In tower defense games, is it generally better to have a strong tower at the front and weak tower at the end, or the other was around, or does it make no difference?
Assuming just ‘basic’ 2 towers (no poison, slow, splash), also assuming not taking advantage of positing of the track is not a factor.
If you’re taking away slow/poison, track advantages, etc, then I don’t see how it makes any difference. The one thing that might affect things is if the tower increases in range as it is upgraded, in which case you’d want to put it far enough from the edges of the map that the range when fully upgraded covers as much
Of the path as possible.
Reported.
I find no matter what, when you go searching for youtube videos of someone beating a particular tower defense game, it’s with a strategy that never would have occurred to you.
I thought I was a fair hand at Plants vs. Zombies until I saw people getting 1000+ flags when I was punking out at 15 or so.
Moving from Cafe Society to Game Room.
Depends totally on the game. Which tower defence game are you playing?
usually the towers at the end are your backup towers in case your main towers up front fails, so usually the strong ones are in front.
Your strong towers should be where they get the most fire time on the enemies. Totally depends on the game and map.
Also having strong towers at the start gives you more time to react if somebody does get past them.
I like towers with splash damage or poison up front, to clear out the mooks/have time for the poison to work. Then the single-target heavy hitting towers towards the back, so that they’re hitting the really tough guys who get through instead of wasting their shots on piddly guys.
I got hooked on When Penguins Attack a while back. I quickly stopped using the poison. It didn’t work extremely well on the troops, and was useless against aircraft. My strategy was to set up a roadblock. Since you can’t completely impede passage, I left two paths and blocked one or the other (selling a tower and buying a new one) to keep the invaders where I wanted them. As I gained funds, I would create paths to slow the enemy down and make them take the longest possible route to either ‘exit’ (and also take damage along the way). I’d create a similar block on the back end in case any got through. I’d increase the firepower (i.e., ‘upgrade’) my defenses along the path of aircraft, and add missile towers as funds allowed. I’d move the missile tower(s) from one aerial path to the other until I could buy enough for full coverage. I’d avoid upgrading where I could, so as to get more points at the end of the game. Generally I could complete all levels of WPA without loss. (I haven’t gotten into WPA2 or any of the other TD games.)
My feeling, without proof, is that strong towers at the front are generally better since you want your strong towers hitting the enemy while the enemy is at full strength. In other words, the strong tower at the end is more likely to be “wasting” power by killing off a dude with 300 HP when the tower can deal 500 damage.
Generally this would seem to make sense. Though you can have a scenario where there is a mix of strong and weak bad guys. the strong tower would be over-killing the weak ones and not have the time to shoot the strong ones to death, which your weak tower may not be able to handle.
Doing it the other way the weak bad guys are taken out by the weak tower leaving the strong tower to deal with the strong bad guys that are left.
It’s a bit like asking “if I’m playing a card game, what cards should I have?”
It depends on the game and the specific circumstances.