Actually, I'm fine on the current state of archers. They're quite strong, of course, but since they cost two times more than an ordinary infantry batallion, I think their strength is balanced. Also, to be honest, I even hate when my enemy bombards me with Lorien Archers with Longbows: they're basically able to attack my base by standing in their own castle xD+1
Now that I think about it, maybe a very slightly range buff to crossbowmen and Galadhrim would be better, I think. They shouldn't be at the same range of archers, of course, but not even at the same range of melee fighters xDIf I remember correctly, the formation of Gondor Archers makes their damage higher at the cost of range, so that might be why Orc Archers had a higher range then them.
Also, I don't know if this is a bug, but sometimes I ran into Orc Archers having more range than Gondor Archers ._. (which is kinda weird xD)
Of course, this is just my personal opinion, so maybe other guys may disagree with me^^
Yes, but they weren't in formation, just in attack stance xDInteresting. Idk what to tell you then xD. I don't think Mordor has anything that improves the Range of their Archers so..... [uglybunti]
Furthermore, they were even on top of the walls, which means they should have more range xD
If your enemy has invested like 4000 to 6000 gold for rams you cant expect to beat that with units for 200...I'm expecting a base fully equip with Towers, which costs a lot for faction like Dwarves and Gondor, as well as the 1500 cost upgrade that improves all of them, to deal with Battering Rams decently well. I don't see how that is unreasonable.
Isengard can get the defensive Warg Pit though, which is good against Rams.True, but it won't do enough to actually affect anything. The Rams would most likely destroy the building before the Warg can even kill 1 Ram. And for decently obvious reasons, having moultiple of those buildings instead of resource buildings will hurt you in the long run.
Please don't nerf rams or buff the bases against them. Rams should be easily countered by all types of melee units and/ or heroes, if they die against the auto defense mechanism of the fortress they are useless.
I know that its not very logical that they should be almost immune to arrows/ ranged damage, but it is the only intelligent solution gameplaywise.
If you get destroyed by ram rushes often you should work on your map awareness and keep a unit of swordsmen or two close to your base to defend yourself. Then it will just be a huge investment on your opponents side without gaining anything.
If your enemy has invested like 4000 to 6000 gold for rams you cant expect to beat that with units for 200...
But you should notice that your enemies armies are weaker and smaller than they could be and you should be able to get map control AND defend from the rams - let's be honest, they are destroyed really easy if you got some units and the damage they deal wont harm you that much.
Isengard can get the defensive Warg Pit though, which is good against Rams.
I'm not saying that Isengard shouldn't have to use siege, because yes, Gondor fortresses are hard to take down, so Battering Rams are very useful. But I still don't understand why the defensive structures, whose purpose is to defend your base, can't deal with Rams unless they have Fire Arrows. Yes, the Gondor player should have gotten more Fire Arrow Towers, but that's not a excuse in my opinion for what he had to literally do nothing to siege. Maybe this replay wasn't the best example becuase played could have been better, but there are still some cases of Battering Rams replacing armies.
It's not like it's exclusive to this 1 match. In many 3v3 or 4v4 I play in, there is a case where someone tries to Ram Spam. It's a known problem that has a fairly decent solution in my opinion. Nerfing Rams would not make them useless, just not able to be spammed and successful as they are now.
And I really can't see only bases with Fire Arrows can damage Rams like they do. Shouldn't the other upgraded Towers be able to do the same thing?
Buildings should not be able to counter siege.
''Isengard can get the defensive Warg Pit though, which is good against Rams.''How is this not a valid argument? Yes, I was talking about a single faction because Haman referenced Isengard being one of the factions that suffers more from a ram rush than other factions, and this is largely due to their steel bolts being much worse against rams than fire arrows. A Warg Pit is much more effective at defending your base from a ram rush than an arrow tower. Of course it takes a build plot, but you are severely underestimating the value of a properly timed and placed warg pit or arrow tower. Especially when your opponents tries to rush you down, and you have resources to spare, one tower or warg pit does the work of multiple. It's not like Isengard is starving of resources anyway if you play properly, so sacrificing 1 build plot is not the end of the world.
