Buildable tower range is so low they dont even fully cover the lanes right next to them now.

[The Ohio Question]

I get people didnt like the tower spam, but this is a massive over correction to the point of function death. (much like everything with the city battles)

If your going to make it only build-able once, the towers should be BETTER, not also nerfed again. Their damage was already gutted forever ago, now they have no range, what is the point of even having the entire system now?

This "solution" reeks of how they also just ripped out 75% of the walled settlements and called that a "fix", something that is also still in need of fixing.

Not to mention garrisons are still woefully under powered for the now larger maps in 3.

So we have undermanned, wall stripped settlements, who even when you do get a proper map, dont have real towers now on top of having way to few garrison troops....

Might as well just remove every town in the game at this rate, just turn the entire map into open fields/s

[Selah]

Yeah, not really sure what the thought process (was there one) for making the towers range despicable. While I'm clearly not of the majority here, I have been absolutely LOVING siege mechanics in this game compared to the old ones. The towers have been quite fun for me and I had been actually aiming for siege battles, but now that they're nerfing stuff so stupidly its a bit worrying.

The build-only-once thing, while kinda makes sense... I just dont like. Maybe its different for multiplayer players, but the new interactions that had been an option (holding off, using towers to pummel / peck at enemies, getting them back up to save the day just in time, etc) was something I quite enjoyed

What they needed to change was the idea of "equality" for siege maps. Not every map NEEDS 6 different ways to get in or to defend. Some places should be harder with choke-points that make sense per each settlement, instead of this general "they all need fair, equal ways in" that even make no sense...
AND we need a few more, at least, different settlement types for factions. Not the exact same settlement look and points for say, Skaven...

[Holeypaladin]

A lot of people wanted buildable towers to be removed from the game entirely. After all, WH2 didn't have them.

The limitations seem to be a much better compromise, as opposed to removing them entirely. Were they over-nerfed? Maybe. But the unlimited, spammable towers with huge range were absolutely stupid, and some of the most common mods were the ones that got rid of them in siege battles.

Most of a settlement's defensive structures should be built into the walls and fortifications themselves, so to me it makes sense that these constructed towers should be vastly inferior.

[Alan]

Here's a thought. There wouldn't be as much need for towers if line of sight for ranged units and artillery in settlement battles wasn't such absolute ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[The Ohio Question]

Originally posted by Holeypaladin:

A lot of people wanted buildable towers to be removed from the game entirely. After all, WH2 didn't have them.

The limitations seem to be a much better compromise, as opposed to removing them entirely. Were they over-nerfed? Maybe. But the unlimited, spammable towers with huge range were absolutely stupid, and some of the most common mods were the ones that got rid of them in siege battles.

Most of a settlement's defensive structures should be built into the walls and fortifications themselves, so to me it makes sense that these constructed towers should be vastly inferior.

Correct, they were not in 2, because 2 and 1s city battles were essentially placeholders. 3 sold itself fairly heavily on the siege rework, only for the subsequent patches to all but remove it almost to the point of retroactively making it false advertising.

We already have 75% of all the siege battles ripped out of the game right now with the removal of minor settlements, now the ones that remain have no real defenses AND no garrisons.

this aint it chef, i didnt buy 3 to have even worse sieges than 2s placeholders. Removing the rebuild spam was smart, but the towers need restored to having a point.

[Selah]

Originally posted by Holeypaladin:

A lot of people wanted buildable towers to be removed from the game entirely. After all, WH2 didn't have them.

The limitations seem to be a much better compromise, as opposed to removing them entirely. Were they over-nerfed? Maybe. But the unlimited, spammable towers with huge range were absolutely stupid, and some of the most common mods were the ones that got rid of them in siege battles.

Most of a settlement's defensive structures should be built into the walls and fortifications themselves, so to me it makes sense that these constructed towers should be vastly inferior.

The first and 2nd game not having these mechanics doesn't support or nullify anything in terms of "well now the 3rd game suddenly has them".

Sieges in the first games were basic with no in depth mechanics. You coulnd't hold a city or fight through the streets or, you know, prepare the city while under siege... (i.e building defenses- even if not great ones. Thats what defenders do when under a siege, they work on stuff to aid in the battle... From towers to barricades to pitfall traps of stakes or trenches and so forth).

Outright removal of these mechanics, which I know many seem to support, is really not a cool idea. The compromise, yes, is nerfing things and tweaking how it all works. I think my point, and OP's, was that the nerfs were too harsh. Well, that, and that the stuff siege mechanics would really benefit from imho is stuff they didnt address.

I feel as if many people are too focused on whats bothering them, rather than what COULD come from the mechanics in place and structure we have. Sieges have potential to be a truly epic type of battle rather than field moshpits or "ladders, walls, gate, done!" like in the previous games siege battles. But instead of people seeing what we could get, all I see is people going "siege mechanics in 3 are disgusting, remove it all!"... Argh...

Seriously, outright removing all the stuff for sieges (did they really remove the unwalled defense settlements?!? Ughh...) is what is truly stupid. Asking for content, while maybe not polished or refined enough, to be removed?! Like, what the...

[Da_Higg]

They didn't remove un-walled settlements, they are linked to the Garrison building instead - if there is no garrison, then you get a field battle.

Totally agree on the problems of people focusing on the negative, which combined with people unwilling to accept compromise leads to a lot of whining. most of the time when you hear someone say "CA doesn't listen to the fans" what they mean is "CA didn't do exclusively what I want"

For me I think the right ratio would be

Tier 1 and Tier 2 with no garrison - field battle
Tier 3 and Tier 2 with garrison - un-walled settlement
Tier 3 with tier 3 garrison - walled settlement battle

that way you don't have to deal with settlement battle mechanics early in the campaign and by late game your army will be strong enough for it not to matter

[fmalfeas]

Regarding the tower range, after a few of them fought now, I'd say give the towers about 1.5 settlement street width more range. That would do it. That would let them fire upon the area they're supposed to cover effectively. Feel free to keep the detection radius lower than that if desired, of course.

That range boost would still leave them FAR shorter range than before the patch, but long enough range to be a significant force on the battle (at least until some bats or harpies tear it down.)