Age of Strategy Forums

I think the range in this game is too high. Here is my idea to make it more balanced.
Blacksmith archery tech lvl1: only atk +1
Lv2: atk +1 and range +1
Catapult, heavy catapult, cannon range 7
Fortress, cannon tower, castle range 7
Trebuchete range 8 or 9
Omnithopter speed 8 or 9 ( depending on treb range)
Skirmishers are immune to poison ( pussinboot's idea)

I disagree with orthnicopter range. Hoever, I agree with catapults, and fortresses. A catapult in a fortress is neigh unreachablenunless you swarm it, but then again, catapults are anti-swarm units.

the boost +3 range from watch tower to fortress is huge, and makes watch towers almost obsolete.

I don't see much wrong with the current ranges for archers. 8 range catapult, fortresses, and castles does seem big, but catapult and castles are expensive. Fortress is the outlier for it's cost, but it really isn't all that powerful by comparison.

My suggestion: raise guard tower range to 8. Between extra damage, extra space, and burning, fortress is still the superior option, but it at least gives guard towers a chance.

Catapult problem: I think I've been vocal enough that catapults being inside anything but transport ships is overpowered and absurd. They need to be banned from wagons especially, but packing 2 in a fortress is really too much as well.

There was this one game with phoenix, coolguy, hardeep, and I in which phoenix and I held almost 3/4 of the board against coolguy and hardeep, but coolguy built like 30 fortresses and put trebuchets, catapults, and cannons in every single one, and it took us a solid 30+ turns of relentless spamming to break through it. I am pretty sure the game went on for like a year

The problem is that siege weapons can't really lay siege to towers with other siege weapons inside, because if they do not kill both the tower and units inside in one turn they will just be shot back at and destroyed.

Which makes sense, realistically, but.... It can be exploited a bit imo lol.

Exactly. Seige weapons have the same range as their counterparts on the other side, no matter how you adjust them. The problem boils down to putting them inside things.

See this
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4579
The specific tower I have in my mind is called battlement in which trebuchets and catapult can be garrisoned.
Also if the idea about sieges being packed and mounts being banned from wagons is also implemented together with these I think the game would be both more balanced and realistic

Sry I don't know how to copy the specific link of topic so I copied the entire URL

And I think 7 should be the maximum range for all ranged units except trebuchets so I wanted to make blacksmith archery tech lvl 1 only increase attack

I don't like the fact that everybody (me included) starts of with archery lvl1 tech because of the extra range, there shouldn't be any conventional strategy to start with but a variety of different strategies

Well, it always depends on what strategy you use you know, for example, in blacksmith i always fully buff infantry

Range and dmg for archers, etc... Is good and balanced i think. Only catapults and maybe balist should have less range, they are to op...

balista is not, and catapult is anti swarm units, thats why everybody think its OP. Just use some assasins to destroy it

Catapult is very good vs buildings. So catapult is good vs eveything? It is not only army melter.

Dont forget how big damage trebuchets have against buildings, which leaves catapult less effective then, plus fortresses and castles can still shoot catapults because they need to be in their range to shoot

The problem is this. Seige weapons are supposed to be slow, vulnerable targets, not hidden in strong towers or speeding along in fast wagons. We've found ways to circumvent their weaknesses. Archers having longer range is normal, and fine, honestly. I see no problems there.

U know sunrise u should play a match with me then say how fine they r when I swarm u with heavy archer knights with 8 range

I would swarn you back with master skirmishers and longbowmen just far enough to stay out of range

Oh and heavy lancers

Exactly. And keep in mind that blacksmith upgrades for archers apply to skirmishers too.

Doomcarrot: you forgot to mention mantlets, as well as putting your lancers in a wagon to hit from well beyond archer range.

Sry, m still just a newbie

Even so, it is not so easy to kill heavy cavalry archers because of their mobility and they can easily hide behind front line units, I could atk from the sides and kill Ur weaker units and it is tough to retaliate

That's the whole point of cavalry archers. They actually perform rather poorly for the cost if you try to use them in heavier fighting. (Like behind front line troops) You're better off using upgraded basic archers for that, as the added mobility would count for less if they are already in position. If you're looking to knock off stray infantry or a vital healer in an awkward location though, it's definitely a good choice.

Tough to retaliate? A couple master skirmishers bring it down pretty quickly, as do lancers, and even normal archers. Obviously, catapults are rather effective as well, if expensive, and even halberdiers can kill it if you manage range and terrain effectively to trap it.

Long story short, this is a lesson in diversifying your armies. Everything has a weakness​. Some units will always be more effective than others, but I wouldn't​ rely solely on that.

godOfKings wrote:I don't like the fact that everybody (me included) starts of with archery lvl1 tech because of the extra range, there shouldn't be any conventional strategy to start with but a variety of different strategies

You mentioned that you always start with upgrading archers. Suppose we played on a small (20/20) map. I'd probably start with light cavalry and skirmishers, assuming you go for archers, and get a strong early game advantage while having a much faster tc capture rate. Archers would be useless there, and I think you would rather spearmen instead. Many strategies don't even use blacksmith at all. For example, Roman units don't benefit, but make a powerful, ready made combination straight out of the Roman garrison. There really isn't a single "best" strategy.

Forgot to make this clear I usually follow this in larger maps most people in large maps usually start of like this, I m not that noob that I would make expensive units in short map or wen I m close to my opponents. The game would probably b over wen I researched master archery, if I stay alive that long

Basically I want this to b implemented wen mounts and sieges r banned from Wagons, there is no way an Archer can have more range than treb

wen mounts and sieges r banned from Wagons

sieges: i have not plan to remove them from wagons, the only way to transport them. (it has a separate topic)
mounts: i suggested this, but i see that many people like this mechanish so might not change. (it has a separate topic)

Stratego plz read my new topic on packed sieges. Together these 4 ideas will change the entire gameplay, more realistic, more slow paced, and less chance of ambushes, and actually it was me who complained about banning mounts but if these ideas are implemented together in a single package it would be really cool

Then there is this idea about spacious chariots which would give archers more mobility

godOfKings wrote:Stratego plz read my new topic on packed sieges. Together these 4 ideas will change the entire gameplay, more realistic, more slow paced, and less chance of ambushes, and actually it was me who complained about banning mounts but if these ideas are implemented together in a single package it would be really cool

ok, but why would we want to make it slow paced, i think it is "very" small paced already.

Banning mounts in wagons already makes it more slow paced and I thought we were trying to make it realistic

So from Ur that post I have thinking of other ways to balance out this disadvantage of mounts and came to the conclusion of these ideas