Towers

[Retto]

 Should towers be more powerful? Or, perhaps, how much more powerful?

some ideas have included

• Making towers worth more DP
  
• Making towers increase the DP of other troop types.
  
• Making towers influence leader missions more
  
• Making towers worth more DP based on how many troops you have
  [/list:u]

[bjornredtail]

 Perhaps a new type of "city" that for a price of some troops and 1k land is worth 1k towers + some other odd building. Call it stronghold or something like that. The point is to a. Have a diffacult to destroy defencive building b. keep people from building up before turn runs, then tearing down afterwards.

Perhaps make the base troops that the towers use for calculateing their acctual effect one of the defencive trooptypes, instead of Rats. This would encourage massing of the defencively wighted troop types to man towers.  

[Peace Alliance]

 I really think making more complicated cities and (junk) is unnecissary... and dumb. it adds needless complications to the game, with little to no benifit.

in order to improve towers, giving them defensive bonuses based on troops would be a great way to increasy indy or hybrid strats, and make defense easier.

[bjornredtail]

 Errr.. indy? What is that?



I don't see how my city proposal is all that complicated to learn... A stronghold is worth 1500 towers and must be taken useing a special attack. No different than the existing cities. The reason cities are not used is not learning curve so much as expence and lack of precived benefit (people concider workers and camps useless)

[wolf bite]

 Splitting armies into 4 so that you can partially attack was a great idea and serves a good purpose. However, there is now no way for a clear land leader to eve hold land. With only 25% of your defending against their full army, towers are less useful.

So how about only your defensive armies being split into the 4 areas of attacks, but the towers defined based on the power of the individual attack.

IE:
Attacker 50% - 50% - 0% - 0%
Defening army 25% - 25% - 25% - 25%
Defending towers 50% - 50% - 0% - 0%

This should fix the problem


Wolf Bite

[Peace Alliance]

 that is a really good idea wolf!

give towers the boosts like i suggested, and then make it so they can't be split then that's make them usefull!

hey, and guard towers have long range... so they can shoot you no matter what angle you attack the empire! lol

[Juska]

 Wolf, how many people seriously change the %'s of their attacking groups?

Indy - Makes troops, sells em for cash, keeps the rest has no leaders, attacks alot.

Kinda what peace said, why not make it so that if you attacked a gt heavy empire you lose alot more troops, unlike how it currently is.

[wolf bite]

 

Wolf, how many people seriously change the %'s of their attacking groups?

That is exactly why this idea words.

In the lower and mid ranks, people rarely use split attacks. Why separate your army for half  or a quarter the land when you can just pick a different target? But the separation of army is for attacking people with a lot of land where it becomes worth the turns to heal for the land received. But the power of a masser putting all their forces against only 25% of the land holder has made it so that no one can hold land.

Lets say that player ?Z? scoops up 50K of land when the rest of the people have 10K. 25% or 50% of a take from Z is better then 100% take from a smaller player. Player Z has made 15K into towers, which is the best he can do with his finances, and typical.  His towers at his large size are worth 7.5 mil DP, which would be 3.75 million rats to break him. But because someone can put all their rats against 25% of his towers, the attacker only needs 937,500 rats to take out the emperor. Massers at rank 20 can get good land with few rats. I know it is less land that z loses, but with turns so slow and every attack breaking, Z will be chipped away before he has turns again. So Z tries to compensate by buying out his mercs. But with the full force of the masser against 25% of his army, Z has to buy 4 times the army to defend. Now multiply that by each type of army. Wow! It is not possible to hold the top.

So with towers all going evenly against the attacker, Z now has value for the towers Z has built. Then Z can spend the money for the armies to help defend against a large masser. The Emperor is slightly more venerable to split attacks then the old prom games, but at least has some defenses.

Besides, someone that never uses the split armies, this change will not effect them because they always have 100% OP against 100% DP.

If towers were just outright made more powerful, then the lower ranked players would have a hard time to break people that were just ahead of them. They would be forced to use the split armies, which may be too advanced or time consuming for newer players. Everyone would have to go to a massing strategy to break people, and would not need defensive armies. Thus changing the dynamics of the game to the disadvantage of people that like to play an even army with few towers.


Wolf Bite

[Retto]

 Wolf, the defense ratios are not all 25%, they're adjusted based on the worth of the troops attacking and the percieved number of troops attacking. for a 25% across attack, it's 25%, but for a 100%, 0%, 0%, 0% attack it'll adjust so that it is more like 90%, 3%, 4%, 3%.

[Juska]

 Why do the large empire needs protected even more? Look at Holbs, no one is gonna catch him. I could break him with rats, but because of this stupid 4% penalty it wasn't worth it.

If you want to protect the 5-20 ranged people my question is why? The higher guys are just going farm them and become even stronger.

It isn't possible to get 50k land and have everyone else at 10k land in reg. unless you work with 2-3 other people and if you did then you'd probally have be able to 50%+ towers and make enough troops to not be broken anyway.

If you want to solve the rat merc problem make the amount of rats you can buy proportional to their production multiplier.

[Peace Alliance]

 protect the higher people because
A ) its better for the games land and advancement for people to always be attacking below their rank, bringing land up from the lower ranks helps the game to have more land in the end.
B ) because they are good enough to be up there, they shouldn't be at a disadvantage because of their skill, remember the point of the game is to be on top. how would it help to make being on top something thats a strategic disadvantage?
C ) because i'm always at the top...

[RazorClaw]

 There should be something like a "fortress" that has 300 huts, 250 barracks and 450 towers. And Peace, that means that if I get to the top within the first week of the game, I can effectively become unbreakable. That may make the game more fun for you, but it will make people leave.  

[Peace Alliance]

 i highly doupt you would ever become unbreakable. But besides that, i'm not saying that people always have to attack downwards, i' not saying that we should make it impossible to attack those who are good. but look at the defensive vs offensive numbers right now, offense is 90%+ and defence is 10%-... you can kinda see that defense is weak in this game can't you?

[RazorClaw]

 Yes, the defense is weak, and needs to be upped. I'm saying that all the land shouldn't be funneled to the top three. And Peace, I don't believe in unbreakability. Even Ereptor was broken.  

[Juska]

 Remove leaders and make a 200k land farm, then you'll see unbreakable :)

GT Prom introduced a new type of unit that had 7 def and coutned for all attacks, though you could only gain them throuhg buildings camps. Everyone in that game has 50%+ def and the game is not fun, espescially for noobies.

How about we can choose how amny of what buildings we want in our cities.

Towers could be upped, I wouldn't mind.