TOWER STRONK?
Digletto
Member
I felt like build-able towers were way too cheap compared to strength in TW 3. It felt like there was no reason to not build AT LEAST 3 towers per player at your expansions every game. 6 towers could easily hold off pretty large armies trying to do some damage.
Did anyone else feel like the buildable towers were maybe a bit too strong? Discuss! 
Comments
I like being able to secure my expansions. At first I spammed them too hard, and put myself an upgrade or three behind. I've backed off a bit (to 2-3 per entrance), because a few towers are a disincentive, making them attackable means the enemy might lose some stock attacking them, and I've been getting more into upgrades.
I might like them better if they were more expansive and individually more impactful
They may be powerful, but any siege unit (the juggs, purifiers, etc.) rips them apart relatively quickly. And as long as you have a sacrificial unit with a lot of health that you can micro in first, the rest of your army can rip them to shreds. So I don't think they're too strong. At this point, I'm not sure people have enough concentration to put up their own towers anyway - seemed rare in PvP. I realize that will change as people become more familiar, but the priority doesn't seem on base building anyway.
What I think really should be changed in towers is the priority the AI gives them. When I'm sitting with my whole army in the enemy expo, the best strategy is NOT to keep building towers over and over while I one shot the in process buildings. SC2's AI is dumb in that regard too, though, so I can't fault artillery too much.
I saw several towers in 5 of 6 games. The thing with siege units is that it's very unfavorable to siege near the expansions because of being surrounded with vision-blocking things like walls and bushes and plateaus.