Buildings that spawn garrsioned units over time

[Nerdfish]

This has been discussed a bunch of times during AoW 3 development.
Basically, garrisoning cities is a pointless micromanagement hassle. Because cities don't have base combat strength (as they do in Civ) and they don't have a default garrison (as they do in TW). They can be captured by a single scout.

A couple guys pointed out you can always build a couple defensive units, but this is inefficient, because a city can only build one unit at a time, any time a city is building a garrison, it cannot build an offensive stack. Due to the opportunity cost, a city cannot defend and attack at the same time. And it's usually better to attack because attacking stacks can group up.

There needs to be buildings that spawns Garrison units over time. These units would have reduced upkeep but cannot move from the city. A tier 1 wall would provide up to 3 free militia type unit for instance. and a tier 2 wall would provide up to 3 t1 ranged unit with 1/4 upkeep. A ranged unit upgrade building (this game's version of shooting ground) would provide one t1 class ranged unit per level of population at 1/2 upkeep, etc.

Spawned unit would be seen on the strategic map, and they are replenished automatically one per turn. This essentially gives a city a second automatic build queue for defensive units, and remove the hassle of having to defend against scout capping.

Finally, because of the sector system, city spam would be capped anyways so there is no need to worry about that.

 

[Gloweye]

There will be some form of automatic garrison, no matter how much I hate it.

I LIKED that opportunity cost. It's a very meaningful choice.

 

[Nerdfish]

There will be some form of automatic garrison, no matter how much I hate it.

I LIKED that opportunity cost. It's a very meaningful choice.

It's not a meaningful choice, if you are paying the same amount of upkeep for units anyway,
it's always better to attack so stacks can work together, instead of splitting up in garrisons that can be defeated in detail.
If there are some situations where this isn't true, e.g. if garrisoned units have reduced upkeep, then it would be a meaningful choice
Otherwise it's just a hassle.

 

[Gloweye]

It's not a meaningful choice, if you are paying the same amount of upkeep for units anyway,
it's always better to attack so stacks can work together, instead of splitting up in garrisons that can be defeated in detail.
If there are some situations where this isn't true, e.g. if garrisoned units have reduced upkeep, then it would be a meaningful choice
Otherwise it's just a hassle.

Disagree there - the choice is whether to defend your cities at all, or defend your land instead. I generally don't defend my cities while expanding - because the stacks I expand with carefully clean up anything hostile around. If there's no spawners and you keep other players at a distance, you dont have to defend your cities. But it's riskier play.

 

[Bob5]

The thing is that PlanetFall will work differently, the old system of building your own garrison wouldn't really work well as you also have to protect the sectors claimed by each city, not just the cities themselves.

 

[Jolly Joker]

For what it's worth, I'm with Gloweye on this one. Firmly, I have to say, because the main question behind this is "how to effectively guard my EMPIRE" (as opposed to "my towns"), because quite obviously garrisons in each and every town will either be too weak in case of a more serious threat (like player stacks or a Bone Dragon/Titan spawner) or way too much idle upkeep gold (that you better use elsewhere).

This also depends on the actual game you play, map size, # of opponents, human or AIs and so on, and I would go so far and say that automatic garrisons will render the reason obsolete why you'd have them in the first place. If, for example, "automatic garrisons" would take care of spawners - why have them in the first place? The spawners, I mean. Or, more abstractly phrased, if you pack something into the game that will be dealt with AUTOMATICALLY - why pack that into the game? If you introduce food upkeep, some kind of "automatic food production" doesn't make sense - you could leave both out.

Of course there are other ways to go - say, shooting towers, that is, active defenses - you'd still have to built them, though. In AoW 3, you might build something like two Towers for the price of 1 Catapult, that would be worth 2 Catapults with very long range (because they were stationary), up to a certain max that would cost no upkeep, but that wouldn't be "automatic".

 

[Nerdfish]

Raiders do not have to be able to capture cities to be a nuisance, just look at civilization's barbarians. Rarely are they able to take on your cities, but they can be a pain.
Nuisance they should be, a couple scouts and scoundrels should not be existential threat to cities and empires.
Building active defense is a choice, and it's not automatic. It's more of a choice than manual garrison because the reduced upkeep (or even unique defensive units) make them a valid alternative to just building more offensive units.

 

[Leyrann]

Raiders do not have to be able to capture cities to be a nuisance, just look at civilization's barbarians. Rarely are they able to take on your cities, but they can be a pain.

Barbarians in civilization are a nuisance because they pillage and capture civilian units. Both play a far smaller role in Age of Wonders, at least in prior games; pillaging is not a thing at all except for cities, and civilian units are less vital, as you only use them to settle new cities or build roads/watchtowers/fortresses, and I find myself (though I will admit I am not a super experienced player) only doing the latter once I've had some time to clear stuff around me and build up, so by then the barbarians are gone anyway.

 

[BloodyBattleBrain]

My understanding is that cities will have some form.of automated defence/garrison, which can be upgraded.

*Some* sectors will have structures you can build that have a garrison.

