About tower

Please modify the tower so that it can be built from the Castle age. This is what makes the game boring in 1v1 games. The only way to stop the tower is to build it.

Thats actually a great idea to stop these dumb tower rushes which no one who wants to play the game as it was designed to be played wants to play against, however I don’t think they will do it. Ensemble studios fixed it by disallowing forward buildings completely in their subsequent games age of mythology and aoe 3 (for example only allowing castles and tcs to be built on certain spots).

Fast castle into tower rush new meta.
There are better ways, imo.People suggested max distance to build, stats changes, techs rebalances, reduction to armor when building… I don’t think removing it from feudal is the way to go.
I can’t deny that it works wonders for feudal defense. A viable way to defend importants resources early on, but to deny aswell. If the offensive power for towers in feudal were nerfed even more, the game would benefit more than moving then one age up.

1 Like

Max distance to build sounds good, except that a civ like the teutons is deisigned around gradually creeping towards the enemy using towers.

1 Like

Discussions about the tower rush come in here every week and got me really curious: in wich levels of play they are that big of a trouble? And why learn to counterplay it’s almost never a suggestion?

These are honest doubts, just to clarify.


Moving Towers to castle age would be extremely bad, because it would make it impossible to punish wall + FC or drush + wall.

Towers are the only way to punish this type of greedy strategy by taking map control, denying the opponent of resources and actually breaking through his walls.

Removing that counter play to walling would lead to more passive play in feudal and actually make the game more campy.

1 Like

Build a tower in a too early age, will be battled with only a villager without a military unit.,This feels like a age of villager2, not an age of empire2 Don’t overlook the process of putting in and re-injecting a worker who is not HP able to repair the tower, increasing the entry barrier and making the player tired.

Imagine that all the players start going inca trush with strong vills in early feudal age, a lot of players would quit the game, since the trusher has always the edge by leading the game at his rhythm, is not about learn how to prevent trushes, the map generation might leave you without any stone close or can get you a very exposed map easy to trush at every single spot, like all the kotd2 maps where the wood was so tiny that going trush was the best option.

I was saying early that the nerf to feudal towers wasn’t enough as you have whitenessed, defensive towers should have double attack vs aggressive towers to discourage players to even place them.

Welp, building limits and placement restrictions are fun and all until you remember how well do AoM and AoE3 fare compared to AoE2 right now (there are other factors of course but it’s one of the big reasons) Anyway the deal with towers is that they cost tons of stone that won’t go into TCs and Castles and it requires the trusher to waste tons of villager time on stone and moving around the map to build. So basically if you can relocate your economy or build some good defensive towers, or even send some rush unit to their undefended base you will get an edge. And once you get knights no watch tower or Inca villager will save them.


Not a fan of ideas like this. Positions like this often get taken to extremes, and the implementation of bans or nerfs of every strat that might be strong in some situations would leave the game rather bland. Towers have already been nerfed considerably, and a Trush is easy enough to stop if you’re prepared for it. A well-placed defensive tower and good scouting will do wonders. If your enemy is Incas or Koreans, it might be worth the extra time to scout for forwards.

Accept that other players will sometimes go for strats that you may not like or be prepared for. I don’t often tower rush myself, but I like to go for surprise strategies fairly often, and when I pull them off successfully, it’s not uncommon for my opponents to say that “[Strategy X] is OP.” No, it’s the element of surprise, and their unpreparedness that is “OP.”


I generally highly disagree to ideas that would take away strategies.
You cannot decide towers shouldn’t be in Feudal Age because you cannot defend against a tower rush.

Please, don’t try to ruin the fun and options the game gives you, just because you are weak at something, doesn’t mean it should not exist

Which is the exact reason why AOE3 has less popularity than AOE2 (not the sole reason, but one of the good reasons)

Please don’t turn AOE2 into AOE3, if you enjoy AOE3, wait for its DE. (Which I hope removes this whole concept of limitation and balances the units and civs to make the game a way better game than it was, maybe reaching its full potential)

Towers are fine as they are. they’re currently the best (and often the only) way to punish drush+fast castle , and defensive towers are often necessary in feudal age to protect very exposed areas. In that case, it can kind of even out a super unfair map generation.

the only thing that IMO is super obnoxious is the inca vil+tower rush (also known as ‘noboru rush’), as with bad map generation it’s impossible to stop this strat. A simple solution would be moving armor to castle age instead.

1 Like