I am in a clan game and one of my opponents has just walked into my castle going through my tower.

I think we need to push req to get rid of this stupid change and return the game to requiring towers to be captured by the enemy before they can be entered.

unfortunately a lot of people dont find it stupid...i used to...not any longer though...i kinda got tired of people hiding behind them (face me like a man!) but now they have to defend their towers as well

If you felt its stupid...build some walls to block the way into it.
I heard that req said it was implemented that towers are inside the walls already anyway?
Its a good changes where you will really need to protect your towers...or destroy it early.

I had no idea that people could just walk through a tower. Only an idiot would build a tower that allows people outside of his castle to walk in through it. Towers should fall under the same rules as drawbridges. The whole point of a tower is to provide visibilty and defence. These towers don't do either now.

Taking a persons castle is supposed to be costly. I believe the estimate was a 10:1 ratio between attackers and defenders.

I saw what req posted about the towers being moved but I haven't seen it in any of the games.

My general strategy is to remove the towers, and later put drawbridges in there place. The rescource boost is really great.

Rotten crummy towers! I agree, why should anyone be able to waltz in like that? I don't want them in the castle either. They should be like drawbridges as pointed out.

You can't always have enough guys to protect the outside and why would any army hang out outside their castle when they could be inside lobbing dead wildebeests over the railing? Please.

www.mpogd.com
If you vote, you get to keep your dignity. Except for Boevoipes, he lost his ages ago.

Last Edited : Sunday, 17 April 2005 - 08:30

I personally don't mind that the towers can be entered; and if we close our eyes, then imagine a quick scenario of the enemy storming a tower with ladders, ropes and siege towers possibly because a tower may not be as easy to reinforce by defenders as the walls, but easier to hold from unprepared defenders to recapture it; then when we open our eyes again we should see that the enemy was able to capture the tower and that's why he is inside of it.
However, I don't like that the ownership of the tower doesn't get changed and that it can't be destroyed.

I can't think of examples off-hand but I think there are several issues with a *double-edged logic* and this may be one of them. We mention the drawbridge and I myself have finally started using it but one of the only players I have ever encountered to build them was "mimic".
Maybe players who have one style of playing need to learn how to adapt (i.e. maybe "early rush" strategists should at least research palisades to be able to block passes so they don't have to request for "recuperation time" and maybe then they will be able to determine that to get the drawbridge you need to be able to build castle walls).

Really how many of you didn't know the exact "tech-path" to get the drawbridge? I admit that I only just recently took the trouble to get them.
I think Requiem is doing a great job to get us to use all of the means possible to play this great medieval strategy wargame to the satifaction of all of us who play it.
In other words I think the towers being able to be entered is a solvable problem by players who are able to adapt.

PS:

"a gnu who knew a gnu view"

Vote at:
www.mpogd.com/

TR

A tower as part of a castle should have some of the same properties of a wall. Mainly it is designed first to keep invaders out. Second it is designed so that troops inside it could attack those invaders. When anyone is able to just move right in your tower is a liability. Worse than even a wall or pallisade.

You forgot to close your eyes and use your imagination.
If there are some troops inside of the tower in defensive mode, they do get quite a defensive bonus because the attackers are on ladders, ropes and siege towers;
but once there are no longer any troops defending the tower, the attackers can enter.

TR

PS:
Finguld,
okay on second thought I do see your point So I'm going to say that if the tower is owned, the enemy should definitely not be able to enter the tower without a considerable cost of "MPs and BPs" even if it is empty;
but however, the ownership of the tower needs also to be changed to the player whose unit has entered it.

TR

I can see that, but if we were going to be consistant then attackers should be able to go throuhg walls when there are no enemy troops on the otherside. As long as they have a lot of mp or bp

Req just needs to change it so that towers on castle floors cannot by entered by troops not on the castle floor. If enemy troops get through your 'front gate' then those troops get to use the stairs just like you do - otherwise they have to use their 'rope and ladders' to get in.

Again I understand your point, but my point is that if we made a *logical induction* a major point of attack during a siege may very well have been a tower because the defenders could cause assaulting walls near towers to be extremely hazardous and futile;
So IMO the logic would have been that the attackers would try to eliminate and also capture their greater source of casualties.

I'm not going to ask again that we try to imagine that logically a tower might have been more accessible and passable than the walls because basicly I already have, and again I do understand your point;
So I'm going to give an additional concession that the enemy unit once inside the tower should require X amount of *MPs and BPs* to be able to leave it to be able to step into the castle.

Of course that conflicts somewhat with my idea that the ownership of the tower should also be changed to the same as the unit that occupies it, but then again I'm not the one who has to do all the programming to account for all of these *stretches of the imagination* which actually IMO is a good definition for *inductive logical thinking*;
and if I were the one who had to program it, I would probably go back to the beginning and take the attitude that the players will have to assume that all that happened and that's why the tower got captured.

PS:
I really would like to see the ownership of towers reflect the occupant and also be destroyable but I repeat I really don't mind that they can be entered and I can imagine why they can be enterd even if others can't.

TR

I could accept a player being able to enter a tower from inside the castle, but not when they are outside the castle and haven't done anything to get in.

TR using your imagination my towers and walls would be defended as long as I have troops in my castle. The game limits what we can do to defend our castle by the style of units we have. When defending a castle or walls players should have an option to "man the walls (or tower)" The unit might be standing in the center of the castle, but the forces would be considered to be standing at the walls and towers. Then when a player was trying to capture a wall or castle they would actually be attacking the defending units.

I understand that the math for such a thing would be extremely complex so I can see why it isn't happening. But I don't think it is right or fair to a player that you have your entrance blocked off and your enemy can just walk in through a tower.