Not every sector.

Therefore, harassment will still be extremely powerful because sectors are only beneficial if connected to a city.

Break the connection, e.g. with a fast moving raiding force, and you render the sector useless.

And that's powerful.

If the system is as I understand it to be, then I am in favour.

In AoW3 I kept a mobile strong stack *near* but not in my cities, which plays havok with the AI (works like bait.)

It didn't make much sense though that a large city could be captured by a crow, yet I understand and appreciate the game play role a raiding force plays, so imho having sectors be vital for your economy but hard to defend (which seems to be the aim) and having cities with auto defence but fewer of them (we already know that not every sector will be able to have a city) is a good idea.


One more thing, we know that cities will have population that can be allocated, I.e. move these pop into this sector (e.g. research) so a possible inbuilt balancer to automatic defence, or a way to make it an interesting decision, would be to require allocated population.

 

[Nerdfish]

Barbarians in civilization are a nuisance because they pillage and capture civilian units. Both play a far smaller role in Age of Wonders, at least in prior games; pillaging is not a thing at all except for cities, and civilian units are less vital, as you only use them to settle new cities or build roads/watchtowers/fortresses, and I find myself (though I will admit I am not a super experienced player) only doing the latter once I've had some time to clear stuff around me and build up, so by then the barbarians are gone anyway.

In AOW raiders can occupy treasure sites and reduce city outputs. They can still be a nuisance the player should respond to even if they can't capture cities.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Well . Whether you have -X this or that is completely irrelevant. Without the option to actually lose a town you won't bother.

 

[Fluksen]

[...]
Break the connection, e.g. with a fast moving raiding force, and you render the sector useless.
And that's powerful.
If the system is as I understand it to be, then I am in favour. [...]

Very much agree!
I see that it is "unlogical" for a crow to take over a metropolis just like that, yet I very much appreciate the game mechanic behind it, namely that sneaky backstab attacks should be a threat. My main concern with autodefenders in cities is that you'd always need a fullsize army to effectively raid your opponent(s) which tends to make games feel much more static (which can be pretty tense and cool on its own but I like the "fast" pace of AoW and would be sad if that gets lost). But as long as it stays easy to deal considerable economic damage with raid attacks to an opponent that's not carefully guarding his realm then I'm fine even with city garrisons

 

[Nerdfish]

Very much agree!
I see that it is "unlogical" for a crow to take over a metropolis just like that, yet I very much appreciate the game mechanic behind it, namely that sneaky backstab attacks should be a threat. My main concern with autodefenders in cities is that you'd always need a fullsize army to effectively raid your opponent(s) which tends to make games feel much more static (which can be pretty tense and cool on its own but I like the "fast" pace of AoW and would be sad if that gets lost). But as long as it stays easy to deal considerable economic damage with raid attacks to an opponent that's not carefully guarding his realm then I'm fine even with city garrisons

Agreed, wrecking trade route / occupying treasure site is fine. One scout drone capping a metropolis of millions is just asking for a beatdown from the local policemen.

 

[Leyrann]

In AOW raiders can occupy treasure sites and reduce city outputs. They can still be a nuisance the player should respond to even if they can't capture cities.

Then they should do that. In AoW3 all I've ever seen roaming units do is attack my cities. If they'd actively block gold mines and the like it'd be different. (note that we're comparing barbarians and raiding units, of course, not other civilizations or factions respectively)

 

[Gloweye]

because blocking gold mines isn't exactly useful in AoW3 - you couldn't capture them because they'd revert control because of the domain.

 

[Leyrann]

because blocking gold mines isn't exactly useful in AoW3 - you couldn't capture them because they'd revert control because of the domain.

That's my point. In AoW 3 in particular there isn't much use in "pillaging" lands except by actually conquering the city, making roaming units in AoW incomparable to barbarians in Civilization.

(for the record, I do think it's lame that you can't capture resource sites and the like in AoW 3)

 

[Nerdfish]

because blocking gold mines isn't exactly useful in AoW3 - you couldn't capture them because they'd revert control because of the domain.

But as long as the scout sit on the gold mine it stays blocked.
You CAN destroy watch towers and forts.

 

[Bob5]

The thing is that blocking a single treasure site isn't generally worth it. While it is blocking that treasure site, your scout can't move elsewhere and scout around to look for other enemy units or see what's going on. It's also pretty much a red button to let your enemy know where your scout is. Taking an empty city and immediately making a run for it, even if they can recapture it the next turn, cancels their production without refund, gives the enemy a Lost City penalty to their base happiness, and makes them lose a turn of the cities' income.

 

[AwesomeLion]

As BBB said, I think the automated garrison mechanic will work fine with the sector system. Still early to say since we haven't seen much yet, but let's wait and see how it will work once they show off the game again.

 

[Leyrann]

But as long as the scout sit on the gold mine it stays blocked.
You CAN destroy watch towers and forts.

Let me just quote the very post Gloweye replied to.

(note that we're comparing barbarians and raiding units, of course, not other civilizations or factions respectively)

Also what Bob5 said.