Proposal: Castle Guards (updated; formerly proposed as Team Troops)


#42

I know this is a very basic question and I’m sorry if I am missing it somewhere…
But if these are troops that are assigned to the castle itself and not to any given primarch, then which base would you actually be attacking when you attack them? Especially if they are not transferable when a team member leaves for another team…


#43

@JennyD The marshalls base.


#44

I really like this idea, it keeps the even playing field idea" going

I think this is a solid idea. I think a team needs to chose wisely on who will manage/ who’s base will be used for “team troops” and not play hot potato. I would like to see this option even less. Like once a week.

I think every 2 troops revived should be 1 team troop. 1/1 ration is too much.

I think people in safe zone should be able to make team troops. I mean isn’t that what safe zone is for? To strengthen yourself so you can claim a castle? A different cap for people in safe zone making team troops sounds fair to me.

Just to confirm… if you claim another castle you will start with 0 team troops you can’t transfer from an already established castle?


#45

Yes, this is also the case now – if an enemy has 100k+ troops at a castle, then players whose home is on that castle cannot claim trained/revived troops. This means castle troops wouldn’t be possible to add while under siege.


#46

I’m a bit worried about this too. Though each base can only defend one castle – and you get buffs from up to 20 castles. That requires a reasonably deep bench.


#47

I think Dave just called me a bench player :sweat_smile:


#48

Yes. What alternatives do you have in mind?

Yes, but per-attack losses are capped like normal (currently 15k, but likely to fall to 7.5k in 4.15; will be discussed in another thread).

Each player contributes 1 team troop to their home castle whenever they train/revive a personal troop for their own army.

Correct. But if your Primarch is attacked it will generate GP for your defense rider(s).

This is a bit of a grey area. Primarchs can only hold so many troops, so unlike garrisons you can’t just plant your Primarch somewhere and have a giant defense – most personal troops will probably not be on your Primarch(s) unless you have a small army. Perhaps more compelling, attacking results in much better glory payouts and kill ratios. Sitting and waiting to be attacked will result in your personal troops conveying less value than if you used them proactively.


#49

I think the ratio I mentioned should be considered illustrative. The “ideal” ratio for creation of personal vs team troops is probably something other than 1:1 … need to crunch some numbers and think about it so more!


I’m definitely open to this. I think the first thing to try is to vastly increase access to basic ownable territory – even a new team or badly hurt team should be able to come across an abandoned level 2 castle and set up shop and start growing there. If that turns out to be a pipe dream, then I think we should revisit this and then probably accrue team troops in the safe zone too.


Correct, that is the current proposal.


#50

So are you saying that a team marshal would not be able to set the same base as the one defending every castle? In other words, a different base must be chosen for each castle? I think that is a good/fair idea because otherwise you’d have the “ringer” situation again where a tiny team with one giant whale would be able to hold on to way more land than they should be able to. As you said, a decent amount of bench strength should be required to hold multiple castles.


#51

Correct


#52

I could still a team heavyweight trying to discourage attacks by being the assigned base to defend one castle, and putting their taunter at another castle. Though taunter can be disabled by rushers (even today) so it’s not a foolproof strategy imo.

Not sure how this would work. Sounds too complicated.

I think it’s the most balanced way – castle troops (will) have a clear mapping to regular troops. It seems more fair than castle level (e.g., a team which has built a ton of troops but owns few castles would have more castle troops than a team that had many castles but hadn’t built many troops … both under the proposal going forward as well as the proposed migration approach).

Yes, this would be bundled with those changes (to post elsewhere soon).


#53

Yeah it would im starting to see how it balances out now. But still trying to understand who does this benefit. It does add another layer of strategy to atlas, but overall seems it will just make plenty of islands not worth the trouble to try and conquer. They will already become more fortified from the defensive troops.


#54

You’re talking about the ratio of Castle Troops created for each personal troop right? Yes, your team bonuses will indirectly increase your castle troop creation rate by increasing your personal troop creation rate (team bonuses = more gold & faster builds --> more personal troops --> more castle troops).


I’m open to letting the Marshal transfer castle troops to another castle. But it would be limited … you couldn’t just pop over all your castle troops to whatever castle happened to be under attack. I think this is more of a v2 thing though. I don’t believe castle troops can ever be transferred to the Primarch – this would ruin their defense-only nature, upset the glory balance (it’d be optimal to transfer all castle troops to Primarchs in order to get glory), etc.


Teams can easily prevent this from ever happening – just appoint a base to defend your castle as soon as you take it over.


#55

I was thinking more about how Glory is distributed.
If you assign one base, teams will choose the highest level players to get all the Glory. And that player doesn’t even need to be present…
But if you deploy troops to an Active Primarch, then whomever has a Primarch at home at the time has a chance for the at the Glory, through a deployment.

It seems like your just automating castle defense. Set and forget.


#56

You still have primarchs as well…how is this different than what it is currently?


#57

I loved your initial suggestion @Panda

But limiting the ability to use these troops for anything other than an automated defense protocol, we may as well just boost garrison defense, save the devs some effort.


#58

Indirect gain, if you do not have to worry about your castle getting obliterated the second you attack this frees things up right?

If the goal is to just have more troops, there is much simplier and direct ways to increase troop numbers.


#59

@Atops Castle troops do not award glory. Being the base assigned to defend a castle will not earn the base any glory. It’s purely a strategic choice.

The real hope is that players will finally feel free to use their personal troops offensively since they’re no longer the defensive bulwark that everyone rightfully feared weakening by using it on offense.


#60

I think the plan for team troops, as it’s unfolding above, means that level 2 and 3 castles which are prone to being hit will be constantly weakened by the loss of team troops, and will never become a team stronghold. However, the level 4 and 5 castles which rarely get attacked will acquire such a mass of troops, such a deterrent, that they may never be attacked.

I’m not saying that I have the solution here, but I can see that some teams (yes, I know who I’m speaking with) will benefit way more than others.


#61

Hmm, so would additional troops not help those 2/3s?