Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Any other ideas that does not fit to the specific categories.
Post Reply
User avatar
DreJaDe
Posts: 2382
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 10:19 pm

Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by DreJaDe »

I was thinking of Roman Sieges when arriving at this questions. Idk, it just kinda click to me.

Besides using siege machines, I always view the Romans as using their soldiers in sieging a city. Like directly attacking them. But Roman units are clearly in no position to be able to do that. They can only bypass towers and hope the enemy will give up.

1. Destroying towers or mega is harder than most other factions that have melee units. My question is how can this exactly be implemented or does Romans in this game would have a different route like the current one where they can only really use siege units.

Is suggesting a tech which would enable them to have more damage against units possible or even plausible?

2. In terms of sieges, I always view siege units as being cheaper than the main defenses like towers or walls but in this game, it's quite the opposite. Building Stone walls, stone towers, mega are definitely much cheaper than building siege machines that in sieges, it's much more efficient to just build towers in the face of your enemy. My question now then is why? I don't know, im really just wondering.
User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 2717
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by Endru1241 »

DreJaDe wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 10:50 pm I was thinking of Roman Sieges when arriving at this questions. Idk, it just kinda click to me.

Besides using siege machines, I always view the Romans as using their soldiers in sieging a city. Like directly attacking them. But Roman units are clearly in no position to be able to do that. They can only bypass towers and hope the enemy will give up.

1. Destroying towers or mega is harder than most other factions that have melee units. My question is how can this exactly be implemented or does Romans in this game would have a different route like the current one where they can only really use siege units.

Is suggesting a tech which would enable them to have more damage against units possible or even plausible?
Damage bonuses cannot be added/changed by tech.
Engine limitations.
The only way would be to as weapon effect, but that's inelegant (damage from weapon effect is displayed at the same time as main one creating unclear situation).

On the other hand to keep flavour romans should use siege machines, like in history.
So any additional bonuses to infantry damage should not mitigate the need to have siege engines.
A tech simply adding damage to siege machines seems most proper way here.
2. In terms of sieges, I always view siege units as being cheaper than the main defenses like towers or walls but in this game, it's quite the opposite. Building Stone walls, stone towers, mega are definitely much cheaper than building siege machines that in sieges, it's much more efficient to just build towers in the face of your enemy. My question now then is why? I don't know, im really just wondering.
In reality both siege machines and fortifications were incredibly pricy and time consuming to build.
In fast paced games like AoS, where structures fall down within barely few turns (or most commonly one) trying to go for more real-like representation of fortifications build time (the longest among all) would be doomed to fail.
It would create not ever used parts of the game.
Reason is simple - if their effectiveness in defence is only so little - why ever invest in something stationary, when other units could be used instead?
So they have to be cheap enough to be viable choice.

Siege machines were once much cheaper, but the only thing it created was situation, where armies would consist of mostly siege machines.
Thus increase in build time.

I know it doesn't really look well and si not representing the idea behind siege actions, when attackers build towers.
But I am not sure if we can do anything to change it.
Making significant changes in hp is probably a no, as stratego noted repeatedly, that slowing down AoS is not good.
Making towers longer to build would just shift defender interests to building siege towers instead or rams if former were made even longer to build.

I have one idea, but that could destroy some campaigns.
Subtract some constant part of Constr. Affect. from all fortifications and add it as an aura from TC (non stacking).
That would make them longer to build when not in "your territory".
Of course that would require tests to see if the idea even works.
I am not even sure if it's good idea, plus it could be scrapped if deemed overcomplicated.
Age of Strategy design leader
User avatar
DreJaDe
Posts: 2382
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 10:19 pm

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by DreJaDe »

Thanks for the answer. I feel like the increasing cost when not near in territory could be a good thing.