This is not a valid argument at all in my opinion for the following reasons. One, you're talking about a single faction. Two the defence warg pit is a joke because it consumes a valuable build plot. If it consumed a defensive plot, then this argument may hold a little more weight. This building was more valuable in the free build plot system, but with a set number of plots it is not valuable enough and is the reason why no one ever builds it.
[...] But I still don't understand why the defensive structures, whose purpose is to defend your base, can't deal with Rams unless they have Fire Arrows. [...]That's a mistake you make there. Defensive structures are there to help you beat armies that invade your castle, did you ever try to attack an upgraded castle with an army only? :D
Mordor and Isengard can easily get 10 rams for around 2100-3000 resources which is more than enough to do enough damage maybe even take out an entire castle that is defended...and who ever said anything about taking out rams with 200 resource units?
In regards to the Warg Sentry, I suggested a while back that it be moved to the defensive build plots of an Isengard base, and I don't understand why it wasn't. It would be a simple change that would REALLY increase the usefulness of the building. Its in the Isengard suggestions thread somewhere, if you want to read it ;)
Pretty much have the same thoughts on the subject. So +1 :)In regards to the Warg Sentry, I suggested a while back that it be moved to the defensive build plots of an Isengard base, and I don't understand why it wasn't. It would be a simple change that would REALLY increase the usefulness of the building. Its in the Isengard suggestions thread somewhere, if you want to read it ;)
Yeah, this seems reasonable. If it is do-able (as in if the team can make the sentry fit on the smaller defence plots), then I support this change.
First, I will say that ram rushing can be a serious problem. You can be on the offensive with map control, killing the enemies outer farms, and he can just ram spam your base and force you to backpedal. Its a cheap and effective tactic, I do think right now that rams overperform for their cost. Especially the 300 ones.
First, I will say that ram rushing can be a serious problem. You can be on the offensive with map control, killing the enemies outer farms, and he can just ram spam your base and force you to backpedal. Its a cheap and effective tactic, I do think right now that rams overperform for their cost. Especially the 300 ones.
Completely agree with this. I've just lost a match with a friend, where we were in a steady situation, in the exact moment he started to spam rams. At the end I had to quit the game because I couldn't do nothing against the spam (also because I had Glorious King's power bugged)
However, as a way to nerf them, rather than increasing the damage received by upgraded defensive structures (not all the factions can afford them), I'd like to see them limited to a number of 5 or either their recruitment time increased. To be honest, I think this nerf would be good for all siege engines, because most of the times, when the enemy starts spamming siege, you've basically lost the game
I attach the replay of the match (the ram spam starts at 1/3 of the game)
Concerning the Warg sentry, what about making it a slave-upgrade for sentry towers, besides Steel bolts?
Nobody leaves 5 battalions of infantry to guard their freaking base while they are on the offensive!
I agree that dealing with rams in lategame isn't so hard, the problem is another. First of all, the ram spam may be extremely effective even on mid game, when you're still building your army, your opponent can send 4 rams on a farm, 4 on another, 4 on another, and so on, therefore drawing your attention and thwarting economy and development, while you have to send your troops in several spots to kill those rams, or even worse, being forced to leave - for example - two swordsmen on a farm, two on another, two on another, and so on, which means a smaller army, fewer CPs and fewer resourcesThat huge ram spam should mean no armie for your enemie( except mordor) and if so you will have great advantage in the match just destroy the already done rams and attack with few units you will win easily.
Furthermore, as Elite said (and I agree with him), even in lategame they can deal terrible damage, because they can walk with no problems between troops and smash a lot of buildings before you can make them harmless (the same happens with catapults: what can you do when your opponent has 7-8 of them - or even more - all clumped in the same spot, bombing your base, while his troops just stand around them preventing anyone from destroying them?)
If you had an army supporting the rams like you should, the wall defenses would have other targets to hit. And how boring would it be if you were to have a fully upgraded army and going to attack your enemy and you lose because your base dies to ram spam. How much fun is that? I don't even see how winning that way is fun. All the things you can do in this mod and you ram spam to beat someone, don't understand it.^^ This. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me, where I have clearly outplayed my opponent and won the match just for him to send 5-10 rams into my base and kill me. Upgraded base defenses SHOULD be able to kill rams, because upgraded base defenses still cannot counter a proper catapult siege. Rams are mean to be used to take down outposts and normal settlements, but right now they can level a base easily. Even if its defended by troops they can usually get at least 3-4 buildings before you can kill them all.
