D
Well, if we're talking about what the developers originally intended, then yeah Keeps were intended to see post imp; the game was intended for Wonder victories to be applicable, and for that, defensive Keeps would be built, which is why civs like Britons, Koreans, and Teutons were given bonuses/techs for their towers (maybe Teutons were designed to go BBT in imp, but Britons certainly were intended to defend with Keeps with the +2 attack from Yeomen which). Koreans in fact were probably designed to use their long range Guard Towers and Keeps to help their shoreline defense on water maps, and then use Turtle Ships as their army, but of course the metagame turned out to be highly aggressive on water rather than defensive.I'm not sure guard tower and keep were ever designed to see post imp. They were the thing to build in feudal for defense and perhaps upgrade if you had enough
How about: Watch Towers don't fire arrows unless they are garrisoned.
It would hurt the aggressor in a trush far more than the defender, since they need more towers, and they would need to maintain a garrison in at least several of them to continue to deny map control. The defender wouldn't need to keep their towers garrisoned, and can more easily send their villagers back to work afterwards.
It also doesn't really hurt regular defensive towers (at least ones placed near villagers) said:True.
Would definitely benefit the defender, since trusher would run out of vills.
Its a hardcore idear though, not for the weak. 11.
Well it was my intention 11That completely kills forward towers as being a thing, which isn't the intention.
If tower cost was also reduced (which would make sense), then maybe archery range into towers could be a thing (i.e. garrisoning the towers with archers - similar to Vinchester's tower rush build on arena). One of the main problems with towers is they can be built before any feudal military unit can be created, and this would help delay the trush. Also, the trusher would need gold for archers so would need a more developed eco to support.Towers should still be viable to assist m@a or fwd buildings etc
It would be bad, you wouldn't be able to defend forward resources like a forward gold that can't be walled.Not sure if this was mentioned yet, what if we move Towers to Castle age. This means that Feudal age will be army war only. Will this help?
Even in Huns wars, you see defensive towers fairly frequently, when the maps are open. You need them in feudal for that reason.Not sure if this was mentioned yet, what if we move Towers to Castle age. This means that Feudal age will be army war only. Will this help?
What about giving villagers more bonus dmg against towers? I think this wouldnt change too much, but still nerf trushes a little
How about: Watch Towers don't fire arrows unless they are garrisoned.
It would hurt the aggressor in a trush far more than the defender, since they need more towers, and they would need to maintain a garrison in at least several of them to continue to deny map control. The defender wouldn't need to keep their towers garrisoned, and can more easily send their villagers back to work after they have defended.
It also doesn't really hurt regular defensive towers (at least ones placed near villagers), since you'd probably want to hide your villagers in them anyway when attacked.