The buildings in AoM:RE are too “fragile” , they are destroyed very fast, even with the “architecture” upgrades.
The towers are pointless in practice, even with all upgrades.
Siege weapons and powers like Earthquake and Meteor are often quite unnecessary.
As my friend noticed:
Yes, in general all the buildings crumble just looking at them, a rather small group of soldiers can easily take down Towers and Walls and devastate a base, as also any economic building is made of paper, just the Town Centers and Fortresses take a few seconds longer to go down, but, since they also shoot candy, with the addition of a couple of mythical units you don’t even notice.
I do not want defense buildings to be super strong, but Age of Mythology went too far here…
There were a few changes in Retold that are making defences pretty weak:
All siege units had a massive increase in damage
Many siege units do AoE damage vs. walls now
Engineers doubles the damage vs. walls for a lot of siege units
Towers have half the base attack
AoM has strong myth units and god powers so there is always a way to get though defences so I don’t think buffing defensive buildings (Towers and Walls in particular) would make the game too slow.
I think Fortress buildings should not be buffed or buffed much since they already have the dual purpose of unit training.
Town Centres are also already pretty durable and have good attack, but that’s only because they are the strongest building.
Citadels could use a buff though.
So I suggest buffing the base HP of Walls and Towers as well as the base attack of Towers.
Since all the technologies are percentage wise the HP and attack of all the upgrades would be buffed too.
Then defence doesn’t just equal Migdol spam.
They used to have 20 Hack and 50 Crush
Now they have 30 Hack and 65 Crush.
Silver and Gold Colossi are just more durable.
10x? That sounds like a lot.
I already suggested a Slow Mode concept that includes a version where all buildings have 2x HP.
Maybe 2x HP for buildings could just be a lobby setting or something.
I think this is a common mistake caused by showing damage per hit now instead of dps.
Lets take catapult 200 damage- seems a lot, but considering attack delay of 4, its 50 dps just like in og.
Same issue. 26 heck and 65 crush with 1.3 attack delay means dps of 20 and 50. Exactly the same as og.
90% of the changes in the wiki about units are actually false, as in there was no change, its just damage per hit vs dps.
That being said, towers lost a lot of dps- 5 vs 8 per arrow. But they can garrison 10 vs 5 and gain 10% attack per garrisoned vs no increase.
I think increasing their dps to 6 per arrow can be an appropriate buff, making them worth 2 archers damage wise.
So the guys running the Wiki just replaced the DPS number with attack damage numbers making all the values there completely useless?
Do we have to go dig into the game files every time we need to compare any values now? Annoying.
Very stupid.
But the 2x damage vs. Walls from Engineers and the anti Wall AoE is new.
Also favour generation has been improved so it’s easier to get myth units with Crush damage.
Currently Crush damage is not that helpful since buildings just die to Infantry so quickly.
I’d would increase the HP first and see how balanced it is before touching the attack.
In my opinion defensive buildings should not have high DPS but they should be durable.
This way fighting under enemy tower fire is not super deadly but they are not easy targets to take out.
To be fair they do write the attack speed, but in the comparison they falsy state “attack was 50 now 65” etc…
I think the exact opposite . Towers should be easy to deal with if they are not protected, but become a menace if you just fight under their fire without dealing with them. I guess both appeoaches are valid.
Also they got more hp from og already- 750 vs 550. Which makes sense with the larger population.
Having high damage and low HP is kinda already the task of Archers so I want Towers to be the opposite.
I think they should be able to delay an attack, that’s what defences are for, so they should survive longer.
This way it’s a strategic decision if you want to deal with them or not. If they have low HP and high attack it’s always a good decision to attack them.
Also there are a lot of Siege units with higher range then Towers so giving them more damage would help very little in the late game where you can just kill them from a safe distance or with units that are practically immune to pierce damage.
Actually, the reasons are more subtle than that.
Some myth units did get buffed (for example Hydras or Lampade). However, the global changes that make siege units (I include here any unit that does well vs buildings) are the following:
Melee siege units can no longer be body blocked, meaning they connect with buildings more reliably. This is probably the biggest change that people don’t really see. Quite simply, a lot of units that weren’t really viable in EE/OG are now viable (e.g. portable ram or siege tower) and possibly overtuned.
Ranged units, including ranged siege weapons, now have 100% hit chance with the armory upgrade. This also makes ranged siege weapons very good against myth units. in unit vs unit fights this kinda of canceled out with point 1, since melee can now also connect easier with backline, but vs buildings some ranged units may turn out to be overtuned
I do think defensive builds need some buffs, particularly the citadel center - it is supposed to make up for eggy slow army compositions if they should decide to use one such composition.
I’d personally buff architects and masons upgrades, to better improve crash armor, rather than just buffing buildings across the board from base.
Makes sense. I guess it’s about hp/damage ration, towers should definitely lean more to the hp, the question is how much? To which I don’t have a definite answer.
I would argue that 750 hp is still much more than 2 archers (which is like 150 at best) so even if we buff the damage back all the way, towers will remain a much more “tanky” archer. But that’s just my opinion.
@Moonshadow7475
Those are interesting to consider! Previously, ranged siege weapons would have 50% and 25% to miss on first and second strike (if they worked like other ranged ubita), and now with the upgrade its apperently 0%, reducing the time window for the opponent to react as you can snipe buildings.
Fortress buildings should be buffed (or split into 2 seperate buildings),
As You noticed, they have dual purpuse - 1/ unit training, which is fine and 2/ defense structure, which is poor in practice, and need to be improved
Well, I do not know all stats and changes, it is possible, but changes colossus (1 certain greek unit) is not excuse for make buildings weaker
I think, just from gameplay view, the buildings are weaker than in Starcraft 2, which is probably the fastest “classic” RTS with base building
Today I played AoM; EE , just to compare building “endurence” and it seems fine there.
I do not understand, why they changed the stats in Retold. It is a step back, like trying to “fix” something, what is not broken, and broke it at the end.
Okay, so once again and I will write it differently.
Fortress buildings have 2 functions:
function - unit training, which is fine
function - defense building, which is too weak and this is a problem
The fortress buildings are worth (or better to say - necessarily) to build for advanced unit training, but not worth to build as defense buildings. Only 1 of 2 functions work properly, and that is problem.
Yes, we do not need strong defensive building like castle in AoE2, but the issue is complely opposite - the defense buildings in AoM:RE are extremely weak.
You’d think so, right? Yet, Titans still twoshot fully upgraded walls, and if an army is determined to get through, they still get through. It doesn’t affect the pace of the game as much as someone would think.
It makes it possible to repell a small army with a wall, a couple towers, and a fortress. But a medium sized army already punches a hole through the wall and takes out stuff on the other side, if you don’t come with units yourself.
I don’t agree that this is a problem.
I think it’s a good synergy. You get elite and/or siege units while also getting additional defence.
They are dual purpose and they are currently already worth it for both purposes.
Fortress buildings are so strong that you’d rarely build Towers, so I suggest buffing Towers only.
Now they just walk though them, lol.
But I think it’s ok for the Titan to be very strong vs. buildings. I think that dynamic should not change.
If your enemy has a Titan you need a big army or you lost the game. You shouldn’t just be able to hide behind walls and towers.
To be objectively, it is clear, that fortress building is not worth as defense building, as was originaly designated - it it does not do any damage. Even Starcraft 2 has stronger defense buildings.
. Towers should be easy to deal with if they are not protected, but become a menace if you just fight under their fire without dealing with them. I guess both appeoaches are valid.