Overall, I think my question in this comes from my addiction to AOWW again where siege units are much cheaper the mega and the focus of the game being more on the open fight type coinciding while I was playing AOS mainly Romans where my focus also is open battles.
Endru1241 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:59 am In fast paced games like AoS
I feel like that out of the three I played, AOS, AOF, and AOWW. AOS is the 2nd slowest although AOWW is just significantly faster than the two. Not related lol.
User avatar
godOfKings
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by godOfKings »

i dont mind current situation, no matter how fast u build fortifications u cannot possibly build in a territory that is in range of enemy siege towers and archers, it is no longer easy to kill siege units in melee range with wagon and cavalry speed nerf, the best way is to guard territory with ur own siege or tower so u have the first turn advantage when enemy siege comes close to u

my only problem is the turtle machine and mine spams and still waiting for the update where miner will need to b sacrificed for mine to start working
There is no place for false kings here, only those who proves themselves to b the true kings of legend, or serves under me

For I watch over this world looking for those worthy to become kings, and on the way get rid of the fakes and rule over the fools
User avatar
b2198
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:48 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by b2198 »

godOfKings wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:06 pm i dont mind current situation, no matter how fast u build fortifications u cannot possibly build in a territory that is in range of enemy siege towers and archers, it is no longer easy to kill siege units in melee range with wagon and cavalry speed nerf, the best way is to guard territory with ur own siege or tower so u have the first turn advantage when enemy siege comes close to u
Wagon nerf is still not in the game, though... right? Also even now it's still a matter of rock-paper-scissors imo. Soldiers (most times) beat siege, siege (most times) beats defenses and defenses (sometimes) beat soldiers, so to break the enemy's defenses it's still a matter of bringing siege weaponry (or zerks lol) and protecting them against the enemy army with your own. For me at least siege has been quite balanced in the past months, with the exception of the already solved petardier case. And when the wagon nerf comes, it will be harder to stop enemy siege (because they'll be able to protect the siege machines with anti-cav infantry without 3 hatamotos/zerks coming from the other side of the map to kill them, the siege machines, and your entire family in a single turn XD), so it should make sieging a bit easier, and thus help to reduce stalemate situations.
godOfKings wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 1:06 pm my only problem is the turtle machine and mine spams and still waiting for the update where miner will need to b sacrificed for mine to start working
Yeah, that gets boring after a while, specially when they use carts to block melee attackers from getting close to the turtle machines without losing in terms of turn cost efficiency. When it gets to situations like these, it boils down to whoever has the most mines to produce more turtle machines. Thankfully it only really gets that bad late into the game (depending on map size and match rules), because usually the game gets decided for one player or another way before that point.
Green is the correct color, other colors are "less correct".
User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 2717
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by Endru1241 »

We probably won't have any wagon nerf.
At least not anytime soon.

There was an issue with effect solution not affecting wagons under waypoint (effectively 3 speed only) and any possible solution I could think of (autocast, change to aura, on/off effects, same turn transformation) was deemed insufficient or too complicated.
So it was scrapped to only make some changes after implementation of new specs more fitting to situation.

About mines - I have another idea to make a little more hard limitation.
Aura giving all mines (including allied) construction affection debuff.
Let's say -10% for 4 range.
One mine in range and it's twice as hard to build.
Two mines anywhere in range of 4 and you can't build it.
Age of Strategy design leader
User avatar
b2198
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:48 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by b2198 »

Endru1241 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:11 pm We probably won't have any wagon nerf.
At least not anytime soon.
D:
Endru1241 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:11 pm There was an issue with effect solution not affecting wagons under waypoint (effectively 3 speed only) and any possible solution I could think of (autocast, change to aura, on/off effects, same turn transformation) was deemed insufficient or too complicated.
So it was scrapped to only make some changes after implementation of new specs more fitting to situation.
What was the problem with autocast? Was it moving before casting?


