av93 Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Hey guys, the fact it's that i feel that this game more than an ancient game warfare, a 1ww game.You build fortress and towers, and then you fill with soldiers. The enemy make the same in the border, so crossing the line it's very difficult causedefensive power it's greater than the offensive, except the stonethrowers, that I feel that are OP.What do you thing? It's right like this? Edited October 7, 2014 by av93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzippy Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 ...you can stop your opponent building forts, towers... or, if too late, then attack them with siege engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Son Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Imo garrison bonus should be further reduced (not by too much), and if structures need some bonus, give them more HP/armor. They currently have too much offensive power and forward building is stronger than most other strategies. The defense bonus could also give more response time when stormed by many siege weapons, in such cases structures die too fast.Ships and siege towers are even worse on that aspect, cause they move... a garrisoned one shouldn't have the power of several ungarrisoned.Ofc all this comes down to personal preferences, no choice in this (even well balanced ones) can make everyone happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av93 Posted October 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Ofc all this comes down to personal preferences, no choice in this (even well balanced ones) can make everyone happy..Of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feneur Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 Wasn't warfare more siege than battles in history though? It's just that waiting for weeks/months/years doesn't exactly make for as interesting stories On a more gameplay related note though: I haven't played the game as much as I should, but in my experience I've more often felt disappointed at how easily walls/fortresses can be torn down than the opposite. I'll leave it to the more experienced players to have more definitive opinions though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auron2401 Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) He has got a point.Having two lines of fortresses shoot at each other is kind of counter-productive...then one side wins, the other side moves back just out of range and sets up a new line of fortress/tower trenches.......Methinks this needs to change.Possible fix: Maybe make it so you can't build settlements EVERYWHERE, but build them on-top of settlements, like in AoM?!..could always make resource drop-points be buildable everywhere, if it becomes a problem. Edited October 8, 2014 by auron2401 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_RCF_DiAmOnD Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Imo, the biggest problem we have with fortress and tower is the lack of siege weapon. In AOK and AOM, the siege weapon was way more efficient than what we have in 0ad, even tho some civ has all of them. I don't think we want a game were a civ, in late game, is pretty sure to win the game just because of the tech tree or the weapon choices. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.