If a gatehouse can be captuered a tower should have to be captured to. Req claims that the gatehouse is a manned building but the only troops that are ever in it are the ones we put there. Just like with towers. Req currently has different rules for the same situation.

IE the gatehouse, we can't just walk into it, we have to destroy it to get through. It doesn't matter that there aren't any troops in there defending the building. I say the towers should fall under the same category, buildings that you put troops in have to be destroyed or captured before you can move through them with troops or occupy them.

GK,
Again, point well taken but I refer back to where I earlier mentioned that at least palisades should be researched by "early rush strategists", and then if the arrangement of hexes is studied outside of the opennings near the towers, it can be seen that with palisades the approach to assault the towers on both sides of the castle
I think can be reduced to only one hex;
and with the towers occupied by even a small force of any type of unit plus another unit outside protected from a frontal and flank attack by palisades, that approach to the tower I don't think could even be entered due to ZOC;

So that the units either inside the towers or outside would have to be destroyed by ranged units first before that one approach hex could even be entered.
Now add the concession that I made that an enemy unit that might finally enter that one hex might still have to make a few melee assaults on any unit still inside the approachable tower and then at least regain enough *MPs and BPs* to be able to retreat and allow a second unit with enough *MPs and BPs* to enter the tower to advance, I think a defence could go on like that for several turns and even result in twarting the attack.

PS:
I'm not sure that if a palisade is also installed instead of where I suggested that a unit be posted outside of the castle that the ZOC can still be implemented to keep the enemy from entering that one hex in front of the approachable tower but maybe it can;
and with drawbridges both the openning and that outside space can be occupied by a unit also.
Of course finallly when possible the best thing would be to remove at least one of those towers so that I more secure arrangement of walls drawbriges and towers can be made.

PPS:
GK
I'm sorry to be contrary but I don't think this arrangement is going to be changed other than possibly the new locations of the towers before the "new version" becomes available and I do think we can adapt to overcome the problems which I do believe are partially intended to be *double-edged* as I said to cause us to make use of available solutions and result in everyone being happy.
I'm wondering if the reason the towers are not being relocated is because it just can't be done as long as there are games in progress.
I also do apologize for any amibiguity of this very complex and difficult to understand post (i.e. please do study the hex arrangement on both sides of the castle towers to try to understand my meaning).

TR

As far as I am concerned I have no problem with enemies being able to take over my empty towers. However, being able to use them as drawbriges anooys me to know end. If i remember correctly, you did not used to be able to move "through" a tower, so how come you can now?

He was supposed to move towers to behind the castle walls, instead of being on the edge of the wall. I think he was moving them to the corners.

I do have a problem with the tower rules. While either way is ok to me to play, it does not make sense that if a military academy or other building is yours and no one can move in it when you build it (until destroyed or taken over) but a tower is not. Consistency is the only reason I would change. Overall whichever way makes for a better play balanced game I am in favor of.

in my opinion, corflu is right... as i think was told before, towers should be conquered, because if all the other buildings are, why not towers also?

OR at the most, every single building could be conquered simply by passing through it, unless there were stationed a "garrison" on it, where it would imply a "take over".

what do u all think about it?

The towers are the focus of attention of this thread and they are opposite the entrances to the castle and extreme benefits of defence and range attack are had by the occupant of the towers So that they become the focus of attack as I tried to rationalize that they would probably also have been the focus of attack in medieval reality (i.e. because extreme benefits of defence and range attack are had by capturing them).

Because towers are at the center of so much attention for reasons already mentioned and there have been changes to ranged units that make towers even more in demand (i.e. especially capturing those that are alongside the castle entrance);
and because there have been changes to "take-over" abilities of commandeers (i.e. take-over of walls and towers has been eliminated);
and because towers can no longer be destroyed (i.e. the towers alongside the castle entrance used to be a favorite target of those who developed catapults when "cats" didn't used to be so super as they are now);
I believe a "game device" (i.e. that towers can be entered by all and used by all but not be destroyed or removed) was employed to quickly overcome all the problems mentioned but at the same time allow the game to be still playable giving maximum satisfaction to all concerned that it is most fair to all.

PS:
Think about it ... "early rush attackers" can't complain that the feature makes capturing a castle more difficult because in reality it makes it easier;
but more defensive players don't really mind the change because they will do what they have to do to make the new arrangement more secure;
while defensive players are happy that early attackers are unhappy that they have to take some time to secure their own castle;

So in other words IMO it is really extremely early attackers that are causing a slight imbalance at the beginning of the game and I see this "game device" as having also addressed that issue by slowing things down a few turns to allow everyone to do what is necessary to secure their castles (i.e. especially because I haven't ever thought the "early rush strategy" was very realistic).

I also think that if ACTIVE players don't want to do what they have to do to secure their castles, then they may pay the consequence of not being able to adjust
(i.e. "you have to know when to hold ... you have to know when to fold).
Also yes ... the towers were supposed to be moved, but another thought that comes to my mind is that there would still be an openning that would have to be guarded until at least palisades are researched;
and although I know some players would block the openning with even possibly their marketplace, I'm inclined to think that possibly a last minute "change of heart" may have occurred (i.e. without completely closing the entrance, it may have been realised that taking the towers away makes it even more difficult to defend that openning(i.e assuming that undoing all recent changes is out of the question)).

Requiem is a genius.

PPS:
Vote for us at:
www.mpogd.com/

Sometimes question/comments require long answers,
but I'm not asking anyone to read my posts;
and I look forward to not feeling the need to make offtopic, defensive closing comments.

TR