Artillery towers

[Nullus]

It seems that artillery towers were fully developed as far as artwork and templates, but were removed from the gameplay for balancing reasons.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/27156-artillery-towers/#comment-386838

I would really like to see these in the game, is there anything that could be done to add them again? I haven't been able to find the specific reason they were problematic, and if I understand correctly, they were added before being available in a general release. So it seems that with all the balancing changes since then the original problems may no longer exist. Also, if there is a problem, the balancing team could probably fix it. Would this be possible?

Edited January 24, 2022 by Nullus

[Genava55]

I wonder if artillery projectile could be ok for fortresses or wall towers

[real_tabasco_sauce]

IIRC people didn't like wall towers shooting arrows so I bet people won't like artillery on wall towers. Also catapult splash damage was removed so for consistency that would need to be brought back. (I also think it shouldn't have been removed tbh)

I think the most likely to be agreed upon application is this:

For siege heavy civs (Mace, Rome, Ptol):

artillery tower (bolt or cata but not both) is an upgrade from existing defense towers and is available p3

OR

fort gets artillery function with an upgrade available p3 (Although this could end up being worse than the arrows it would replace)

-Maybe if we go the fort option, it should be one civ's unique property? (civ differentiation)

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Nullus]

Having the splash damage removed might actually be a good thing, since it would make them less useful against ordinary units. However, they would still be a good counter against siege units. I would expect the functions of the different types of towers to be somewhat as follows.

Stone defence towers: P2, counter rushes, only useful against ordinary units.

Artillery towers: P3, counter siege units, could make rams less powerful. A few of these could actually provide some defence against an attacking ram until the defending army arrives.

Bolt towers: P3, counter heroes, champions, and large masses of units. Not very useful against individual units, slow reload rate, but do a large amount of damage.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I understand, but there are some things to note: Artillery towers could not be "anti ram" unless you could target rams amidst other units (maybe splash would increase your odds of damaging a ram). With or without these towers, your best bet for anti ram is swords, other melee or simply women if you are desperate. Maybe artillery towers could help protect against pure ram spam, but they shouldn't be that strong. If they were that strong, they would be annoying and OP.

There's no need to make rams less powerful IMO.

Catas were fun to play with in a23.

[Nullus]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Artillery towers could not be "anti ram" unless you could target rams amidst other units (maybe splash would increase your odds of damaging a ram)

Isn't it possible to set the attack preferences for units in the code, e.g. heroes, ranged, melee? If so, the artillery towers could have a preference for targeting rams.

As far as making rams weaker, ever since A23, the game has been heavily slanted towards aggression, and turtling is basically useless. I think this would help make the game more complex than just building an army as quickly as possible.

Also, the towers could be made less powerful. I think it would be better to have them in the game and not be very useful, than to not have them even available.

[Stan`]

You can find the reasons that lead to their removal here: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2495

5 hours ago, Nullus said:

Isn't it possible to set the attack preferences for units in the code, e.g. heroes, ranged, melee? If so, the artillery towers could have a preference for targeting rams.

It's possible. To do so, you need to edit the attack component in the artillery root template like so.

  <Attack>
    <Ranged>
      <AttackName>Stone</AttackName>
      <Damage>
        <Crush>90</Crush>
        <Pierce>0</Pierce>
      </Damage>
      <MaxRange>80</MaxRange>
      <MinRange>40</MinRange>
      <Origin>
        <X>0</X>
        <Y>15</Y>
        <Z>0</Z>
      </Origin>
      <PrepareTime>4500</PrepareTime>
      <RepeatTime>5000</RepeatTime>
      <Projectile>
        <Speed>40</Speed>
        <Spread>6</Spread>
        <Gravity>9.81</Gravity>
        <FriendlyFire>false</FriendlyFire>
        <LaunchPoint y="3"/>
        <ActorName>props/units/weapons/tower_artillery_projectile.xml</ActorName>
        <ImpactActorName>props/units/weapons/tower_artillery_projectile_impact.xml</ImpactActorName>
        <ImpactAnimationLifetime>0.3</ImpactAnimationLifetime>
      </Projectile>
      <!-- The line below defines what is targeted in priority -->
      <PreferredClasses datatype="tokens">-Human !Organic</PreferredClasses>
    </Ranged>
  </Attack>

You can find the classes of the ram here https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_siege_ram.xml#L37

<PreferredClasses datatype="tokens">Ram -Human !Organic</PreferredClasses>

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 hours ago, Nullus said:

ever since A23, the game has been heavily slanted towards aggression, and turtling is basically useless.

Nah in a24, most people were unhappy because there was little aggression, average game time was like 45 mins (in a 4v4). This was because of lower unit speed and archers being strong, so people would just build up the entire map with forts and defenses. I think a lot of people were fed up with playing like that. I'd say its pretty balanced at the moment, but i'm no expert in balance.

I think most of us don't wan't the game slanted towards defense. Imagine a 1v1, but the winner is the one who defends first. I guess the strategy in that case would be building rushing anyway lol.

7 hours ago, Nullus said:

Also, the towers could be made less powerful. I think it would be better to have them in the game and not be very useful, than to not have them even available.

Yes I think a limited introduction is ideal, maybe just a few civs, or just mace as they used to be the main siege civ, for differentiation.

[Nullus]

54 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Nah in a24, most people were unhappy because there was little aggression, average game time was like 45 mins (in a 4v4). This was because of lower unit speed and archers being strong, so people would just build up the entire map with forts and defenses. I think a lot of people were fed up with playing like that. I'd say its pretty balanced at the moment, but i'm no expert in balance.

