Yuku free message boards

>>
The design of the archer tower is to fortify some area of a castle to make it stroger.
>>
I can only highly recommend you to choose some alternative solution.

Until now your successfully managed do make the castle-maps really helpful for the defenders. And this was realized without cheap tricks like extra bonuses or (I’m sorry) automated archery towers.
Notwithstanding it’s sometimes looks a little awkwardly (mainly because of the some AI and path-finding weakness), but fortifications in the game are really causing the problems for attackers, so it’s works correctly.
Somebody even say that the castle sometimes becomes too difficult to assault. Isn’t it?
Especially if garrison is strong and a lot of teppos is allocated :)

But after all, the castle really remained just a map, terrain type reasonably developed to slow down the attackers advance and provide the advantageous positions for defenders. And that is very correct.
The flanks and rear of the every defending division are safe from attack. There is opportunity to stop the whole enemy army in the “bottleneck” by much weaker forces. The attackers may be successfully fusilladed by the archer/harquebusiers covered by walls.
All of this is enough or almost enough to represent all advantage that medieval fortifications can provide.

The existence of the tower turrets may be more correct only if the some castle-artillery placed on them. Because the heavy artillery used in such causes usually was very difficult to move or even just to turn “on-the-fly”. The close-combat value of the gun-crew is low, so its may be neglected if it’s necessary.
So it’s may be correct to describe the heavy battery placed in the tower as a large “automated turret” that can even to stand enemy melee attack some time.
But there is no artillery in the Japan at the historical period described in Takeda.


>>
It will be a lot better if archers can actually man the tower, but based on our budget it would be very difficult.
>>
It is a pity.
From the outside the building (or objects) that may contain some units doesn’t looks like something very difficult to realize. By the simple ways this features very often realized in many strategy games of the various types and publication year.
Also the last respectable medieval-oriented strategy that contains archery towers was Warcraft-2. But in Starcraft the terrain’s bunkers already appears. In the Sudden Strike series infantry can “get into” the houses, etc…
Year those one’s is not similar to the Takeda at all, but there are more suitable comparisons may be given.
The “Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory” for example. It’s regiment-based real-time wargame. In this game infantry can occupy the large buildings.

Usually the “building occupation” feature visualized like the soldiers disappears near (in) the building and then the “occupied by somebody” mark appeared. In this case the archery unit usually keeps their firing capability (it’s count like they are located at the same place as a building, the height sometimes added). The melee unit usually gets some extra bonuses then “building assault” is resolving (usually it’s automatically).
But using the Takeda’s platform it’s possible to realize it by more interesting way. By using some “virtual” (invisible to user) little sub-map where the combat within the building may continue by usual way (with some restriction of control, of course). That virtual map may be like few rooms connected by the “bottlenecks”.
I will describe all that later if it will be needed.

>>
If the design of the archer towers really bothers the players, maybe we could make it into a option from the option screen.
>>
Actually I’m will be slightly wondered if sizeable number of players will really regret at those “archer towers” appearance. :)
But I really doubt that somebody may be really attracted or inspired by this way. Archer towers without troops inside are really not interesting after all.
Turrets may be normal in some “medieval-tuned” popular strategy intended to “very common” players. But in Takeda, which has the complex “chain of command”, which has units separated to the battalions of the different types and intends to be historically correct (even at the cost of commercial value) those cheap “tower-turrets” looks a little mistakenly. Well, somehow it may be accepted in the Takeda1, but not in the Takeda3.

The Takeda series has not the “magnificence” 3d-grafics, has not the micromanagement, few decades of unit types and blah-blah-blah/other common trinkets. Takeda’s trump card is its originality. And I presume that the specific projects sometimes not accept the trivial features.
Also in the case if recourses is too limited it may be useful don’t waste it to the doubtfully directions, but focus to the strongest sides of the project.

And about options. I presume that the difficultness or some “detalisation level” needed to be regulated by player in the option screen. But something like balancing or gameplay usually changing by modding or developing the seekwell. In purpose of resources economize, I guess.