Towers Deployment

[paulb84]

I actually feel the geo+scout army was more dangerous and harder to stop, because there are lots of ways to make towers ineffective (dodge, acolyte, shield bearer)

But with the update to sergeant, it's lost most of the speed because the geo can't move 4 (1 turn geo + 2 turns rally) but only 2.

The general discussion about unbeatable armies deserves a new thread.

[Lumen]

People seem to be going overboard on what they consider to be a Rocks-Paper-Scissor situation.  Saying that you *need* a shield bearer to beat the towers army is entirely inaccurate.  The thing is, the shield bearer is ideally-suited to fighting it.  Units having strengths is a GOOD thing!  Using other units and armies, it is still possible to fight forward towers, but you need to be able to weigh the pain of triggering them versus going around or destroying them, much like you do with all enemy armies.

You do not have a clear-cut directed graph of superiority, because the different units are useful in many different ways.  The various units capable of dealing easily with forward towers are all 2-armor units (especially knights and dragons, since they can easily destroy towers, and even better if you have someone who can heal that first step into range!), heretic (kills the geomancer and everything needed to actually take your castle), anything with greater range than the towers (such as warlocks, ballistae and catapults), shield bearers, acolytes, archangel, dodging units, and anything that creates chaff-units, like summoners, barracks, necromancer, druid, hydra, and mason.  Keep in mind that if you absorb the shots from the tower, the opponent cannot pick a specific target on his turn because the tower's out of actions.

When about half of all available units can be used to combat this strategy, it's not a question of "my army is paper to your scissors" but rather that your army has a huge gaping hole in that it cannot respond to ranged enemies, and/or has no power of attrition.

[SLOTH]

I think Lumen succinctly and accurately summarizes my opinion on this issue.  Nothing against anyone who is terrified of forward towers, but as Lumen stated, they are not a problem in any manner and can be dealt with in a variety of ways.  I think they are pretty weak, actually, and think the 100 price was fair.  They are easily destroyed/spoofed/avoided.

I especially like Lumen's quote, "When about half of all available units can be used to combat this strategy, it's not a question of "my army is paper to your scissors" but rather that your army has a huge gaping hole in that it cannot respond to ranged enemies, and/or has no power of attrition."

I do not think it can be stated any plainer than that.    Now, if the designers feel the change needs to made and have been considering making the change for a while, which they have stated is the case, the full speed ahead!  I will be interested to see how many people run the 150 point towers now.  Maybe after a few weeks we can start a poll to see if the change has had an effect. 

My guess is that we will see nearly no towers on the battlefield, unless they come in as random units.  They were already used rarely, at 100 points, and I would assume at 150 points they will be a rare sight indeed. 

Just my 2.5 cents.    Great Game!

[zatikon]

One Tower is no problem to deal with. 3-4 Towers is usually a game ender if they don't have Siege or a Shield Bearer, and at 300-400 cost is a pretty thrifty way to shut down the enemy army.

[mongolian]

Most constructed armies, don't have a problem with Towers.  Can someone post a deck where Towers are being abused, cause I don't see this as an issue, even with a geomancer.  If my opponent plops out a geomancer on turn 1, I ususally go for my rider turn 1.  Without towers being able to be moved up, they aren't that strong, and yes they are beatable, even with 4.

[mongolian]

PS - I'd actually like to see a +$50 tower that has +1 power.

[SLOTH]

oooOOOoooo.  Cool!

A VARIETY of towers, like in Warcraft.  Towers that do different things.

[Kran]

One Tower is no problem to deal with. 3-4 Towers is usually a game ender if they don't have Siege or a Shield Bearer, and at 300-400 cost is a pretty thrifty way to shut down the enemy army.

What about making the tower 100$ again, and the limit is 1 tower per player?
Lots of tower could be fun, but need to be studyed carefully before in game.

[mongolian]

no one would play 1 tower then..

[Jezebeau]

no one would play 1 tower then..

At 100 points, max 1?  Why not?  It's not a poor defense for mages/clergy/etc.

[Kran]

I cant see also why people would not use the towers... we only use towers if we can use lots of them?
Kran

[SLOTH]

This message is specifically a reply to Mongolian and his question;
"Can someone post a deck where Towers are being abused, cause I don't see this as an issue, even with a geomancer. 
"

This is my recipe for the "Unbeatable, tower army of death"  which is an unholy, deadly army, that must be neutered 'else the universe explode.

UNITS
General
Sergeant
Geomancer
Scout
Tower x 5
Gate Guard

(Hopefully this army gets to go FIRST, otherwise it is QUITE vulnerable, especially to RUSHING)

Turn One:
General, Sergeant, Geomancer, Gate Guard, Scout

Turn Two:
Sergeant moves Geomancer north one space.
Scout movers to protect Geomancer from rushers.
Geomancer MOVES Castle north.
Tower #1 is played as far north as possible.

Turn Three(A):
(If opponent is pathetic and has not advanced and instead has played out a WEAK magic-using army that just sits around, the following occurs)
Sergeant moves Geomancer one north.
Geomancer moves castle north
Tower #2 in played as far north as possible, which now is able to reach to the opponents back row.

Turn Three(B):
(If opponent has taken the fight to me my low number of actions preclude me from placing another tower or moving the castle.)
Geomancer stones a near opponent.
Other units move to defend, leaving...
Less than the commands needed to play more towers.

Turn Four(A):
(Assuming I have established towers in the middle)
Game over as I am now within range of his castle.  I play more towers as I see fit, using the Geomancer to stone any problem units.

Turn Four(B):
More towers are played to defend.  Position is probably degrading rapidly as one tower falls a turn and they are expensive to play more.
I cannot keep people off of me and the towers are ineffectual.  Surrender occurs rapidly.

And there you have it, in all of its unfair, nefarious glory.  Ignore the fact that it can be defeated by a slew of units and strategies.  This is just posted as an informational exercise. 

[Kran]

Towers are more expensive and sergeant dont move units anymore. But i dont think making tower 150$ resolve the problem. Thats almost the same that remove it from contructed ^^.

[zatikon]

I've been thinking about the why the Tower has been too good, and it comes down to this:

The area of coverage is too big, multiplied by it triggering twice per turn.

It needs a deep revision.  Any ideas?

[Jezebeau]

Any within 3 is the most obvious answer.  Triggering twice with full coverage in a shorter range still makes it a good defensive unit, and limits its offensive capability.