Seems to me that increasing ram command points would be the most logical solution here without affecting their strength too much. Rams (and catapults, for that matter), were never meant to be units that you send in droves of 10 or 15. Increasing their point costs to 40 or 60 would mean that you'd actually have to think about how many siege weapons and how many field units you want in your army, whereas currently you can get six rams for the point cost of two Gondor soldier bataillons.That seems fair, I think also a movement speed and attack speed nerf would be good. I don't think they should have lower health or armor because then they could just get shot down, but making them hit buildings a bit slower would help ensure that the defender at least has a chance to target them.
Seems to me that increasing ram command points would be the most logical solution here without affecting their strength too much. Rams (and catapults, for that matter), were never meant to be units that you send in droves of 10 or 15. Increasing their point costs to 40 or 60 would mean that you'd actually have to think about how many siege weapons and how many field units you want in your army, whereas currently you can get six rams for the point cost of two Gondor soldier bataillons.
Seems to me that increasing ram command points would be the most logical solution here without affecting their strength too much. Rams (and catapults, for that matter), were never meant to be units that you send in droves of 10 or 15. Increasing their point costs to 40 or 60 would mean that you'd actually have to think about how many siege weapons and how many field units you want in your army, whereas currently you can get six rams for the point cost of two Gondor soldier bataillons.I agree with this.
And I'm just sitting here, waiting for someone to actually post a replay showcasing rams are op...
If you spend the money for upgradeing defenses, why should the Defenses not be able to hold off such a inexpensive army of Rams?The defense is strong enaugh to counter attacks of normal units.
There are certain things that need to be unrealistic in terms of Gameplay. How does it make sense that people with swords can destroy a building? It doesn't make sense, but it is something that needs to happen for the game to function properlyI don't talk from the sense, what is logical and what not, I talk from the sense why a tower should be able to kill his counter. It's like that a pikeman can kill a swordman, or a archer can kill cavallery.
Hello dear Edain-Community!
I played some edain matches and I have a big concern. Farms and buidings in general are falling way too quickly. Often I can't even send soldiers to defend farms.
Similarly, fortress buildings have too weak armor against rams and catapults, when they are attacked there is always no time to react quickly enough. So I propose a general building-life increase of about 50%.
I hope you like my balance idea. :D
Aragorn costs more then double the amount of resources as Eowyn, and just barely under double the amount more as Lurtz. Therefore, the extra health is justified.
There is a difference between 50% damage and 50 damage. Last I checked, the ability says 50 damage.
Though I don't see how the stats of Blademaster are relevant to Aragorn's health.
I think it is well known to the team that they are currently OP but i just wanted to make this post, to be doubly sure. And also to point out the level to which (I believe) they need to be nerfed.
I would go as far as saying i would rather DELETE towers from the game than keep them how they currently are! I have never come across a player who supports the buffing of towers and almost every player i talk to agrees that they are currently way too powerful.
You could argue that they're technically not 'Imbalanced' because towers are a feature of every faction, so everyone can exploit this feature right? Well yes, that's true - so its more a game-play tweak rather than a re-balancing
1. They make outpost rushing somewhat viable and if you can solidify your position at an outpost with lots of towers it is very difficult for the attacker to destroy it, leading to stale, campy games with little map dynamics.
There are of course ways of destroying the outpost, moving in with rams for one - but this is difficult to do as you need to protect your rams with units, which drop like flies to the towers, thereby making it so much easier for the defender.
Often the only viable option is to make catapults and siege from a distance. How does the defender counter this? With catapults of his own of course! And thus the battle of the catapults begins, 10-20 mins of shooting each others catapults whilst spamming out more. 'Shoot catapult, move catapult to dodge incoming bolder, rinse and repeat till one player wins'. Unless of course one player has denethor then its gg cus he reks catas from 5 miles away :/
You can be in a completely winning position, have the entire map, destroyed your enemy's army with some good play, then you're instantly stopped with 2-3 towers. You can make rams but they're often easily targeted by your enemy and thus the cata battle begins.
I think that UNITS should be able to destroy a base, such as mordors, WITHOUT siege even if they have some towers - just as long as your position is so dominant it warrants such an attack. Same goes for a castle base, you'd just need a ram or 2 to get through the gate.
