to be acquired?

Ah, got it. I think so.

Trebuchets would be affected by Advanced Ballistics.

Oops, forgot they are [Catapult].

One of the ideas is to have them requirements for ones before, so:
Field Balistics -> Advanced Ballistics - > ( + gunpowder of course) Hoop-and-stave Cannon

Nice.

I always have in mind, that cannons needs to be placed under some more tech walls.

But I didn't want to decide too hastly on something existing, as I have this vague idea of important unlocking techs.
Something like:
Metallurgy or Cast Iron, Steel
Chemistry or Alchemy
Horse breeding
And more.
Possibly some with levels.

The whole idea would be to lower turn cost of specific unit upgrades, but make them require something.
Just as well as some stronger units without upgrades could be requiring some.
Or just go with Age techs.

Imo, Age Techs is the way to go, but it is surely the most complex one to do, in terms of how much it can change the game and its balance.