This is true, cannons only attack mortars and monks while used in offense, while it attacks all troops in defense. This was done to balance the game, and use cannons as something that eliminates towers.
Cannons are pretty good in dragon combos or with archers, they help take out towers which complementary units like frosters cannot, example, LT, while frosters would take care of other units in the path. Initially cannons used to attack necromancer’s skeletons too which in fact severely hampered cannon’s ability making it underpowered, so I see it is fine as it is, making it very important to use a complement.
The only reason I could provide is ‘balance’ and little logic as to mortar itself being less of a ‘living unit’, rather moving structure spewing bombs.
So, unless one is in an alliance with a dragon boost, cannons are not pretty good, which would make them… pretty bad??
I have yet to encounter any player defense that has mortars defending it. while I encounter monks in defenses much more frequently than mortars, it is not featured no where near as much as other units, i.e. ogres or cannons.
while i appreciate the attempt to balance the game, it is very misleading and disingenuous to not having the difference in the cannon attacks available.
None of the other players in my alliance were aware of the difference in the attack pattern of cannons.
I wish I knew this info before I pumped all them pearls into upgrading my cannons.
I think I may just quit playing the game, since I dont want to waste any more time upgrading something only to find out later, and on my own, that it’s highly flawed