This is actually not fully accurate, wall cannons can take quite a lot of hits its just based on how you place them and they do some nice damage. The only downside to them currently is that turrets are still funky and most of the times not viable. Player damage on the other hand is weird, like a normal shell from a 57mm is doing more damage than a canister shot at this point

The difference is only that if the fort and/or people using the fort are not that good one tank is enough while if its the other way around it takes quite an effort to clear cannons

I think the bigger issue is that when a heavy tank is being attacked by wall cannons, it's not that big of a deal, which should not be the case. There is a sort of rule that says "an attacker should bring at least twice as many defenders to win a battle." A tank, any tank, making a beeline toward a WALL of cannons should be absolute suicide and right now it isn't. I agree with the issues of canister shot as field guns are almost one shot anyway and canister is exclusive to them.

lorsrubka5, I do not understand what do you mean by saying that it can take a lot of effort to clear the cannons. I understand that it is realistically easier to have more people manning the cannons at once than having more heavy tanks attacking at once, however, it is reasonable to say that even if it is 1v2 or 2v4, (with lesser amount being tanks) the tanks are just always going to oneshot any cannon that is shooting at them while also being able to tank multiple hits and move away in and out of danger zone. It is unreasonable to think that wall cannons alone can stop tanks even if all the players involved are on the same skill level, defenders can EVEN outnumber the attackers and still lose.

What I mean is if you are using Mayan forts as proof that wall cannons are bad its actually the forts fault and not the cannons. "tanks are just always going to oneshot any cannon" is not true at all, its just that your cannons got one shotted. Cannons at other forts dont get one tapped and require many shots. "unreasonable to think that wall cannons alone can stop tanks" last livland siege romans were repairing cannons so fast that we could barely keep up by blowing them up and on top of that they were landing a good amount of shots. Trapezitsa siege also didnt see any issues defending against tanks. It blows up few cannons here and there but you are able to push back the tank and repair damages fast enough before the next one heads out

"before the next one heads out" implies that there are many cannons and just one tank, which probably was the case if cannons did anything, but realistically speaking if it is 1 person on cannons defending against tank, there is little to no chance, Especially if opps are not bringing tanks 1 by 1 for some weird reason. You can blame "skill issue" but I have seen enough to come to the conclusion that mobile, durable thing with much more damage(tank) is way stronger that an immobile fragile thing with very little damage.(cannon) Back in the days when I used to play more often, the direct control mode did not exist, there was a smaller version of cannon that is easier to repair, heavy tanks were not a thing and people literally could not just precisely hit any and all cannons on the wall(because aiming was not done with DC mode), right now the ease of use of movecraft together with power creep and removal of smaller and more easily repairable cannon has made it so that balance has shifted over time to make tanks way more overpowered than they used to be.

Also I would like to add that what I have seen from sieges so far is not NEARY enough effort from attackers to bring actual siege equipment into the siege, it feels as if people just expect to go there and potpvp and if that does not work, then they cry until something is nerfed and now it works, no need to bring 5 tanks at once or actually use howitzers or wilderness cannons. Right now you might see one tank attacking a fort that realistically has 5-10 people on it defending and then you could assume that things are somewhat balanced. But as soon as that changes and you have 8 out of 10 players on defender's side just chasing kills around the fort, the walls simply become helpless because 1 tank is so much stronger than 2 cannon people. The fact that cannons themselves are not enough of a threat to PvPers tojustify actually putting effort in getting more tanks to the siege to get rid of them speaks volumes.

Buff wall cannon and defender advantage should always exist afterall we spend month building something solid meanwhile attacket just shipyards a siege base its not really hard to do that

This is completely untrue. Wall cannons are vastly effective when armoured properly. (See Purkistan, Vanghun, Advance, all of which used armoured cannons.) I have tested armoured cannons in movecraft, and they take more than 10 hits from a heavytank to destroy. 1 single armoured cannon can HEAVILY damage a heavytank and is already a huge deterrent.

Again, just because you did not armour your cannons (at either mayan siege, mind you),
does not mean the meta needs this adjustment.

On your comment on "swarming" with fighters and tanks, AA guns and such are able to hit multiple targets. You could also just call more people on the walls to use cannons.

Canister shots also do 1-hit on direct hit.

Again, just because your forts are one way does not mean that has to be the meta. Change how your fort cannons work instead of making ridiculous and completely false statements.

>see purkistan
the cannons at purkistan was so high up it was hard to aim at and the terrain was cancer for movecraft anyways
wall cannons are too weak even with terracotta armor callisto has fought 4 sieges with armoured wall cannons and its literally dogwater get hit 1-3 times and your done

"wall cannons are too weak even with terracotta armor"

Terracotta is the primary armor block. It has a higher blast resistance than normal when piloting the craft. - Any wiki page says this which means unless you pilot them as turrets that terracotta is useless

You can have 3 cannons per chunk so even if one is destroyed you can move onto the next one. Defenders can have more than 20 cannons facing each side of the fort meaning it takes quite a while to clear them all out. You also have people using guns on walls that can at any point swap to using cannons. If enemy tries to push with multiple tanks you can also use your own tanks along with fort cannons. If attackers wish to prevent you from using cannons they need to go back and take new tanks after they get damaged giving you time to rebuild the cannons. Pause between siege sessions also gives you time to repair all your cannons

Lordsrubka5, it is all easily said, but yet we rarely see attackers using literally anything else than PvPer-s with a 1 tank max at a time. And it has worked so well for them anyway. And the reason is simple, you do not HAVE TO amass tanks to win the siege, therefore you do not do it.

This can also be easily proven. How many tanks do you usually see in Sahara? I would say WAY MORE at a time than any siege.

Why? because you NEED tanks to win Sahara, and you can just win siege anyway with 1 tank and PvPers so why bother.

Its not about defenders being completely unable to defend themselves against tanks, its just about the fact that cannons are so lame that even without dealing with them, you can easily win by just ignoring them, and even if you do decide to deal with them, one tank is just enough.

I wish to see sieges in which attack needs to be well planned and well executed else it fails.

I would also bet that even if buffs were made in favor of wall cannons, win rate of sieges would eventually still end up almost unchanged from the status quo due to the fact that people would actually get prepared for them instad of just going with bare minimum that works.