Increase the Radius of Town Center and Castle?

[john99]

All know British Archers or Seize Unit or Mortar(After library research) have range of 5 and destroy TC and Castle(2 very important building) without entering in their Radius. Will it be better idea to improve defense by increasing the Radius of TC and Castle?

 

[Warlord1981]

These are necessary advantages. Each Nation has a unit with an advantage for a reason. Might as well make the Chinese Fire Dragons Fire slower because they negate the need for infantry. As for the mortars being able to do this after the research, the only people that really suffer, are the less developed base, someone who has achieved this research, shouldn't really have anything to gain from a base way below them. Most bases after a certain point, should be able to adapt to this. Through traps, tricky wall placement, decoy targets, or simply invite the attack and mask a trap. There are countless ways to circumvent this advantage.

 

[Max_imus]

Great idea John.

 

[Warlord1981]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think so?

 

[Kraitok]

Castles in particular are relatively weak outside of the generals for their size and advantage they are meant to provide. I think they should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10 range, perhaps 7 and gaining 1 range per 2 ages. They are meant to be integral to a base in the same way that mortars are, unfortunately it's not even close unless you have huge generals.

 

[Warlord1981]

Your answer makes a ton of sense, it really does. But once you get 2 generals pin defence, each with a retinue, don't you think they become fairly powerful buildings? I mean you have2generals, their retinue, and the castle itself to contend with. Shouldn't there be a strategic way to take it out of the equation?

Because if you increase the radius, you are inviting a host of attacking issues and guaranteeing certain things will no longer be able to occur.

In not saying that this is totally a bad thing, but I question whether or not the answer is to make it so that other ages cannot attack a higher one because you've made the castle a impenetrable fortress for anyone under that age.

In the era of sandbagging, giving that sort of I've sided advantage, increases the likelihood of Sandbagging growing, because now not only will I be paired with ages way below me, but now I have a building that they simply cannot contend with.

Does that make sense?

 

[QuébecGlory]

Useless to have 3 generals level 40 if you don't let them come out of the castle. Bigger castle radius might help stalemates.

...anything that helps defense will help stalemates. Castle radius should go up with age/level.

 

[Max_imus]

Because too easy 5 starring is ruining the game. Stalemates are crap.

 

[JuDomines]

Useless to have 3 generals level 40 if you don't let them come out of the castle. Bigger castle radius might help stalemates.

...anything that helps defense will help stalemates. Castle radius should go up with age/level.

I assume you mean "help AVOID stalemate" right?

 

[Kraitok]

I'm only in the EA, so take my opinion for what's it's worth. In regards to not being able to "attack up", it's always been a risk and I feel like it should be. I regularly do, but if I make the choice then I know I may end up spending significantly more resources (tactics / troop casualties) to do it. Castles can still be sabotaged as well, which is a good thing in that there is a way to play around them.

It's never made sense to me that a tower, or outpost if you want to think of it in more historical views, outranged essentially an entire defensive fort. It's just not congruent with their purpose historically or intent gameplay wise imho.

 

[Warlord1981]

Okay as a history buff, Towers were historically meant to bee taller, have greater range of vision, and provide more 360 area of affect than a brick and mortar building that was designed to withstand the elements.

Castles and Forts were created to be the primary defensive stronghold, to house resources, train troops, and be a place to fallback to defensively as a last resort, not to be the main stop gap to invasion. Towers always had the greater range, they simply could not defend against multiple attacks from different fronts. Towers defended the Castles by offering greater range and allowing the stronger defensive building time to stage a defensive attack or counterattack.

The game does this history justice by having castles spawn Generals with a retinue of defenders.

 

[Kraitok]

Forts / castles tended to have towers integrated within their overall structure yes? If we look at the castle similar to an inner keep it tends to be the highest defensive point.

 

[QuébecGlory]

Yes of course, I mean help to fix the problem of stalemates...

 

[The Huns]

I don't see how this helps with stalemates. In wars where most stalemates happen both the Fort and the TC will be sabotaged anyway. Or the fort rushed so it doesn't have a chance to spawn generals.

 

[Quang t legend]

I don't see how this helps with stalemates. In wars where most stalemates happen both the Fort and the TC will be sabotaged anyway. Or the fort rushed so it doesn't have a chance to spawn generals.

Using sabotage too early may force you use another sabotage! And you have too plenty of sabotage in Global Age!

I support this idea to double the range back to original value because my TC defense and 3 big generals is useless in defense not just because of British range because everyone use sabotage!

 

[Warlord1981]

For every positive there is a negative. I don't use sabatage, I have actually found success with taking the castle head on and then making my actual assault. Sabatage is good, but I prefer using things that clear defenses without me needing to attack them. We all play differently, each had their own style. I think making the castle do what you are suggesting, would actually force people to all play similarly because now, now I have to sabatage it, or it'll destroy me.

 

[Veldan]

The problem is in the range of the british troops, like it always was. Not in the radius of the buildings. If stuff like this is to be "fixed", the british simply need a different unique troop, that doesn't have extra range. That would be a game changer.

 

[Kraitok]

This isn't due strictly to British troops, it's due to the cannon line having 5 range while the castle can't target them. Simply put, the castle should be able to attack *every* unit that can attack it, with the possible exception of the Sabotuer line, and right now it simply acts as a pedestal for Napoleon.

 

[Blacknife686]

2 or even 3 generals don't matter if troops can just destroy the building without entering it's radius. What's the point of it even shooting in that case? Castles should be big ****off buildings not something attacks don't even notice.

 

[Veldan]

I disagree. The whole point of long range troops is that they can out-range things. The issue is when an entire army consists only of long range troops, only then is the castle really useless. That's why I think the British are the problem.