Endru1241 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:11 pm About mines - I have another idea to make a little more hard limitation.
Aura giving all mines (including allied) construction affection debuff.
Let's say -10% for 4 range.
One mine in range and it's twice as hard to build.
Two mines anywhere in range of 4 and you can't build it.
While this is also a good idea that would help balance mines in regards to terrain differences and reduce the maximum amount of them per map significantly, in big maps (40x40 and above) it would still leave A LOT of mines being built at the exact same speed as the current ones, thus not really solving the current mine spam situation imo.
Green is the correct color, other colors are "less correct".
User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 2717
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by Endru1241 »

b2198 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:36 am What was the problem with autocast? Was it moving before casting?
Yup.
But even if fixing it:
Autocast can be turned off at any moment, so we cannot depend on it.
Endru1241 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:11 pm About mines - I have another idea to make a little more hard limitation.
Aura giving all mines (including allied) construction affection debuff.
Let's say -10% for 4 range.
One mine in range and it's twice as hard to build.
Two mines anywhere in range of 4 and you can't build it.
While this is also a good idea that would help balance mines in regards to terrain differences and reduce the maximum amount of them per map significantly, in big maps (40x40 and above) it would still leave A LOT of mines being built at the exact same speed as the current ones, thus not really solving the current mine spam situation imo.
Did I forgot to mention, that it could be made in addition to starting curse-like effect removable by miner sacrifice?

What I would like to really see is to have some control over maximum number of all economy representation elements.
Preferably not tied by current tc ownership count.
Speed of creation of these should also be somehow limited (at least to not have theoretically limitless exponential growth).
Which could be tied to number of tc.

Mines were introduced to shift limitless growth from only towers/siege to factory/tc produced things.
Just to have some variety on endgame.
That didn't go so well.
Age of Strategy design leader
User avatar
b2198
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:48 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by b2198 »

Endru1241 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 am Autocast can be turned off at any moment, so we cannot depend on it.
Wait... it can? o.O
Endru1241 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 am
Endru1241 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:11 pm About mines - I have another idea to make a little more hard limitation.
Aura giving all mines (including allied) construction affection debuff.
Let's say -10% for 4 range.
One mine in range and it's twice as hard to build.
Two mines anywhere in range of 4 and you can't build it.
While this is also a good idea that would help balance mines in regards to terrain differences and reduce the maximum amount of them per map significantly, in big maps (40x40 and above) it would still leave A LOT of mines being built at the exact same speed as the current ones, thus not really solving the current mine spam situation imo.
Did I forgot to mention, that it could be made in addition to starting curse-like effect removable by miner sacrifice?
Yeah, forgot to add and say that a combination of something like those two would be ideal, imo doing that might work to slow them down enough to make their potential issues practically unviable to reach in an actual match (maybe except for 1 or 2 extreme maps with huge space and very few (predetermined) TCs).
Endru1241 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 am What I would like to really see is to have some control over maximum number of all economy representation elements.
Preferably not tied by current tc ownership count.
Speed of creation of these should also be somehow limited (at least to not have theoretically limitless exponential growth).
Which could be tied to number of tc.
I actually don't see it as a problem if it would be tied to tc ownership count. I mean, if you have x tcs, you should be able to boost their production up to a constant c (which would be the "average production boost" from a set amount of mines per turn) times x with it limited like that. Similar to how you can in a certain way mutliply your production by 2.25 with factories (because they produce units at the same speed as tcs, and you get 1.25 factories per tc).
Green is the correct color, other colors are "less correct".
User avatar
b2198
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:48 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by b2198 »

Endru1241 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:11 pm We probably won't have any wagon nerf.
At least not anytime soon.

There was an issue with effect solution not affecting wagons under waypoint (effectively 3 speed only) and any possible solution I could think of (autocast, change to aura, on/off effects, same turn transformation) was deemed insufficient or too complicated.
So it was scrapped to only make some changes after implementation of new specs more fitting to situation.
Oh, and what was the issue with transformation? I think the AI got smarter in regard to that in the meantime, given the changes stratego did to make them use rams, trebs, catapults and siege towers, so maybe that could work to control transforming wagons too?
Green is the correct color, other colors are "less correct".
User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 2717
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by Endru1241 »

b2198 wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:40 pm
Endru1241 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:11 pm We probably won't have any wagon nerf.
At least not anytime soon.

