Bring back fortified palisades for Byzantines

So, Byzantines have quite a low win rate in games lasting shorter then 30min for the average player (about 42% - 44%).
In pro games they are just a niche option right know.

I would suggest reintroducing the fortified palisades tech (just for Byzantines) that was introduced in the forgotten empires mod and later cut from the game.

It could cost something like 150w 50g and be researched from the TC in Feudal age.
It could increase the palisade HP from 400 to 600.

While I don’t really enjoy the current walling meta a lot I believe Byzantines as the only true defensive Civ in AoE deserve to have more protection in the early game.

The wood and gold cost could be balanced to make the tech appealing for average players but uninteresting for Pro Players (who rather invest resources into unit production).

What do you think?


I would like the fortified palisades to be common and Byz can get it free, cheaper or stronger.


Good idea for a unique building for the Byzantines
It could exist alongside regular Palisade walls and from Feudal age, costing 5 wood each instead of 2 wood.


how about we wait to see how the recent balance changes shake up before we seek buffs for civs?

1 Like

I knew you would not like my suggestion, but consider this:
The new buffs only effect the lategame and only the UU. So in games longer then 30min their average winrate might improve a little (from 47% - 48% to let’s say 49% - 50%).

If you give the tech to the TC with a time of 15-20seconds (in which you can not produce villagers) it will be uninteresting to high level players.

But: it will be good for average / low level players to better survive the early game -> allowing them to get to the late game more often (where Byzantines have an almost average winrate).


I knew that about MatCauthon too 11 with experience


Whaaaat? There was a fortified palisades tech??? I had no idea!

1 Like

This could be a good change for Byz. It also amplifies their defense focus.

Instead, i would make a new unique building upgrade for byzantines: imperial wall

1 Like

I would love to see Fortified Palisade Walls in the game, but I am not sure about where they would fit.

  1. As a civ bonus? For which civs?
  2. For all civs upon reaching e.g. Castle Age? Or automatically upon building a University?
  3. As a new upgrade technology for all civs? In which building?
  4. As a part of the Fortified Wall technology, just so it gets some use without really changing the meta?

Don’t forget there are no Fortified Palisade Gates though.

The Forgotten mod has this tech, but it got removed.

The devs had said something along the lines of having fortified palisade walls after castle doesn’t make much sense as you have stone walls and better defenses available.

There are tons of debate about whether walling is too powerful and now y’all discussing giving even thicker walls to the civ with sturdier buildings. Byz aren’t OP but still…

1 Like

I would actually like to see palisade in dark age, fortified palisade in feudal, stone wall in castle and fortified in imperial. But such a huge change will never happen of course.

This is the better one in my opinion. Maybe at TC in the Feudal age after the loom is researched, costing 200 woods and then Byz get something good for it.

That will be very helpful to no-wall civs like Goths and Cumans. It also benefits other civs if the player wants more defense but no need to get such a strong one like wall or cost so much in stone.

If we sure to introduce this change into the game, adding a Fortified Palisade Gates or making Palisade Gates more HP and armor after hitting the upgrade is not a technical matter.

When the fortified palisades tech was introduced in the forgotten empires mod the game was at a different state.
Back then palisades were seen as useless. Either people did not wall, wall with buildings or build stone walls. (Building Stone walls was much faster back then).
To counter that the devs tried to make palisades (an underused building) more appealing.

Now we are at a state in the game where palisades are meta. Therefore I really do not think this tech should be reintroduced for all Civs.

I only see it as an option for Byzantines (the supposed defensive civ) to be used as a tool to better survive to the later stages of the game (where their winrate is more balanced).

1 Like

but just because a civ is a defensive civ, they dont need even more defensive options without limit, like you dont need to triple-down on a civ that is slow but well-armored like the devs did on teutons just because its arguably their theme…

So you would try to make the civ more general? Make it play like any other civ? I think that is rather boring. If you want that you could just play full techtree games (without civ bonuses and limitations).

I think it makes the game more interesting to have different strategies being available to only a few or just one civ.

Pros never use Byzantines on open land maps.
The winrate for average players is quite low, especially in short games.

Fortified Palisades would give them just a little bit more of breathing room in the early game where the civ is struggling. And it fits great with the overall theme of the civ.

It would not be an enormous buff like the armour and speed buffs for Teutons. Just a little touch in the right direction…

1 Like

There is a point between: Make the civ more like it is called on the tech tree, or totally moving back from that. It is called: Leave Byzantines as they are. They dont need to be more defensive nor less. They are perfectly fine, from their defensive capabilities.

Speaking of different strategies only available for Byz:

  • Feudal Trash Rush
  • Tower Rush with more HP Towers
  • Walling with more HP walls
  • Fast Imp into anything you can imagine
  • Cataphracts as one of the least counterable units, if you get there
  • In fact, byzantine can counter any strategy basically

What do you need more ? Just give them a tech that needs to displayed in any techtree as crossed just to get +20% HP pallisades in dark age instead of +10% ? Also, Byzantines dont feel like a tribal civ that used pallisades that much, but more saw the use of stone fortifications.

Just because they are B-Tier on Arabia, doesnt mean they need to be changed. They are B Arabia, A Arena, A Hybrid, a perfect pattern. They are the perfect example of the jack of all trades civ, in fact if we did a mono-civ cup on all map-types, I think Byz have a good edge winning it. We cannot have all civs of a pattern S B C and then they are played on one specific map always but never on others.

1 Like

I get you point on pro games.
Yes, Hera ranked them C Tier and Viper ranked them B Tier on Arabia.
Not bad, but also not top tier.
However, they are only considered good if you get to the late game (and pro games usually get there).

For the average player the winrate on 1v1 Arabia is 44% in games lasting 20-30mins. That sucks. Your skill should mostly decide the outcome of the game. The civ pick should only play a small role.
The winrate in 40+min games is 49,5%. That’s great and balanced!

In Teamgames it is even worse. In 20-30min games in the 1250-1650elo range (so people who know the basics of the game / most people who play ranked) the winrate is 38%…
Again, if they make it past 40+min the winrate is 48% -> fair and balanced.

Your argumentation has holes. First, the stats are by far not reliable since they just judge a some games by civ, but not by strategy and such. And even if we trust them and assume you face an equal player every time, then why is 6/100 games you played byzantines (= 3500 games randomized) a bad thing ? And then is the question still, did you choose the right strategy for that matchup or are you still unfimiliar with all nuances the civ has to offer.

And you skipped in your argumentation the most important percentage: Arabia 1650+, their probably worst map, played by people familiar with the game and not people that just played three civs to grind up their elo. 49,7%

In what world is that unbalanced ? And if you look at their winrate over gamelength then they are by far only crap in early game and super good in late game

People just learn 22 pop scout rush Buildorders and try it with every civ, thats why you cannot use low elo stats for balancing, and hence not averaged values because low elo ofc dominates the played games. But anyhow with 200 games rated, the stats are somewhat open for discussion and it must also be considered if the civ has real weaknesses and in fact, byz dont have those, they are on any map at any stage of the game better than C-Tier. Hera is just a biased player sometimes that hates slow defensive civs and is not really the go-to guy for judging the game. Its not like pros are better game designers.

I know, you might have fallen in love with your idea, but I dont see any point in adding it, other than it changes anything for the sake of changing and you being happy having had that idea. And yeah, with that I like to end my point here, maybe you still like your idea, then go on, I know the fun of game design questions as well, and I dont want to ruin it.