Building damage (when destroyed)

Put here any ideas, suggestions about unit or structure properties.
Post Reply
Darkknight
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:01 pm
Location: The Great Castle of DarkKingdom

Building damage (when destroyed)

Post by Darkknight » Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:39 pm

Sooo... Currently when a building gets destroyed it just gets destroyed. In real life when you stand next to a falling building I am sure that a piece of brick or something will land on you (unless you are very lucky)

Suggestion: I think that when buildings are destroyed they should deal damage to any units (enemy or allies or structures) 1 tile next to it. The damage dealt to the unit (maybe 25?) should be reduced if they have normal armor.

Why do this?
It will make the game more realistic and add more STRATEGY!!!
It has been known that infantry deals massive damage to buildings and easily destroy a castle!
TheBluePhoenix wrote:Me - i generally use man at arms and surround the castle with 4 of them to fall the castle within 2 turns
(http://www.ageofstrategy.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2380)

This quote shows how strong infantry (some) are against buildings. To prevent players spamming man at arms at a castle to destroy them castles will now deal damage to the attackers. Because of this players will now:
a) weaken the castle with infantry. Then move them back and finish it off with siege weapons.
b) Just stick to siege weapons and use man at arms for fighting other units
c) Continue the old ways and just spam man at arms at it and suffer fairly big loss

Also the attackers (ones destroying the building like a castle) could now wait until many enemies gather around the building and destroy it to kill the defenders. The defenders will also have to back away from the buildings when they are about to fall.
Players will also not spam (or at least reduce the amount of) fortresses near each other to create a nearly "unkillable" defense because if a trebuchet destroys a fortress it will damage fortresses next to it. If the other fortress are also low on health they will also break causing a domino effect damaging most of the defense. This will also make players fix their fortress/buildings more often to prevent their defense from being completely destroyed.

User avatar
TheBluePhoenix
Posts: 1498
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:09 pm

Re: Building damage (when destroyed)

Post by TheBluePhoenix » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:09 pm

I like the idea , though it damages a lot of strategy on my part, it is a logically and practically correct suggestion. Anyways, i would prefer spamming the castle with man at arms because anyways, they die because of the high density of enemy units arounD Castles and other structures of the enemy. I ambush the castle using wagons and generally loose the wagons too due to the fire arrows of the castle. I dare not take any workers with me as they are too weak. Destroying a structure by this means is more reliable than using siege weapons as many a times they are destroyed by trebuchets hiding in the castle. Thats where you go wrong with the third way being old school and involving losses- its actually the most reliable, other than well hiding assassins in the wagons and use man at arms to clear nearby enemy gaurds and take down the castle in one shot. This generally never fails if the wagon is not destroyed before i get a chance to empty it . HEnce according to me your idea is more useful to the attacker as he can simply send 2 suicide wagons full of man at arms and maybe assassins and knock down the castle before the defender can react and fell the strong hold killing all nearby resistance tpo allow the nearby reinforcements to invade too deep into the defender's land for the defender to survive. Hence , i support the idea
BEWARE!!!!The long lost empire of phoenicia is rising- The world is but just near the golden age,wherein men played and frolicked,without any worries at all


User avatar
TheBluePhoenix
Posts: 1498
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:09 pm

Re: Building damage (when destroyed)

Post by TheBluePhoenix » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:19 pm

So basically , the old school way remains as good as earlier , actually better as previously , only the offenders were ambushed by the defenders but now the defenders are killed themselves ( apart from the offenders which were dead anyways)
Also i also disagree with any defence being impervious. any thing can be brocken with the correct strategy and required units. I myself had built a huge defense line which kept the enemy at bay for more than 25 turns when suddenly my opponnent attacked me with full force, destroying the complete arrangement in 3 turns.
AMBUSHING is a great word my frnd, great empires were destroyed in this way(historically as well as in aos :twisted: :mrgreen: )
BEWARE!!!!The long lost empire of phoenicia is rising- The world is but just near the golden age,wherein men played and frolicked,without any worries at all


User avatar
COOLguy
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:58 am
Location: Nenuial, Arnor

Re: Building damage (when destroyed)

Post by COOLguy » Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:24 am

Yes the advantages of defense and attack are balanced.
-Yes I spam fortresses... and castles... and defenses...
-I don't know if that is actually a bad thing.

-I hold with destroying fortifications with siege weapons.
Because I think a few heavy catapults garrisoned can take care of infantry. :)
Thanks!
Josh

Post Reply

Return to “Unit balancing”