RaptorXI wrote:rmp20002000 wrote:If the towers are located together, then it makes rushes weaker
No. The AI would attack the front towers first, focussing fire more, like a skilled player would do.
because you can "Trade lanes"
There is no "trading lanes", maybe at the map you play on Garena.
rmp20002000 wrote:I strongly believe that "rushes" are legitimate strategies
I do too.
rmp20002000 wrote:and the rewards vary in terms of 1) Total Lane Control, 2) destroy top/bottom castle, 3) Destroy more than 1 castle. So I would prefer it if the towers remained where they were. If towers that you can build have +50% HP and more armour, then this becomes even more unnecessary.
Maybe I have contributed to the miscommunication here. What I meant by "trading lanes" is for example:
1) East rushes west with mass longboats
2) West fails to defend the rush and/or simultaneously decides to counter-rush bottom
3) West loses top lane towers, but keeps all castles. East loses bottom lane towers, but keeps all castles
4) Both sides are able to defend their castles effectively despite losing the lane
----> East has traded the bottom lane for the top lane
Effectively, the Top lane belongs to East, and the bottom lane belongs to West.
The objective of a rush is not to "trade lanes" usually. Most of the times, it is out of desperation and choosing the most optimal time, given the circumstances, to achieve the ultimate objective i.e. Destroying all of the other side's castles. Placing 8 towers in a central location that can effectively target enemies from all 3 directions means that it is no longer viable to rush a lane to "win". With the arrangement you suggested, the only outcome of any rush in the side lanes is "lane trading".
Current situation: Top/Bottom lane rush is defended by 2 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP. Middle lane is defended by 4 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP.
Proposed situation: Top/Bottom lane rush is defended by 8 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP. Middle lane is always (rush or no rush) defended by 8 automatically upgraded towers.
My humble assessment of such a change is that, nobody will consider a rush to end the game. Currently, it is viable to overcome a 2 tower defense, and in the middle lane, it is possible but challenging to overcome a 4 tower defense. When you increase from 2 ---> 4 (Top/bottom) or 4---> 8 (middle), you are no longer worried about losing your castle in a rush. What then would be the benefit of focusing the resources of 2-3 players in a single lane other than the possibility of "lane trading".
This effectively removes "rushing" as a strategy to end the game.
As to other modes. I believe this game was inspired from Sid Meier's Civilisations Series. In that series, you can win the game through various methods such The Space Race, World Domination, Diplomacy, and Conquest (I think i'm missing one more victory option). I feel that if people wanted that sort of game, they should host a Sid Meier's Civilisation multiplayer on a tiny map and accelerated tech trees and play that. In a custom WC3 map, it is not realistic to retain all the elements of the original game, and we have to decide as a community what flavours we want to keep. I think there is a place for Space Race or Nukes on the WC3 map, but the community has not evolved the interest and/or strategies to play with such modes enabled.
If we allowed Space Race, a new team strategy might evolve where one player incomes and techs heavily to the Space Race end point while the other 2 players plays "tower defense". I'm not sure how nukes would play out in our community. In the Sid Meier series, you can use nukes to wipe out enemy armies because they tended to be in crazy doom stacks. You can also target enemy cities and territory to cripple them but you can expect your enemy to retaliate with their own nukes while other civilisations become more hostile to you.
I feel that there are 2 problems which more critically endanger our tiny Civ community. 1) The learning curve of the game. It is not easy to learn every aspect of the game, much less master it. For all effective purposes, there is no effective resource (Manual, wikia, forum guides) where a new player can learn to play the game to a reasonably "basic" level. 2) Civ Wars requires a high level of "team play". Individual team members need to have their own skill level and know their roles in the game, while at the same time, cooperating with each other in terms of push/rush/defense/tech. Half the time, I either find myself in games where there is either no cooperation, or at least one player cannot understand the rest because they probably do not understand my language.
Perhaps, as a community, we can start having a Civ Wars FAQ thread (basic, intermediate, advance strategies) if nobody can set up a Wiki. As it evolves, Forum members can create special threads where they elaborate how a particular meta-strategy works, how best to make it work, and how it can be countered. E.g. ("How To": Great Wall Mid / Bazaar / Zeus or colossus + zipang) or ("Rushes": Longboat / Mounted Raider / Catapults / Carracks / Siege Cannons / Tanks / Dive Bombers).
I'm not sure how to deal with the communication problem, but I think less in-game taunting, name-calling and flaming coupled with more professionalism would make it all more pleasant.