Towers and Walls

I indicated on the thread pertaining to town defense that I had some observations about towers and walls.  Most especially since the increase in strength of the rams was implemented.  I have been asked to share them and seek additional input/observations.

It seems that towers and walls are not nearly as effective with leaderism heroes as they are with communality (if your ratio of offense to defense is 2 or 3 to 1 and that is place to back towers up) and wondered if anyone else has experienced this.   With leaderism, the ratio for protecting your walls and towers seems to be much higher for defensive units, and maybe approaching 1-1.

I have three attacks on leaderism heroes with walls of level 8 or higher and towers of varying levels and build types (promoted vs built).  In each case all or almost all the towers were destroyed and the walls completely destroyed in one hit utilizing 90-106 classical upgraded rams.  In contrast, during a similar attack on my communality heroes all but one or two towers of varying levels survived and the wall was reduced 3 levels.  My entire army and my heroes were killed and the attacking army suffered significant losses including the destruction of most or all of the siege weapons.  In those cases my armies numbered about 1/3 of the attacking army with a variety of unit types present including defensive ballistae.  Communality odds are easy to calculate.  Leaderism either requires your entire army in place to counter the attackers and protect your towers or some percentage greater than 50%.  Otherwise, most of your towers and your walls will be destroyed.

Attack 1:  51 defensive ground units plus 6 ballistae.  Level 31 hero present to help with defense.  army split and reduced from previous hits that day.  Attacking army with 106 upgraded classical rams and 39 ballistae plus 345 infantry and mounted units.  Level 9 wall-destroyed; 10 level 1-2 arrow towers destroyed;  2 level four promoted arrow towers destroyed; 1 level 2 promoted arrow tower destroyed.  The attacking army lost  less than 10 units.  Percentage of defense to offense infantry and mounted-15%.  I would expect great damage in this case but not every single tower.

Attack 2: 112 defensive ground units including animals.  No hero present to defend.  270 offensive units including 91 upgraded classical rams and 54 ballistae.  Level 9 wall destroyed; 75% of archer towers destroyed including 4 level 4 promoted, 1 level 5 promoted, 2 level 3 built and 5 level 1 built.  Percentage of defense to offensive ground units-41%.

Attack 3:  67 infantry and mounted units plus 13 siege units vs 270 infantry and mounted, 54 upgraded ballistae nd 91 rams.  Level 8 wall destroyed; 8 level one and two arrow towers destroyed; 4 level 4 promoted arrow towers destroyed.  Attacking army suffered less than 10 losses.  Percent defense to offense-24.8%.

I had the identical results with no defensive units in one town.  All towers, including a level 5 magic tower were destroyed and the wall reduced to dust.  But, as a plus did not lose any fighting units so was not forced to retrain.  So, why would I lose my entire army or even a quarter of it to see the same results occur?  I either have to risk losing half my army or more and spend a ton of time and a fortune in food to retrain (assuming I have time to retrain) or save my army and sacrifice my towers and walls. 

Communality heroes, in contrast, fare much better. Their towers seem to withstand most assaults if they have anywhere approaching a third of the attacking force in place.

I am not saying that all towers should survive the odds I've laid out here, but they do seem to be relatively weak for leaderism.  It may be a function of numbers, again, so if more and higher levels of towers are needed then the build times need to be adjusted.  Or maybe the rams were adjusted too high or maybe it really is a numbers game.  Whatever the issue, towers are probably among the last things built and upgraded for many players (especially if they have not been attacked on a regular and frequent basis) because a)they don't march anywhere; b)do not add to culture and c)take so very long to max out.   Very much the same thing applies to walls.  If leaderism is great for attacking shouldn't its defensive capabilities at least equal its attacking abilities?  Again, I am just throwing this out there for input, by request.

The need to split armies is a subject for the other thread, but I have spoken to people who have shared reports detailing the wholesale destruction of multiple higher level towers and their level 9 walls in one hit when 100 plus rams are used.  I'd like to invite them to share some of their stats with us. 

Towers are effective, you just never tried to defend your town.

You would like to see the defense of a leaderism town at least match it's ability to attack. So you are suggesting that a leaderism hero have +300% attack capabilities and +300% defense capabilities?

Report # 308996

Onjel her alts and friends brought 56 ships vs my 29 plus meatshields in town. My army was doing around 230 damage per round, the towers output was 456 with just 10 poorly upgraded towers. In 100 rounds there was a ship graveyard.

Tower is the single strongest thing there is in the game. The damage is constant and very high compare to the rest units. The examples onjel did were all my attacks. What she forgot to mention is the quality of the army in town:  25 classical age units top, rest were scouts, braves etc and the total amount of towers was the number of towers i demolished. I had around 260 classical age units vs 25 how you really thought it would go? Towers can carry you but you have to upgrade them and put army in the town.

Report # 308996

Onjel her alts and friends brought 56 ships vs my 29 plus meatshields in town. My army was doing around 230 damage per round, the towers output was 456 with just 9 poorly upgraded towers. In 100 rounds there was a ship graveyard.

Tower is the single strongest thing there is in the game. The damage is constant and very high compare to the rest units. The examples onjel did were all my attacks. What she forgot to mention is the quality of the army in town:  25 classical age units top, rest were scouts, braves etc and the total amount of towers was the nimber of towers i demolished. Oh, btw, i had around 260 classical age units vs 25 how you really thought it would go? Towers can carry you but you have to upgrade them and put army in the town.

I agree that it is a matter of numbers.  You are definitely right about that.  You had already killed a quarter of my army and food issues prevent me garrisoning my entire remaining army in one town, another thing I agree with you on.  I would expect the lower level towers to go.  And, the wall to a certain extent.  I did not expect every upgraded tower to go as well.  I got the identical results when my army was not in town but somewhere else, and that seems . . . out of balance and would tend toward moving your army out to live to fight another day rather than station some of it in each town.  That is what I was asked to address and why am asking for input on from others.  I appreciate your input, as I know you know the game very well, so thank you for your expertise.  :-)  But, I want defenders with different stats to weigh in as well. 

I am not looking for 300% defense and offense but I do think it is unbalanced.  Like I said and Arrivederci pointed out,  it may just be a numbers game, simple as that.

The outcome was the same because your "army" didnt do damage. The only reason some of my units died were (drumroll) TOWERS that you think have no strength or impact

I am not looking for 300% defense and offense but I do think it is unbalanced. 

 "If leaderism is great for attacking shouldn't its defensive capabilities at least equal its attacking abilities?"

I disagree. I think .. without realizing it .. this is exactly what you are asking for. Under the circumstances, then, communality players' attack capabilities should be at least as good as their defense capabilities - 300%.

I am not looking for 300% defense and offense but I do think it is unbalanced. 

 "If leaderism is great for attacking shouldn't its defensive capabilities at least equal its attacking abilities?"

I disagree. I think .. without realizing it .. this is exactly what you are asking for. Under the circumstances, then, communality players' attack capabilities should be at least as good as their defense capabilities - 300%.

I see what you are saying.  I was not comparing their attack capabilities against comm but against each other.  Good point.