Forts and Towers underpowered?

[medellon]

In AOE Castles and Towers ruled but in this game they seem to have little effect as the enemy can raze them quite easily, especially towers. I know you need them for specific units and research but beyond healing your troops they seem to have too little value. Is this just a newbie talking or do you all agree?

[Ctulu]

I think you underestimate them! they are a good defence, think about it for every city a fortress nearby and some towers, the enemy would be deadshure waisting some time on them eliminating them!!!

Once you notice your towers/fortresses are attacked send some troops to garrison them(adds to their attack bonus) and some troops to deviate the siege assault. Repair them with civ's. Consider them as strong backup units!

And if their destroyed, you would have harmed the opposing army, and your undamaged garrisoned units can finish the job off!


It's better to state that, Castle/towers were OVER powerd in AoK. Remember tower rush. One of my strategies as chinese in AoK was to rush to castle age and plant a castle near the enemies base, it was nearly impossible to get rid off!

[Inverse Icarus]

the point of towers is to force the enemy to get siege. that is all.

a normal army (no siege) fighting 2 towers and a fort will perish, especially if you get their supply wagon.

put siege units near your forts to fight back.

[Imp]

I would actually like towers a little weakened ( personal playing preferences ), so they wouldn't be so effective against early rush attacks, but there's ways around them, and siege isn't that hard to get. Plus, unless someone builds a lot of them, researches attrition, and/or are the Russians, raiding is still an effective option.

Castles aren't usually at the forefront, even in the Medieval period, but I've already had a few games where the sole attempt is to control the border, and the best one I can think of included UberKruX above ( I was playing as RightWrong with Hella teammates? ) Castles, sieging, and positioning played a very important role for the land forces. Not to mention generals!

They're weaker than one might think, I would say, because one cannot build them in enemy territory as well as AoK castles, and simply because the maps are usually so big, their territory stimulus isn't very valuable.

So I think they play their role pretty well, they're certainly an impediment for everyone but my Turks... >=)

[HalfLotus]

Forts dont seem to do much damage. I end up with my guys garrisoned, and my siege units stuck outside and very vulnerable. Seems alot more effective to keep my troops outside to fight, unless they are all close to death.

Forts also affect borders. Theyre the only building that can prevent your opponent from building near you, even in parts of his territory. Generals and spies are so valuable, I build forts as soon as possible.

[Madine]

Forts are useful against early attacks, especially those lacking siege.

On their own, they can only delay a siege equipped army.

However, they also help provide a "home field advantage". If a battle happens between two armies near one of your forts, your fort will help you significantly.

[HalfLotus]

I used my castle alot more last night, and had great results. I was able to hold off a large enlightenment age army being garrisoned in my castle. It packed quite the punch when attacking nearby units. Although it was pretty much useless vs siege (rightly so).

I try to flank siege units with come fast unit (cavalry), if they are giving me big problems.

[Carch]

Spies are wicked vs. siege, too.. especially if you're garrisoned in a castle!

[Shift.Eh]

I love stealing opposing Cannons with spies - FUN!