Should a keep, cost less than their counterpart?

[Warzor1006]

@Julian7494

I like the proposal but see a general flaw in only having one counter to a certain strategy. There should be multiple counters to strategy a which then again can be countered by the player executing strategy b,c,d. It’s the same with rams. They should be effective against buildings but not be literally the only option to crack something significant down in feudal age. If the army is big enough and the defending player is not cautious it should still be possible to destroy buildings, maybe with some risky special ability that can be activated for a short time so that units are having their health reduced while fire rate on buildings increased.

I agree, im also a fan if there are multiple ways to deal with something …
I suggested this idea

@Warzor1006

There is an ability at every defensive structure, like the emergency repair from HRE

This will activate the currently strong auto target fire for some time, after lets say 30 seconds
It will go on cooldown for another 30 seconds and switches to its old behavior where it focuses the unit that is the closest to the defensive structure until it dies or moves out of range!
This could then also be a toggable abillity! So new players and casuals don’t have to worry much about it, it automatically activates when a siege unit does damage, is in range and a other non siege unit is also in fire range. So its nearly optimal even if you don’t do anything, but it could ofc be also baited out, by a good player!

I totally get it, why they made this change! For a defensive player, this was super micro intensive, to get use out of your TCs / Keeps. Not everyone has an high apm and can utilize it … But this opens up a time window again for the aggressor, to actually fight under time pressure under defensive structures! This would lead to a back and forth again and both players can do mistakes here.
I would love to see again, fights under defensive structures to be an option, this was entertaining to watch and also so satisfying to play if you are the agressor or the defender, on both sides, it felt great. If you manage to hold great if you manage to get the keep or TC down, great!

@BdelloidBore5

What you’re suggesting will move game more into passive push style shit which game is already is. Trebs being cheaper means ppl just spam trebs and build defensive buildings and stack their army on top of trebs to protect them from cavalry and springs cant touch them because 10 tiles vs 16 tiles. So in essence just creep forward every few minutes while spamming trebs and this style already exists and is dull and boring af and with your suggestion it would make it even more advisable.

I agree, im also not a fan of the trebuchets wars myself, but they will not get removed. Personally i would be happy without them.
The question is, does it make things worst or better overall, considering the status quo.
It would result overall in less keeps and faster take down of keeps, since trebs would be easier to afford and therefore, the stationary fight should be shorten overall.

I would love to see me fighting again under the keep and dive it with rams.

@BdelloidBore5

There was excellent example of how keep treb shit is going on from beastyqt’s match. It was some weird map.

Yeh i also watched it, sooo entertaining . But again, would it make things worst? Both sides have a better chance to take down the defensive structures and then fight again with an army, not with siege.
Would it remove games like that to happen? No, but is making trebs twice as expensive to exaggerate it, the situation any better?