Buff defensive stance

Sup guys, i was thinking, defensive stance is not a very used stance in the game, sometimes you see people using, “stand ground” and going to “agressive”, specially for melee engagements.

I was thinking… that was a game named “Kohan: Immortal sovereigns”, that had a interesting thing there, that was “entrenched” << It was activated, when you stay still for some time, then the units in that formation, got some defensive bonus until it moved.

Since now we got a cavalry that has an attack that use some kind of time activation/timer to it, could we got some buff for defensive stance too? Like:

30 sec stoped in place:
infrantry got + 1 melee/ranged armor (or more) and 50% siege reduction.
Archers: + 1 range + 50% siege red.
Cavalry: Armor and a timed speed buff to make a surprise engagement, maybe?
Siege: + 1 range

1 minute stop: Double effects except siege recudtion

At least the defensive stance would indeed have some defensive advantage.
But of course, if you give an order, the buffs, would vanish, and the timer would reset, and you would gave to reallocate the units and wait until the buffs apply again. Of course, only when def stance was selected.

I really think that a good application of these kind of mechanics would be AOE much more fun and interesting that already are.
However, I think there some things I don’t like about you are suggesting:

I would give infantry just melee armor. Maybe for a UU I would give its pierce armor, but not generic infantry. And none of siege reduction. For this we already have staggered formation.
I would give to pikes the ability to absorb the Coustillier charge attack too

No range, but maybe more accuracy or RoF, and again, no siege damage’s reduction

I think cavalry shouldn’t have any bonus for stand ground. The main power of cavalry is mobility, so, it is like ilogical to give a bonus that is opposite to his core characteristic.

I would not give any bonus to siege either, but I think it would be more logical to give it RoF.

Don’t like, because I think these kind of bonuses must be subtle. Maybe give a civ the bonus of half time to gain defensive stance bonuses, but think Britons archers, in stand ground (the more used stance for archers) over a hill with +2 range and %50 siege reduction… no need to put a castle there…

?, there is no actual reason to buff it at all, every stance serves a purposes
defensive stance already serve a purpose of attacking any units in their range, and will follow that unit for a certain number of tiles before returning to their original position, so it’s already serving the purpose of being defensive stance.

people don’t use it that much because they always plays aggressive, so the buff seems really pointless and unnecessary


I think he refer to buff the stand ground, not defensive stance. Yes, the tittle says the oposite, but you know…

This idea sounds horrible. All of this works toward making the game unbearably campy. How do you take down a bunch of trebuchets and archers protected by halbs on a hill if they have all those OP buffs on them.


Thanks for the reply guys.

Ziad5241 - Indeed, the defensive stance, makes this, but usually you will just click the unit(s), to get back to their desirable place, making defensive stance existance overall, useless. I only mean for a little buff for staying there, not moving by comands and get something… defensive that works. Of course, moving by comands would take this buffs out.

Martinurello - I mean defensive really. Since stand ground make exactly what we expect, as if infantry got shot by an archer, it will pursue it in def, but not in stand ground. Nice ideas up there too, I only think in some buff ideas, maybe too much?

CactusSteak2171 - oh, indeed, I cannot deny the “campy” aspect of it. But the ideia is around setting defensive stance and not moving by comand, really defending a particular place. In your example, they also cannot attack you, since moving would take out the buff, or forcing them to move, like, attacking another place. You have a clear advantage in staying in place, but not moving around with defensive, since would reset the timer.

Tx for the reply again guys. Just think def stance makes nothing, and this little change COULD make it at least a viable option with clear advantages/disadvantages.

Oh… ok… Well, I think these defensive bonus would work better for Stand Ground: «Stand Ground: units do not move to attack but will attack any enemy in their range» from wiki.
It not has sense for defensive stance because units will move as soon an enemy enter to its LOS and then lose the bonus…

1 Like

What makes sense is allow defensive stance to buff the stat, but reduce the speed.
For cavalry units, I would also suggests trample mode, allowing them to deal half the damage away from their main target.
For siege units except rams, I suggest deploy stance, for 25% more damage output but -50% speed. Change of stance takes time like trebuchets.

1 Like

Now i got it. The defensive stance movement would be the “tolerable one” (not by comand) << if when they make that pursuit (infantry or cav, most notably), they lose their bonus, then, indeed,I think wouldn´t make sense either.

There is nothing wrong with defense stance. The only difference between it and attack is the units wont pursue another unit across the map. I use it on my first set of maa so villagers cant lead them into tc fire when i pop over to make vills or buildings also good for your pikes so cav cant take them all across the map

1 Like

Yes , I use it the same way. To defend siege with pikes is usefull too.
Anyway, nobody said is anything wrong with it, just talking about adding new mechanics for it…

1 Like

It’s fine as it is no need to over complecate things.

1 Like

What im getting at is that this mechanic would better suit stand ground then defend as the only real difference is that they don’t follow


Oh, I misunderstood. I agree with fits better for stand ground…

1 Like

No problem. I probably didn’t articulate my point well.