Age of Strategy Forums

I plan to remove their occupiability. (All buildable defensive building)

I think that is not good they are occupiables, also forces extra micromanagement and fuss to always keep units in it to protect it from occupying.

So strategically we need safe points like towers in aos.

What do u think?

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 11:15 am I plan to remove their occupiability. (All buildable defensive building)

I think that is not good they are occupiables, also forces extra micromanagement and fuss to always keep units in it to protect it from occupying.

So strategically we need safe points like towers in aos.

What do u think?

How can a strategy game be a strategy game without being able to capture strategic positions?

BrenoHenrique wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:11 am

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 11:15 am I plan to remove their occupiability. (All buildable defensive building)

I think that is not good they are occupiables, also forces extra micromanagement and fuss to always keep units in it to protect it from occupying.

So strategically we need safe points like towers in aos.

What do u think?

How can a strategy game be a strategy game without being able to capture strategic positions?

but when I say strategic, I mean: in the case of paratroopers, you can use paratroopers to capture an AA position or an artillery position and be used as a defense system while your allies don't arrive or to provide support for a unit that is in a certain area in addition to being "simple" to capture than to destroy a place to have it rebuild again as in the case of a city that is protected by fortifications.

I'm against this although I'm one of the victims of it.

It adds to the depth of the game which is awesome.

For protection the game already have those with the bunkers that cannot be captured.

i mean:
- strategic positions originally are TC-s
- and to defend them "passively" we should have the fixed artillery type of things

if one have to use "active" units to defend it than we force more micromanagements (to line up active defense units everywhere - on backbase too - and in need to logistic them to other areas ->> extra micromanagement)

i always feel bad (and i am sure other too) when i simply click and destroy my time-costy defenses just because i move my army further (because i am afraid having them paratrooped or trolled some other way.)

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:26 am i mean:
- strategic positions originally are TC-s
- and to defend them "passively" we should have the fixed artillery type of things

if one have to use "active" units to defend it than we force more micromanagements (to line up active defense units everywhere - on backbase too - and in need to logistic them to other areas ->> extra micromanagement)

i always feel bad (and i am sure other too) when i simply click and destroy my time-costy defenses just because i move my army further (because i am afraid having them paratrooped or trolled some other way.)

but this is the good thing about strategy, taking the "risks"

i mean i want to reduce all kind of micromanagement - and taking "care" of backtown defenses is an unwanted micromanagement.

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:59 pm i mean i want to reduce all kind of micromanagement - and taking "care" of backtown defenses is an unwanted micromanagement.

I don't find this uncomfortable. I love building defensive positions myself. when a position of mine is captured, I am determined to try to recap it, making the game fun (my opinion)

This is a hard decision,
I understand where you are all coming from. I have made sandbag bunkers only to have them captured, but I have also taken concrete artillery positions myself. When I do this, I can’t help but feel bad for the enemy, who is probably in rage to find that his AA or artillery has turned against him. However, the problem with making artillery not capturable is that paratroopers become essentially useless, and it incentivizes players to spam build concrete artillery and AAs. On the other hand, if every defensive structure is capturable, the game will become tedious and slow. In the interest of balance and history, I submit that we add a technology to solve this problem. The tech would be researchable at tier 2 industry and would allow engineers to make a modification to defensive structures, rendering them not occupiable. I suggest that the research time should be 3 turns and the modification should take 2 turns to build. This solution will allow players that have paratroopers to take advantage of poor defenses, while giving the player with outstanding defensive organization an even better defensive system.
Maybe this could help,