There was an issue with effect solution not affecting wagons under waypoint (effectively 3 speed only) and any possible solution I could think of (autocast, change to aura, on/off effects, same turn transformation) was deemed insufficient or too complicated.
So it was scrapped to only make some changes after implementation of new specs more fitting to situation.
Oh, and what was the issue with transformation? I think the AI got smarter in regard to that in the meantime, given the changes stratego did to make them use rams, trebs, catapults and siege towers, so maybe that could work to control transforming wagons too?
It doesn't really matter.
What is the point here is that Stratego only agreed to carry cap change and anything further needs to wait for spec implementation (embark_cost_action).
Age of Strategy design leader
User avatar
b2198
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:48 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by b2198 »

I see. Well, at least when it's done it won't require those workarounds. Also will it cost an action to disembark aswell? Because the wagon movement + unit movement + unit attack in a single turn is what makes wagons so strong currently, not so much the "infinite wagon chain movement cheese", since that one requires a lot more setup to be performed.
Green is the correct color, other colors are "less correct".
User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 2717
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by Endru1241 »

I think Stratego mentioned that both entering and exiting wagons would cost action.
Age of Strategy design leader
User avatar
godOfKings
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by godOfKings »

one thing i do believe is that after wagon nerf, poison archers will become meta again if exiting wagons cost action
There is no place for false kings here, only those who proves themselves to b the true kings of legend, or serves under me

For I watch over this world looking for those worthy to become kings, and on the way get rid of the fakes and rule over the fools
User avatar
godOfKings
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by godOfKings »

Btw, what if a tech gives roman centurion an aura that increases damage of ballista and catapult (not trebuchet) this tech could require other roman tech like maritime reform and missile tactic so b unique to rome play only, may b it can also give extra armor to siege tower
There is no place for false kings here, only those who proves themselves to b the true kings of legend, or serves under me

For I watch over this world looking for those worthy to become kings, and on the way get rid of the fakes and rule over the fools
User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 2717
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by Endru1241 »

godOfKings wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:31 am one thing i do believe is that after wagon nerf, poison archers will become meta again if exiting wagons cost action
I see it as something good.

Although when thinking about potential EMBARK_COST_ACTION spec, then I'd rather see it only making entering cost action and another one: DISEMBARK_COST_ACTION requiring action for exiting.
It would make a mix of costs possible, so e.g. towers and siege towers could have EMBARK_COST_ACTION to stop more attacks than carry cap.
While wagons could only have DISEMBARK_COST_ACTION, so that they are still perfect for making an escape, but no longer useful with attacks.
Wagon transformation (with some visual change from normal ones) or even some completely new wagon-like unit could be prepared for to not have this (and e.g. slower speed instead).
godOfKings wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:48 pm Btw, what if a tech gives roman centurion an aura that increases damage of ballista and catapult (not trebuchet) this tech could require other roman tech like maritime reform and missile tactic so b unique to rome play only, may b it can also give extra armor to siege tower
Definitely not siege tower armor.
Why would it?
To make senators usage even more annoying?

If anything apart of catapults and ballistas then rather bonus damage or even additional armor to rams.
But I am wondering if adding ballista (or some weaker, cheaper roman specific one, or both) to legionary build list would be much more interesting.
Age of Strategy design leader
User avatar
DreJaDe
Posts: 2382
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 10:19 pm

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by DreJaDe »

Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm But I am wondering if adding ballista (or some weaker, cheaper roman specific one, or both) to legionary build list would be much more interesting.
The old feels super definitely not make jt interesting as it would take too long for legionary to build. Better for just workers to do it.

With the pacing of the game also, I dont even use them for roads that much though with the Wagon being nerfed... I could see more roads construction being utilized.

What about nerfing wagons more to discourage it being used in the front. Somewhat like in aoww albeit they are still used as such but only because they are cheap and the fast nature of the game.
User avatar
b2198
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:48 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by b2198 »

Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm
godOfKings wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:31 am one thing i do believe is that after wagon nerf, poison archers will become meta again if exiting wagons cost action
I see it as something good.
I don't think that will be the case, since poison archers are fragile enough for skirmishers to deal with them easily in open field, and when in siege towers/mantlets it stops being a strength specific to them, since a lot of other fragile units also benefit a lot from those (ex: healers, senators, etc.). I might be wrong in that assumption though, but I guess we'll only know for sure when that actually happens.
Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm Although when thinking about potential EMBARK_COST_ACTION spec, then I'd rather see it only making entering cost action and another one: DISEMBARK_COST_ACTION requiring action for exiting.
It would make a mix of costs possible, so e.g. towers and siege towers could have EMBARK_COST_ACTION to stop more attacks than carry cap.
While wagons could only have DISEMBARK_COST_ACTION, so that they are still perfect for making an escape, but no longer useful with attacks.
Yeah, I also think that would be the ideal solution.
Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm Wagon transformation (with some visual change from normal ones) or even some completely new wagon-like unit could be prepared for to not have this (and e.g. slower speed instead).
Or just leave it to rams, as they can get up to 5 speed (way more with roads), but only carrying 1 unit, or 3 speed, carrying 2 units, and also have sieging capability on their own.
Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm If anything apart of catapults and ballistas then rather bonus damage or even additional armor to rams.
But I am wondering if adding ballista (or some weaker, cheaper roman specific one, or both) to legionary build list would be much more interesting.
I think building siege machines would be better left for workers (or maybe for some other unit more widely available that specializes on that), otherwise romans would get a sort of a production boost while producing their main army, which would mean that them focusing on having a big army also means they are getting a better scaling to the late-game, which I think could make them too strong overall.
Green is the correct color, other colors are "less correct".
User avatar
Endru1241
Posts: 2717
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:43 am
Location: Poland

Re: Sieges vs Defense inquiry

Post by Endru1241 »

DreJaDe wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:33 pm
Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm But I am wondering if adding ballista (or some weaker, cheaper roman specific one, or both) to legionary build list would be much more interesting.
The old feels super definitely not make jt interesting as it would take too long for legionary to build. Better for just workers to do it.

With the pacing of the game also, I dont even use them for roads that much though with the Wagon being nerfed... I could see more roads construction being utilized.

What about nerfing wagons more to discourage it being used in the front. Somewhat like in aoww albeit they are still used as such but only because they are cheap and the fast nature of the game.
Like making them more fragile?
I am afraid that could make players use it even more as assault only.

I am waiting for the spec to change that and make wagons specialised in general logistics, but no longer allowing ambush.
b2198 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:30 pm
Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm
godOfKings wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:31 am one thing i do believe is that after wagon nerf, poison archers will become meta again if exiting wagons cost action
I see it as something good.
I don't think that will be the case, since poison archers are fragile enough for skirmishers to deal with them easily in open field, and when in siege towers/mantlets it stops being a strength specific to them, since a lot of other fragile units also benefit a lot from those (ex: healers, senators, etc.). I might be wrong in that assumption though, but I guess we'll only know for sure when that actually happens.
I think what goK meant here is that currently meeting foot units in open field is very rare, so poison archers cannot target them.
And it doesn't change anything where posion archers are - in garrison or on open field.
What does it matter when there is barely any targets for them?
Those are either in siege towers, towers or in wagons.
There is not much you can do about first two and even if they somehow leave safe garrison - there are more cost efficient units to deal with those.
In wagons on the other hand you'd transport melee infantry, among which high armored ones are perfect targets for poison archers.
So if units would not attack in the same turn as leaving wagons, that makes poison archers better option, possibly to the point of making them part of meta.

Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm Wagon transformation (with some visual change from normal ones) or even some completely new wagon-like unit could be prepared for to not have this (and e.g. slower speed instead).
Or just leave it to rams, as they can get up to 5 speed (way more with roads), but only carrying 1 unit, or 3 speed, carrying 2 units, and also have sieging capability on their own.
Reasonable.
Endru1241 wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:09 pm If anything apart of catapults and ballistas then rather bonus damage or even additional armor to rams.
But I am wondering if adding ballista (or some weaker, cheaper roman specific one, or both) to legionary build list would be much more interesting.
I think building siege machines would be better left for workers (or maybe for some other unit more widely available that specializes on that), otherwise romans would get a sort of a production boost while producing their main army, which would mean that them focusing on having a big army also means they are getting a better scaling to the late-game, which I think could make them too strong overall.
Possibly.
Which is why I only mentioned it as being possibly more interesting, not better option overall.
Age of Strategy design leader
Post Reply

Return to “Others”