Seriously, with drawbridges and now towers at the corners..inside!..doesn't this now favor the defender too greatly?
Perhaps I'm looking at this from my usual position of trying to get 'inside'...but it seems to me that this will slow down the action (at least the early fights)...almost requiring the use of seige weapons for all castle takeovers.


kingmen, slow 10...waiting for players.

Req, I'd wait on the drawbridges in the entrances until we see how nasty having the towers inside really is. Seems like overkill to me. And wouldn't inactive castles lose all their walls and everything anyway? I still say get rid of inactive players castles.

Mog, see what you did!

Having the Towers inside and Drawbridges built-in IS an overkill and far better- not to mention unrealistic- scenario for the Defender.

The Original set up was great, Towers at the entrance and two gates. The Towers give access to the Defender only until taken over by Comms or destroyed.

Req, experimenting with new ideas if fine, but it doesn't mean that ALL the original ideas and set-ups were bad. This game is great because many of them were great ideas.



WHO LET MOG OFF HIS LEASH?

Last Edited : Wednesday, 16 February 2005 - 05:22

Strangely enough, Req did! He asked me to put this topic here to see what you folks thought, I guess without it being "his" suggestion.

Never mention the hated leash again! We Mogs will not wear them. We're furry but we also bite jugular veins.

Towers in the corners gives the following (IMO):

Bonus: Enemy players will now find it a lot harder to use your towers against you.
Penalty: Guarding the existing entrances in the castle become a lot more difficult since you will now no longer have the tower bonus to secure the gate.

Furthermore the towers in the corners only really become useful if:
a) have ranged troops to make use of them
b) the enemy is trying to breach your walls next to one of the towers (will likely seldom to never happen)
c) you just want to hold out as long as possible and stick a huge stack of units in one so that the attacking player wastes a few more turns eliminating you

I offer the following suggestion. Move the towers back to where they were, only in one space so they are still behind a wall and still provide coverage of the gates to help defend them.

Please do not add drawbridges - especially for the reason stated of trying to keep inactive castles from being taken. The game should not be balanced around what quitters/inactives do. It should be balanced around what the players who commit to and play the game do. A better solution to inactives IMO would be that if a player has not been active since turn 2 (or maybe 3) then their castle cannot be taken over. In other words, all castles are immune to take over until after turn 2 (or 3). After that they can only be taken over if the player has done 1 or more moves in the game. That still won't solve all the inactive problems, but will, I think, eliminate the vast majority of them.

How about a wood gate that later gets upgraded to a drawbridge? This would also be a good tec to have!

A good idea, but lacks the graphic. 500 health would easily be enough to just 'be a gate'

Requ, the problem with inactive castles is largely a problem at the lower levels only, and a change would not affect inactives much. Yet a change like that could have a large effect on the other games.