Tweet
Now that everyone has hopefully calmed down I would love to know what everyone thinks of the changes. What the likes and dislikes are. What improvements you think can be made. It would be great if we can keep this flame free 
As more ideas come to light I'll update this first post so we can build a model up.
WALLS
Walls defenses are now very easy to knock down and yet take forever to rebuild. People are reporting knocking down 100s of thousand of might in wall defenses for only 10s of thousand of might in troops. Perhaps this might be too unbalanced? It makes wall defenses useless because they are knocked down as quickly as you can build them at almost no cost to the attacker. This may be intentional and a way of forcing players to not rely of wall defenses but to keep troops on defend also. In which case it may be a fair enough way of doing things.
TROOPS
I have no issue with the rock-paper-scissor tiered approach. At least not as a basis of the battle mechanic. I think it needs refinement. I agree with many who find it odd that Rams and other siege engine are lumped into the troop categories. Perhaps they should be removed and be placed into a fourth category of siege weapons. That would make more sense. So maybe something like this.
Infantry
Range
Cavalry
Siege
BATTLE MECHANICS
Since we don't know the exact battle mechanic, and we shouldn't either, it is difficult to talk about. Currently there seems to be no actual field of battle. In the long term this is something that needs to change. With a proper field of battle we can have infantry protecting range like they are meant to. So longest range sets the field. Infantry and cavalry don't have range so a minimum range based on wall height can be set. ie The higher the wall the sooner the defenders would see the attack and have time to prepare. Once field is set then range is at the back followed by cav then infantry. Cav race ahead whilst infantry bring slower move forward. Range also moves forward assuming they are not in range and stops when they are. Everyone keeps moving forward until they clash and the battles begin. I understand it is a much more complicated model to what is being used but it is a common one. Obviously the exact details should not be known otherwise it is too predictable.
I have lots more ideas but I'm buggered I'll add more tomorrow and hopefully some others will join in with their opinions.
As more ideas come to light I'll update this first post so we can build a model up.WALLS
Walls defenses are now very easy to knock down and yet take forever to rebuild. People are reporting knocking down 100s of thousand of might in wall defenses for only 10s of thousand of might in troops. Perhaps this might be too unbalanced? It makes wall defenses useless because they are knocked down as quickly as you can build them at almost no cost to the attacker. This may be intentional and a way of forcing players to not rely of wall defenses but to keep troops on defend also. In which case it may be a fair enough way of doing things.
TROOPS
I have no issue with the rock-paper-scissor tiered approach. At least not as a basis of the battle mechanic. I think it needs refinement. I agree with many who find it odd that Rams and other siege engine are lumped into the troop categories. Perhaps they should be removed and be placed into a fourth category of siege weapons. That would make more sense. So maybe something like this.
Infantry
- Militiamen
- Swordsmen
- Knights
Range
- Archers - Shortbow (Short Range Low Damage)
- Crossbowmen (Medium Range Medium Damage)
- Longbowmen (Long Range High Damage)
Cavalry
- Light Cavalry
- Cavalry
- Heavy Cavalry (aka Cataphract or Mounted Knights)
Siege
- Rams
- Ballistae
- Catapult
BATTLE MECHANICS
Since we don't know the exact battle mechanic, and we shouldn't either, it is difficult to talk about. Currently there seems to be no actual field of battle. In the long term this is something that needs to change. With a proper field of battle we can have infantry protecting range like they are meant to. So longest range sets the field. Infantry and cavalry don't have range so a minimum range based on wall height can be set. ie The higher the wall the sooner the defenders would see the attack and have time to prepare. Once field is set then range is at the back followed by cav then infantry. Cav race ahead whilst infantry bring slower move forward. Range also moves forward assuming they are not in range and stops when they are. Everyone keeps moving forward until they clash and the battles begin. I understand it is a much more complicated model to what is being used but it is a common one. Obviously the exact details should not be known otherwise it is too predictable.
I have lots more ideas but I'm buggered
I'll add more tomorrow and hopefully some others will join in with their opinions.
I agree with you
Comment