[228] Zan's tower

Alright, this is my second try. :p Took your opinions into account, and tried to create something more sturdy and resistant to bombing/catapulting, keeping the cost down.

Here it is:

This one has 57 castle wall tiles, 5 spike tiles and 20 castle backwall tiles.
The total stone cost is 660.

This building is very resistant to a catapult. And I mean very resistant. I took the time to dummy-test the design myself hitting it with a catapult, it took it quite well. Has a couple of features that enhances its self-defense too:
1 - The 2-tile-long trap bridge with spikes below, as well as the 3-tile-higher door makes it very difficult for the enemy to destroy the door and make way into the tower.
2 - Behind the door, there is further wall reinforcement, to prevent a bomb/catapult destroying the door and the whole tower backbone in one shot
3 - There is still a higher ground spot in the tower for archers to do their wonders
4 - a spikey ceiling, with intermitent spike tiles to save up resources, gives an extra headache for enemy builders trying to build a way over the tower

I believe the tower is intuitive to build, resistant, easy to maintain and with reasonable resource costs.

But hey, maybe it's still mediocre after all, I don't know... What do you guys think? :)

Ah, forgot to mention. A possible enhancement is this:

This is for extra protection against catapults sending knights instead of rocks. The enemy knight will inevitably hit spikes on the wall, falling from considerable height into a second row of spikes under the trap bridge. If any knight survives to this, he is not human. :p

EDIT Wyeth: No double posts, use the edit button. After trying to merge the posts the picture got lost in trasition. Please re-upload, sorry.

 

660 stone is not cheap. I think repairing the building when a cata comes would make for better use of resource management

 

It looks good, so long as it's build pre-start! as foxodi said, 600 ain't cheap. My only want would be a murder hole below the archer door at the top - otherwise archers have a blind spot. Or worse, noob archers will try to shoot out the main door and let those pesky knights in.

 

I see one flaw; I could EASILY bomb jump over it. I suggest it be a bit taller to make it bomb jump proof.

 

Actually it is just the same height,you can go by bombjumping,even a lil bit higher : so I guess it IS bombjump proof.

And you almost cant do anything against superhero bombjumping anyway.

 

I believe it is too easy to break into that tower. Two knights can destroy the door if one of them shields upwards, and archers can't prevent that from their spot.
The wall reinforcement behind the door seems to be more of a hinderance to the team than a help - if an enemy catapult breaks the door there is no need to destroy the tower, as they can capture it by simply jumping a 3-block high wall. Besides, that makes a perfect place for a high door when the enemy captures it.
Lastly, the roof is unnecesarily heavy of stone - the top of the building rarely recieves catapult fire, and even if it does it causes no collapse and thus is a waste of cata rocks.

 

This structure ATM is not too good but with some extra tweaks, it would make it a good tower, such as:
Changing the front spike trap and lowering that back wall to make it easier for your team to get past etc.

 

Guys, guys... I don't want to sound snob, but come on... Every building in this forum only gets rammed with its flaws? It's impossible to build a perfect building, it is either too costly, too fragile to catapulting, too easy to break into or too easy to jump over... This is all about compromise between all those factors... This isn't supposed to be the unbeatable design, there is no such thing - if there was, it would mean MM wasn't doing his "job" right. The game makes it impossible to have a best-in-all-situations design on purpose - such a thing would become what's called a "game exploit".

Drok, I don't see what you mean by two knights breaking into the tower... The entrance is trapped AND it's too tall for two knights on top of each other to reach the door...

 

I'd disagree zanman, I think this board is far too positive with their feedback. If a tower stops a single bombless knight they all hail it as a good design

 

I would also disagree. Just look how successful he avocado trap is. I see lots of good buildings. You just have to take cost vs. effectiveness and this just doesn't make the bar I guess.

 

Then just show me those good buildings of yours... I'll certainly find a way to point its flaws, one way or another.
Maybe some buildings are overrated here at the forum, but from what I've seen (put it this way: on the posts I've created) people expect a building to be able to withstand all and every kind of attack. That's just not possible, and if it was, it would be too costly.

 

Of course, a perfect building is too costly. But we can improve the "realistic" designs to make them even better. In the tower in this thread, for example, the archer nest is above the spike pit. That prevents the archers from defending the structure, makes it much more expensive, and offers no advantage other than a lot of stone to take catapult fire.
Don't think we are doing this because we just want to be against you. I try to make constructive criticism by pointing out which parts I think could be improved without making it more costly or having other significant disadvantages.

I believe it's possible, I could do it before with similar designs. One knight shields upwards at the edge of the spike pit, which prevents the other from falling over the spikes. Then, the shielding knight has a height of approximately 2 blocks. That leaves the door only 1 block higher than the second knight, who also doesn't have to worry about spikes. Once the door is destroyed with some jump-slashes, both can jump a 3-block high wall into the tower.

 

I'm not a pro, but I disagree about the system of trade-offs. Not all deals are equal, and you don't get something from it unless you design carefully. Prepare yourselves for Theorycraft!

There are some superior defensive structures, and I don't think they involve thick castle walls unless you're swimming in stone. Castle walls are great, but they can only stand up to four hits to a block at most (and I think that's very generous). But all the talk about knights being able to bomb something or slash through doors is irrelevant IMHO, I think the art of defense really lies in the realm of the catapult. Anything that could be bombed or slashed through could be wrecked with a catapult more easily if one can get in. Bomb jumping is different, but AFAIK that threat requires some trap door scheme or spiked roofs or something, but again, thicker walls don't do it.

See, the purpose of the wall is not to be impenetrable, but to give a height advantage to your archers and catapults and even your knights. It would be a tremendous task to use a catapult against an opposing wall that is both higher than yours and also equipped with its own ready catapult.

So how do you fight catapults? First, you need a spot for your own defensive catapult. Probably the fastest way to shut down an enemy catapult is to land a direct hit on it with your own. Another problem will be enemy bombs, possibly from knights above you. A smart builder will make a roof for his catapult so the bomb target is small, and it can be reinforced by back walls so it won't collapse. I can't guess what a very smart builder would do, they come up with new things all the time I'm sure. Archer nests are great for preventing any of the enemy work from happening, but catapults can be built on hills or enemy towers from about a maximum screen's distance and still be effective, so it's best to not rely on archers. The second most important part of defense is to have mobility for your defenders, so that your archers could fire at any nearby threat, etc. This is what people are saying about being able to slash your door--because archers can't retaliate! This kind of thing causes your team to hate you, please don't make your team hate you; build archer nests that can fire down.

The bottom line is that you will never be completely safe without your own catapult and plenty of stone to work it, but at the same time, you need to get height and to be able to survive a few hits. For that purpose, you can use castle back walls instead of the full blocks. If you have 10 back walls instead of 1 extra layer of solid wall at the front, an enemy catapult would very rarely take it down. It's one thing to attack your front two walls, it's entirely different to hit 11 tiles back due to the gravity stopping the catapult stones. And if your front wall collapses, it hardly matters to you because the enemy will still be under your archer nests, plus you can have more defensive structures behind it. Back walls and solid walls go together well in this way: solid walls hold up the knights or make them jump around while back walls support your real defensive structures against catapult fire.

Or you might think that 10 back walls would be irrelevant, and then you'd use that extra stone to make it higher. Another option is to make flying buttresses if you have another tall defensive structure further back.

 

Ok, Drok and nerdpride, point taken. :) Nice posts, btw ;)