Can we just revert the rus stone wall change?

HI everyone! We got an amazing season 2 patch wich imo its amazing BUT i still have a concern , and that is the RUS stone wall change and why do i think its a bad one .

So first let me explain , this game is supposed to be asymetric and since the start RUS has been one of the most asymetric and fun civilizations to play!

And of their key/core asymetries was/were that rus didnt had stone walls right? Well now they have and its a bit frustrating to me because its so cool to see rus stone walls BUT in at the same time is just an insult to asymetry imo .

So what do you think , should we just revert this or should we re-think this idea?..


They shouldn’t have stone walls in my opinion they are designed with stronger wooden walls and stronger outpost towers to make up for the loss of stone walls.

What’s next? Mongols getting wooden walls or stone walls as well? It always begin with one small change like this, and before you know it it’ll be applied for all civilizations.


I think it is fine. In order to gain access they have to make an otherwise awful landmark to age up to imperial with. They don’t just outright get stone wall access in feudal age the way other civs except mongols do. It adds an interesting strategic decision for how the player wants to try to win in late game


But it’s not needed in the first place that’s the issue here and also it wont take long until they adjust it even more in later updates making it a baseline for all Rus outside of the landmark and before you know it, Mongols are being treated the same way.

There is a reason why Rus has stronger wooden walls and stronger outpost than any other civ to make up for no stone walls, and guess what it has worked fine for them up until this point and it can continue to do so.

Please just stop with the “what’s next” line of thinking and acting like one small change is going to snowball into perfectly symmetrical civs. They don’t even get them until imp and only if they make the bad landmark

1 Like

the thing is that , thats not the concept about total asymetry . Why rus stands out now? Just because hunting?

Imo , or they revert this or they make an special tech for them so their wooden palisades that WERE ONLY build on the feudal age and castle age can be UPGRADED to stone walls!

Wooden palisades build after castle age , cannot be stone walls.

Its an actual interesting idea actually , but it is still an insult to the general asymetry of the game.

It’s still asymmetrical that they don’t get them until imperial age and can only get access if they build a crappy landmark. Definitely some cost benefit analysis that they other civs don’t deal with in regard to stone walls. They also get streltsy, horse archers, wooden fortresses, hunting cabins, warrior monks etc. plenty of unique things about the rus

1 Like

It always begins with one change before the next one occurs etc. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

This change is NOT needed at all, stop with the excuses that they do.

1 Like

It’s fine to disagree with this particular change, fair enough. But stop using the fear of changes that have not been suggested or planned as an argument against this one. It is completely speculative and pointless

1 Like

its not asymetrical at all , because THEY can get them , when literally the rus were marketted as " they cannot build stone walls"

Even if they can only get them after doing SOMETHING , they can get them so its not asymetric at all.

1 Like

I wouldn’t need to worry about this if I hadn’t watched countless of other games before AoEIV following down the same path which eventually will lead into this problem with more unnecessary changes only to please the players.

If Rus has issues to be fixed, stone walls is not it. It removes the uniqueness of the civilizations but also makes the game less interesting because then it’s one more civilization with stone walls.

1 Like

thats the point! it affects asymetry and make the game more stale .

Its fine to have a siege re-work .

Its fine that stone building need stone to be repaired .

But rus already was a perfect civilization wich they COULD defend themselves EVEN better than most civs do.

1 Like

Exactly! And anyone can see that if they allow Rus to be changed like this, what is there to say that Mongols aren’t next with similar changes that will make it worse in the future?

Now is the time to voice our concerns not when it’s too late to change it. For AoEIV it’s very important to try and keep the asymmetric civilization design philosophy as much as possible because in my opinion it’s one of it’s strongest thing about the game.

It adds new depth and strategies that otherwise wouldn’t be possible with more symmetric civilizations not to mention a great feeling when playing each civilization.

1 Like

if this topic gets enough atention maybe we can make a change but who knows haha

1 Like

Play company, he didn’t have walls. Even in the first description of Rus there was a hint that there are stone walls, but they open later than everyone else. It is historically correct to return the stone walls of Russ and period.

yes , rus didnt had stone walls before but we need this game to be as asymetric as possible and this change just brings chaos and an insult to assymetry

Then they have made a big mistake not designing the Rus with stone walls in mind for imperial age in the first place, as now we have a well crafted civilization with greater wooden walls & greater outposts and whether you like it or not it has implanted itself as one of many things people think about when talking about the Rus.

The only thing that gives me less worry now is that as far as I know Mongols didn’t build any walls as a nomadic tribe so for them to get the same treatment should be less likely.

I respect history and if stone walls was a part of history, then I have no right to say no to it just that it sucks and wish they would had designed them from scratch with stone walls.

Stone walls in Rus appeared before the invasion of the Mongols

I mean they definitely did build stone walls historically of course but I think your opinion of not wanting them to have access to them in a game where they already have stronger wooden walls is still valid. I’m not sure I agree but I see where you are coming from

No need to revert, no need to rethink. It’s a cool change that allows Rus to have an answer to heavy cavalry raids, and also lets them have a potential path of play if they’re worried about being landmark sniped by an opponent.

I hardly think it takes away from identity; if anything, it adds to it. “I’m going this specific landmark which is itself a defensive bastion, and also grants me the ability to fend off invaders from my flanks with the addition of stone walls”. That’s a pretty cool identity for a landmark.

1 Like