I don't know if this has been mentioned or suggested but I have finally been involved playing in a campaign game and at a certain point my opponent did enter a tower that I had built.
I've read somewhere that towers cannot be attacked by catapults and I'm assuming that it is a "bug" that's causing it.

However, also although I did finally remove the tower that my enemy had entered after I persuaded him to leave with the help of a large ballista stack, but I do have catapults and would like to have used them to destroy the tower instead;

So shouldn't the ownership of the tower be changed to allow it to be destroyed when an enemy enters it?
If this is a programming problem to allow a tower to be entered by anyone and also to have the ownership of it changed to that of the player's unit occupying it, I'm sorry; but I don't agree that it is proper as it is.

TR

I would prefer the old system. A tower has its owner. The other players must send comms to take it or destroy it.

The older system was much better. Now I immediate destroy those towers in the castles to build walls

I dont like the new system either but i didnt like the old system. I think the old system was BETTER but i do thing anyone should be able to enter a tower.

maybe if a tower was only enterable from a certain hex. (they dont have doors on the enemy's side dang it! what archetecht would build a door on the enemy side too if it was part of a castle wall?

maybe if any unit could take over a tower (no matter how close the enemy is) it would make more sense.

They used ladders and siege towers to climb threw the window opennings or over the parapet wall.
I'm not complaining that they can be entered by the enemy ... I don't like that the ownership isn't changed when they are entered by the enemy so that they can't be destroyed.

TR

Last Edited : Monday, 21 March 2005 - 06:44

thing is they can never be destroyed...i like it simply because the enemy likes to target troops on towers..and when you have your defenses well beyond his attacking capacity it becomes complete suicide...i like the new system...it is just harder to defend your castle now that is all...you have to keep troops near or on your towers as well as ZOC around it for added precaution....

But towers CAN be destroyed -- by the builder.

For equity's sake, if ownership can't be acquired or destroyed via battle or commanders, then ownership should also be lost to the builder.

then no one can collect resources from it...i wouldnt liek that

Uh, what resources do YOU collect from towers?

When you destroy them, you recover resources.

Ah, yes, silly me.

Okay ...
after playing two "Ultras", I think I have thoroughly acquainted myself wth the new techs and with the capability of catapults which it seems are quite SUPER after all. Yes the closer you get I guess the more effective they are, however I have also found thanks to my opponent that their range can be extended to 13 spaces using a tower;
but best they are used like "long range artillery support" behind an advancing army because that's one of the only ways you can get a SPOTTER that far up in front which is necessary to see and reach a target that far.

Okay they are very SUPER but IMO more reason to increment their power with upgrades (i.e. light, medium and heavy) and I think they are also just a "wee bit" too invulnerable to ranged attack with a stack of 50 marksmen just barely killing a few at the time.
They are also next to impossible to reach with a "melee unit" when used as I have described, and do have fairly good melee defence as well;
but worst of all is this idea that a tower cannot be destroyed from which these SUPERCATS can reach deep into a player's territory or defences during a battle.

IMO it is a problem that can be solved simply by slightly reducing their ranged and melee defence but possibly increasing it with upgrades to heavier units (no need for a different unit and/or different graphics). If production could vary also with more for light and less for heavy, that might be good also.

IMO the tower should be "destroyable" and I don't know if this is a "bug" or intentional that it can't be destroyed. I think the realism and enjoyability of the game are detracted because the towers cannot be destroyed and IMO if they could be reduced to about half present cost to build so that they can be destroyed and constructed more freely, it would balance the fact that towers have rendered catapults to be so SUPERPOWERFUL.

PS:
I think "battering rams" need to be able to do more damage when attacking a structure and I think their ranged and melee strength is okay but I'm really not sure about that (need more testing).

TR

I also agree, and would really like towers to be able to be targeted and destroyed by cats!

TR- While cats ARE very powerful indeed, and hard to eliminate with balis or marks, I've found that cats work VERY WELL against another stack of cats (At least attacking from a tower).

In a current game, I had a stack of 50 cats in a tower attack an opponents stack of cats(30 or so) which were NOT in a tower, and it took out nearly the whole stack
The level of my cats was higher, which definitely played into the results, but so far, I've found that cats seem to be the best offensive unit against other cats...at least as far as ranged go. They only kill a few melee and bali units if used to attack them, but give nice results against like kind.

Instead of tower ownership, would it be difficult to change the maps? If the towers were moved back one space (behind the wall) or if the castle was 'bumped out' with the wall extending around the tower, the situation would make more sense. An invading army would have to enter the castle before using the castle owners tower, or destroy the wall in front of the tower. Where the towers are now actually creates a hole in the castle wall.

Yes "B_W"
I did find that it is true that cats in a tower are most effective against a large stack of cats but the problem is having a stack of cats available in the right place at the right time to counter a surprize attack by them which can totally cause your great defences to be nullified in the middle of a battlefield, necessitating retreat and bulding temporary palisades to cover the retreat and even necessitating stripping towers where possible to avoid them falling to the enemy.

Then a hunt and destroy strategy must be adopted around the flanks of the invading army to try to locate and at least cause a retreat of the cats. If you happen to have a stack of cats available and a stack of comms ... yes the task of eliminating attacking cats becomes somewhat easier, but again though this can necessitate penetrating enemy lines and being lucky to get a spotter army through enemy flank and rear guards. It is either find them and at least cause them to retreat which is all but impossible on the 12 player map but admittedly not so impossinle on the more open 10 player map or abandon all of your defences and retreat yourself.

Again I'm not complaining about the power of the cats but IMO it would make the task to hunt and to destroy them somewhat more practical if towers were more cheap to build and also if the cats were just a little more vulnerable to ranged and melee attack. I mean really ... think about it ... with the ability to strike from 13 spaces away from towers, cats don't need any defence at all IMHO. .

TR

i would say leave it that way the cats are....
just fix the bug when using this cats and everything will be fine.
and also the tower "bug" where we cant destroy it,i suspect it`s a bug instead of intentionally built that way.