3. Why is there such a huge reward on building towers for a player? There is almost 0 skill involved in building a tower. And yet they have the power to destroy armies. The burden of skill is laid almost entirely on the attacker once towers come up. The attacker must carefully micro his rams, fight the enemies with units, target the tower with units if needs be, pick the perfect moment to attack etc. The defender need only target siege then put his units on defensive stance, as to avoid damage and let the towers work their magic.
So why ARE they so OP in edain?
I don't know tbh, but i have a few ideas:
Is it that they do more damage? I don't know the actual stats but they don't 'feel' like they do more damage when you compare them to vanilla. Getting near a fort in vanilla does plenty of damage to your troops - they drop like flies.
So if it's not higher damage then what?
I think part of the issue is building health: it is higher in edain right? so it's harder to kill towers and stop that damage output. The longer you're trying to get rid of a tower the more damage it is doing, and the more time your enemy has to attack you/ run to the building's defence.
Finally, I have a few ideas about towers in the future. How about having un-upgraded towers being good vs spam - so low damage high fire rate. And upgraded towers being good vs elite/ upgraded units, at the cost of being weaker vs spam - higher damage but with a slower fire rate.
I think if they delete the towers it would be funny but not a joy for us.
If there is one thing you can exploit it would be a ballista.
Actually there is no need to siege weapons to destroy a outpost which has three upgraded towers
In addition siege weapons are not for shooting each other it would be very funny and ridiculous scene watching them trying to shoot each other. It is never needed to carry the situation into that. For me if you want to use your siege weapon you should learn how to defend them.
And there is nothing easier to defender when one has already spent his high amounts of money to build an outpost, build towers and upgrade them.
You should actually think about "opportunity cost". If you want to take an outpost first you should send your troops there first it requires to sacrificing your economy by giving up the opportunity to extending your area and it requires to kill possible creeps or trolls nearby.
And the game is not about taking outposts and destroying the towers. You should first weaken the opponent's economy by taking economic structures and then you can deal with that outpost. Outpost and towers are static structures that they are not meaningful by themselves. They need opponents to do their job if you don't want to overtake them or to control the area you should not go near them at the beginning of the game once one took 'em.
This I don't understand: the outposts don't sit in catapult-range of castles, you can't siege if you are at your outpost. so do both players just sit at their outpost/base with catapults, defended by towers and wait till one person is so bored they quit? Sorry if i sound a little sarcastic, I just don't understand this point
https://modding-union.com/index.php/topic,34820.0.html
If we are talking about camps then as I said before if you already let someone take a camp and build 6+ towers on it you should have played wrong. It is already not a normal or advantageous thing to have more then one tower in the main building plots in the starting camp. I don't build towers in the beginning camp of mine.
And siege weapons against towers thing. I said that you don't need to have siege weapons to take an outpost with upgraded towers but of course you can make them an overtake the outpost easily for example ballistas, they can shoot the towers at a distance the towers can not even touch them. So if you want to win a game you should not go near a fully upgraded outpost with your army in the mid-game phase but you can use siege weapons an wait the opponent comes to your siege weapons so you can win that hand against your opponents with a larger army you have because the opponent would not be able to have a larger army then yours. As I said before you should destroy every other thing to come to that outpost.
Siege weapon fight thing. Okay. It is not a necessary or natural thing just because there are players who make it.
I looked at the videos briefly there are some mistakes at the beginning or middle of the game.
And I realised that these are mainly occurs in castle maps and of course you should have siege weapons to destroy the gate and to pass the defence . They should not be happen on normal settlements.
In Ruuddevil and The Silver Elf's game why he wait with that army in front of the castle before his siege weapons destroy gate? And once the gate are destroyed he could push all of his forces inside to wound his opponent. He just waited being afraid to lose his army and as far as I seen he didn't have proper archers to be effective at distace. LOL.
Let me clarify, I was talking about outposts not camps or castles. And if one just sits at one's outposts camps or whatever, one can't win the game. It is just meaningless. One who is a good player just doesn't do that. As I said before, it is just mistakes of both sides to carry the situation to a siege war. The sole purpose of this game is winning and to surrender is a fact of the war. End of story.