I agree that it would be best to avoid such an extreme outcome, but it seems that at the moment the balance is shifted the other way. Fortifications seem to be basically useless in the late game, against a reasonably large army. Or it could be that I'm just not very good at defending my territory .

54 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yes I think a limited introduction is ideal, maybe just a few civs, or just mace as they used to be the main siege civ, for differentiation.

This seems like a good compromise, and then if players like them, they might be added to a few other civs. It's a pity that no models were made for the Iberians, since they would be the ideal civ for defence-centred differentiation.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Nullus

[Nullus]

On 25/01/2022 at 6:10 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yes I think a limited introduction is ideal, maybe just a few civs, or just mace as they used to be the main siege civ, for differentiation.

I've made a patch on phabricator to add them back to the Macedonians, at https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4587.

[Fabius]

I would love to see these for Rome  

[real_tabasco_sauce]

11 hours ago, Nullus said:

I've made a patch on phabricator to add them back to the Macedonians, at https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4587.

Great! thanks for doing that. We should consider if both towers should be buildable, or just the bolt tower. I am fine with either, but I think the build time should be increased more. Defense tower is 150 sec and these towers are 200. I think it should be raised further to 250 so that it is difficult to play the towers very offensively. They should definitely be easy to deny.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'd prefer the Upgrade feature be used instead of adding another buildable structure. Makes it more interesting to me. I use the feature extensively in DE.

[Old Roman]

Would be nice if someone could publish this as a 'mod' for the general players to fool around with.  Hopefully including all civs.  Thus not threatening the online multi player universe.

 

[Ultimate Aurelian]

On 25/01/2022 at 2:02 PM, Nullus said:

It's a pity that no models were made for the Iberians, since they would be the ideal civ for defence-centred differentiation.

Personally i think it should only be avaliable to civs that have artillery.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd prefer the Upgrade feature be used instead of adding another buildable structure. Makes it more interesting to me. I use the feature extensively in DE.

how does it work with the defense tower upgrades? In my mind, the minimum ranges should be preserved for artillery and bolt towers. When u "level up" towers, none of the existing upgrades to defense towers apply right?

Edited April 3, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 25/01/2022 at 9:02 AM, Nullus said:

It's a pity that no models were made for the Iberians, since they would be the ideal civ for defence-centred differentiation.

Ibers already have a differentiated tower. It's just not very good, costing way too much for the added benefit. Imo they shouldn't be so much more expensive than normal defense towers, but thats another discussion.

Id say it is best to keep these towers just for mace for the time being.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

16 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

how does it work with the defense tower upgrades? In my mind, the minimum ranges should be preserved for artillery and bolt towers. When u "level up" towers, none of the existing upgrades to defense towers apply right?

Yes they do apply, since what you'd probably do is make the defense tower the parent with a mixin that adds the "artillery" stats.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

21 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yes they do apply, since what you'd probably do is make the defense tower the parent with a mixin that adds the "artillery" stats.

I see. Currently (in the patch) artillery towers and bolt towers have minimum ranges of 40m and 30m respectively. Murder holes would eliminate this which is much more valuable for these towers than defense towers. I would expect the minimum range to be important for their balance.

[Nullus]

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I am fine with either, but I think the build time should be increased more. Defense tower is 150 sec and these towers are 200. I think it should be raised further to 250 so that it is difficult to play the towers very offensively. They should definitely be easy to deny.

From my tests, they're not terribly powerful, not as good at offensive fortification as defence towers. However, they are able to do damage to rams, if properly placed, which could be their main use. 

 

34 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

how does it work with the defense tower upgrades? In my mind, the minimum ranges should be preserved for artillery and bolt towers. When u "level up" towers, none of the existing upgrades to defense towers apply right?

The existing tower upgrades only apply to defence towers, sentry towers, and the Han Great Tower. It doesn't matter if they're researched, the artillery towers maintain their minimum range.

I actually decreased the range of these towers from the range of the siege catapults. The siege catapults have a range of 40-100 meters, and the towers have a range of 40-80 meters. This seemed logical, since historically it would have been hard to fit a large siege catapult in a tower, and it would be better for gameplay to avoid offensive fortifications. However, an approaching enemy, such as a ram, can pass through the area of fire quickly enough to reach the tower without being hit. I see three options to fix this. First, I could increase the range of the towers, which risks making these more offensive buildings. Second, I could decrease the minimum range to something like 25 meters. Lastly, if others don't think this is a problem, I could leave it with its current values. What does everyone think?

[Freagarach]

3 minutes ago, Nullus said:

I see three options to fix this.

Four: decrease ram speed?

[Nullus]

1 minute ago, Freagarach said:

Four: decrease ram speed?

Perhaps, but I was wanting to avoid changing the balance of any other units.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

14 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I see. Currently (in the patch) artillery towers and bolt towers have minimum ranges of 40m and 30m respectively. Murder holes would eliminate this which is much more valuable for these towers than defense towers. I would expect the minimum range to be important for their balance.

Well, the tech doesn't have to apply to the artillery towers. The tech can apply or not apply to whatever we want. It's not an issue.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

30 minutes ago, Nullus said:

First, I could increase the range of the towers, which risks making these more offensive buildings. Second, I could decrease the minimum range to something like 25 meters. Lastly, if others don't think this is a problem, I could leave it with its current values. What does everyone think?

IMO better to decrease the minimum range than increase the maximum range.