Forums

Here's an idea for buffing sentry and guard towers that I tried in one of my own modding experiments and found incredibly fun: give them an aura that slightly increases the movement speed of friendly units. This is meant to represent the policing and infrastructure functions that a small local garrison under arms can perform. They keep the roads clear, break up fights, and give directions, enhancing the efficiency of the local economy. The effect of this was to incentivize building out a network of sentry towers across your territory, and especially around work sites to speed up production. These naturally also became a defensive asset against raiders, especially if you strategically upgraded some to guard towers, but (at least in my experiments) the density of towers needed for efficient production was less than the density needed to fully protect against raids. But I still felt it shifted the approach to static defense away from the spoke and hub paradigm, where a CC or Fortress anchors the defenses and economy of a big chunk of territory. If you want a further layer of intrigue, one could also give static defense a farming and metal mining debuff aura, representing the graft of the sentries. (This should also apply to CCs or Fortresses.) It could even slow research and unit production. Then you have an interesting push and pull where you should intentionally leave some gaps in the tower network. Now, I would be remiss not to disclose that this was in the context of an experiment where I lowered the max pop to around 100 IIRC, along with other changes. I'm not sure the performance implications for a full sized game...

@real_tabasco_sauce Most agree that A26 was reasonably balanced, units, buildings, even civs... If your changes introduces new game-play opportunities, I think you should consider making sure your suggested changes are consistent. First let me remind you that I don't try to just be negative as I already said I liked the melee re-balance, and in 26.8, I like the cc arrow cap that open up for more rushing opportunities in 'mid game', (min 7-12). My own 100females squadrons are a bit more threaten then before which is fair. However I do regret how 26.8 wasn't though out much and clearly was pushed to fix the unbalances introduced by non-random arrows. If for reasons non-random arrows will not be reverted despite the pushbacks, I would still like to suggest give back a role to towers. After thoughts, nerfing them was maybe good to avoid stalling turtle game. But now they are just always a bad investment. Here is my line of reasoning: if the maximum power dps of a tower is nerfed by that much (reminder garrison contribute to -50% dps in 26.8), the associated cost of building the towers or upgrading them should have been scaled in consequences. Here some ideas: Sentry towers build cost reverted back to 100wood, or even lowered to 80wood. Share Carrier Pigeon tech for towers. Sentries, Crenellations techs cost at least cost -50% since they provide -50% dps from before. Han great tower and even Iberian tower need adjusted default arrow count as they are a big investments for half the max dps now. Thanks for reading.

Source: Medieval Warfare V1.3 https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/products/mw-issue-vi-3  

For me (on Windows) the shortcuts to train units are the keys z, x, c, v, and shift-clicking to queue up multiple at once works just fine.

imo the roman heroes are very bland. Somewhere there is a version of a roman hero (DE maybe?) that slows enemy units among a couple of other things, and I think that one sounds super fun (not for the enemy ofc).

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3177

I like multiple civ bonuses, but as for team bonuses I think there should only be one. I agree some team bonuses are very lacking (looking at you britons). The reason for my take is pretty much for simplicity: When you are teaming up with three allies, it is less to keep track of knowing only 3 bonuses may affect you. Also, by allowing only 1 team bonus, you run less risk in accidentally introducing OP civ stacks.