I think you admit that there are ways of destroying an outpost. Actually there is no need to siege weapons to destroy a outpost which has three upgraded towers. In addition siege weapons are not for shooting each other it would be very funny and ridiculous scene watching them trying to shoot each other. It is never needed to carry the situation into that. For me if you want to use your siege weapon you should learn how to defend them. And there is nothing easier to defender when one has already spent his high amounts of money to build an outpost, build towers and upgrade them.
As I said before, it is just mistakes of both sides to carry the situation to a siege war.
I think that fire rate or damage of the towers can be discussed but me and my friends think that health points of towers will be right if they will not be decreased too much.
I was talking about how towers make it very difficult(/ impossible) to attack nearby buildings, thereby forcing a player into getting catapults - so they can attack from range. They do this because moving near a tower destroys your units very quickly, so it is beneficial to attack from a distance with catapults - this leads to the (almost objectively - i mean seriously who thinks these battles are interesting and fun!) ugly and frustrating catapult battles
Outposts tend to have less towers, therefore there are chances for the enemy to come in and attack with his units (whether he uses catapults too is up to him). However, in many cases, the best way to siege an outpost is to sit back with catapults, defend them with units and slowly destroy the outpost, just like you said. So that's outposts.
Now, Bases on the other hand have many more towers and so it is almost always suicide to move into, or near, the base with units. Therefore the attacker is forced to sit back with catapults and slowly destroy all the buildings in the base from a distance. This is the point at which the defender uses all of his energies on destroying the catapults and it becomes very frustrating and boring.
No good player would play as gondor and instantly start building towers and turtleing. You would lose every game so long as your opponent spammed catapults. I'm not saying it is an imbalance in that towers are so good they win you the game. I'm simply saying that the power of them makes sieging boring and fustrating!
Imagine if you could move into or near a gondor castle even with lots of towers up with your UNITS. You could launch an attack on the gate with a ram, whilst your units valiantly protect the ram from attack. You could use siege ladders, you could sneak in isenguard mines, you could destroy the gate and storm the keep with your army. You could still use catapults as an additional weapon in your arsenal to fire from a distance, with a few units back their protecting them.
It would 'feel' more like a siege, it would feel more 'lord-of-the-ringsy' it might even 'look' more like the battle at helms deep or minas tirith.
Imagine if you had multiple siegeing techniques occurring simultaneously. Imagine how cool and intense it would be to be defending against a ram at the gate, having uruk-hai scale your walls with siege ladders - attacking your archers that are trying to bring down the ram. All the while your walls are being pelted with ballistas, then all of a sudden
BOOM!!!
However, with towers being as powerful as they are, all these options are worthless, except for using catapults from a distance, because you can't attack a base with units when your enemy has 6+ towers, every unit in range of the towers is toast. Nerfing towers would free up so much more dynamic tactics to be viable. Instead we are left in the current state where we must use catapults once your enemy gets towers, and the defender can easily focus all his attention on the one threat of catapults.
Yes, you're also saying that it is very often the better option to use catapults which out-range towers to destroy the outpost and minimise loses to your units, now imagine the defender makes catapults to target your own! Or summons some orcs behind the catapults and hits them in that way. Or uses a combination of both, (and more) to kill your catapults, so that you have to dodge incoming catapult shots after every shot you take, but also not send that cata outside of your infantry clump otherwise the summon or cavalry will get them.
Now imagine what you must do to attack the outpost: target your enemy's catapults with your catapults and summons. But wait! you can't send your cavalry in because they will be destroyed by towers. And your summons will drop like flies to the towers. This is catapult battling^.
Whoever has denethor wins. This is why he is so OP, he's the steward of gondor but the king of catapult-battling!
Please tell us, if it is not necessary how do you fight a gondor base that has had all its upgrades? If you could tell us that, all the people in the multiplayer community would have much more fun when sieging.
If he did this, his units would die to the towers, that is my point. he can only do what he did in that game: Sit outside with catapults. He just didn't spam them enough and called it a draw.
ZitatLet me clarify, I was talking about outposts not camps or castles. And if one just sits at one's outposts camps or whatever, one can't win the game. It is just meaningless. One who is a good player just doesn't do that. As I said before, it is just mistakes of both sides to carry the situation to a siege war. The sole purpose of this game is winning and to surrender is a fact of the war. End of story.Sorry Elessar, i still don't understand (see below)ZitatI think you admit that there are ways of destroying an outpost. Actually there is no need to siege weapons to destroy a outpost which has three upgraded towers. In addition siege weapons are not for shooting each other it would be very funny and ridiculous scene watching them trying to shoot each other. It is never needed to carry the situation into that. For me if you want to use your siege weapon you should learn how to defend them. And there is nothing easier to defender when one has already spent his high amounts of money to build an outpost, build towers and upgrade them.
I thought you meant by this that it is easy to defend siege weapons if you are at your outpost with 3 upgraded towers. If you were at your outpost with towers, you wouldn't be near the base and therefore wouldn't be able to siege anyway. Maybe i misunderstood what you meant.
I'm not saying we should not have sieging, I'm saying we should make sieging more interesting and dynamic (which the team aims to do! - partly by nerfing towers).
Hope you have a nice weekend too! :D
I won't touch on the siege battle stuff because I usually ragequit if somebody does that
Making external farms more expensive and introducing inflation nerfed economic map control. This buffed clumping and turtling. In particular the extremely boring strategies of early outposts and hero spamming are a lot more viable now. Even if they are still not optimal, it takes a lot longer to punish them since your economic advantage is smaller now. And while it adds a little bit of decision making, now that just going for internal economy buildings is much more viable it removes a lot of action packed gameplay from the early game if there are less farms to fight over.
My idea would be to reduce the cost of farms back to 200 BUT increase the cost of farms with every level. Level one would cost 200, as I said, level two farms would cost 300 and level three farms would cost 400. This would only affect external farms, inbase farms are fine I think.I like this.
This would make the eg more dynamic because you can trade farms more easily (like in 441), but losing a level three farm in the lg would be more painfull and harassment could have more impact in the later game.
Ofc you could also make level three farms cost even 450 or 500, but I think 400 would be a good start.
I would also like to see siege units being made much more accessible, since attacking someones base is the most natural way to force a fight in most other rts games. I know that some good players like Elendil like to siege early, but i also see it fail very often. Not just the tournament fubuky game comes to mind, but i also hosted a lorien v mordor game against luke and a erebor v isengard game against DSS ,where relatively early sieges failed, in my opinion because investing in siege units while your opponent invests everything into army is too much of a set back to overcome edain's high defenders advantage. Especially now with inflation.We are planning on making this transition easier for the player by adjusting the buildcost (and cp cost) for siege weapons, siegeworks and outposts.
Suggestion:What exactly do you mean by that? But in general it is impossible to target effects only at units with a banner carrier.
Troops with banners can only be healed in their own buildings (outside eco, inbase, outpost)
My idea would be to reduce the cost of farms back to 200 BUT increase the cost of farms with every level. Level one would cost 200, as I said, level two farms would cost 300 and level three farms would cost 400. This would only affect external farms, inbase farms are fine I think.I like the idea that harassment would be more more viable in the early and the more punishing in the lg. Furthermore, this would also make the eg more dynamic, because after the start you have more resources for troops, because the external farms cost less.
This would make the eg more dynamic because you can trade farms more easily (like in 441), but losing a level three farm in the lg would be more painfull and harassment could have more impact in the later game.
Ofc you could also make level three farms cost even 450 or 500, but I think 400 would be a good start.
Another big problem is that pikes don't do 360° trample revenge. Cavalry gets 0 damage when trampling pikes from behind. This makes a combination of infantry + cavalry way too strong to hunt down armies, the cavalry can kill everything if charging in from behind and if the pikes turn around to face the cavalry the chasing infantry will kill the pikemen.
Is it by the way engine-wise possible to prevent clumping?
-nerfing of the warg century by adding a timer before the next warg spawns
Swordsmen vulnerability to archers is 100 % and when they get heavy armors, it is reduced to 65 % = -35 ptsYou did a small mathematical mistake here. You should not talk about explicit numbers and therefore not use subtraction, but about percentage differences and hence use division. Sutractions will look right in the first place, but there will be some errors, which will make these arguments wrong. In reality the difference is marginal - is is 63% for pikes and 65% for swords, so it is basically the same.
Pikemen vulnerability to archers is 135 % and when they get heavy armors, it is reduced to 85 % = -50 pts, which is a lot more difference than for swordsmen.