what’s your 1v1 elo?
No they don’t. Its only when the walled player is still in dark age.
No again. The advantage is that you invest into some dark age army to disturb your opponent. This delays their feudal attack and you get the time to wall yourself. And this walls keeps you safe till you get stronger army to fight in castle age.
Nope. It might favor drush into feudal play build orders but not drush-fc. The feudal age player is not going to wall that early and with weak walls of drush-fc player, its much easier to break-in and disturb the eco. There’s more risk on trying to hit fc after drush and less risk in investing into feudal play.
xd. Drush fc will have basically the same timings with a walling cost increase. Even if it would possibly take 1 more vill to get to castle, the build can easily be adjusted to make 3 instead of 2 vills in feudal (possibly even wheelbarrow for some civs instead).
How do you come to the idea that you would have more time to knock on dark age walls then? ^^
No it’s the opposite, the normal rushing builds will suffer cause it will be much harder to wall up behind the agression cause your build is (opposed to drush fc) very tight in ressource spending already.
As I said, the best solution would be to make castle age take longer to give feudal agression more time to pay off against drush fc. That would work, cause palisades can only hold a limited time, especially when pressured with melee + range.
You’re just self-contradicting. If you’re making more vills or taking longer to hit castle age, that naturally gives your feudal opponent more time to knock on your walls. If you hit castle age at 17th min vs 18th min. It gives your opponent the opportunity to either hit on your walls with more army or much before you’re first group of upgraded army is ready. Thereby the ability to cause more disturbance to your eco.
Why does the aggressor have to wall right away. The idea would be to continue to pressure, get more damage and after getting a sizeable lead, wall themselves and go up.
That’s exactly the proposed solution in this post. Keep the palisades weak and give an upgrade that takes the time almost that of 2 vills. The player that chooses to do this is will be as safe as they’re now but be behind by 2 vills. The player who doesn’t get that upgrade would be hitting castle age as fast as they currently do but will be at a much greater risk of getting pushed by feudal opponent.
Sorry, but there just can’t be “guaranteed damage” for the standard buildorders. And btw these buildorders are all rushes. There is no “wall fc” buildorder, because this would be basically useless build against any opponent who has a basic understanding of the game and scouts what you are doing.
The current buildorders are so meta BECAUSE they are in general the strongest openers you can make. But ofc you should adapt to what your opponent is doing. If you just hit walls with your basic opener and don’t get the idea that it might be a good opportunity to get up to castle age and push from there, you haven’t got the basic concept of the game.
Walls are just an important part of the strategic balance of the game and cause raiding is so op and walls just happen to be the main counter to the op raiding, they are just essential for the game to not become a pure raiding feast. It’s that easy.
And currently walls are in the worst shape ever and raiding already the all dominating part of the game.
I really dislike these attempts to flip the reality that raiding is OP. That’s why we have scrush and archer rush buildorders, because they give initiative in raiding. Why people can’t get enough, why need the meta be pushed stronger and stronger? It’s a strategy game, that means that there need to be different strategies viable to some extend. It’s not a rush into raid ftw game. And btw:
What you are proposing there is just terrible for balance. There are civs that are “slow” in the start and others with high early agression potential. If it was like the way you propose it here we would have like 5 OP civs, 10 “playable” and the remaining civs would be basically unplayable cause they can’t compete with the early agression potential of the top civs. The early agression civs already dominate the ladder, how do you think would it end if your proposal became true? In a complete disaster for balance.
And as you also indirectly say there, and there was some other guy who told this in another thread:
“People want to be walled themselves, but hate to see the opponent being walled.”
4 Likes
There’s no need for “guaranteed damage”. But right now the way walling situation is, its almost “guaranteed no damage” in feudal age against drush-fc
If walls are in worst shape, no one will ever wall and rather build a tower and defend with army like voobly times. Walls are an important part of the game and the recommendation of this post is not to remove the walls. The walls are going to stand as they are in dark age with the proposed change, barring 30 extra seconds of villager idle time. The game would primarily be impacted in the feudal age. So your dear walls are not going to be removed.
Raiding is OP only when you enter the base of your opponent which you more often than not can’t against a drush-fc opponent. And raiding is not easy either. You need to micro so hard to prevent taking damage from counter units, use numbering, formations, move weak units behind, dodge towers and do all of this while also handling eco. Playing aggressive in feudal age is a lot harder.
Quite the opposite. Currently around 10 civs dominate the ranked ladder on most popular open maps. All of these are strong castle age civs. Most of these so called “slow” civs get a great eco bonus for castle age while the “fast” civs fall short. And with easy walls, these “fast” civs are more likely to not get any damage and fall behind the drush-fc civs. Thus it only makes sense for even these fast civs to not invest much into feudal aggression and thereby they play into their opponent civ’s strength rather than their own. The whole point of having the 2 villager delay vs more risk of letting in tradeoff is to even out this balance. The aggressive but currently mid-tier civs will be played more often and the gap between different tiers of civs will reduce.
Truth is People are forced to be walled themselves because they see the opponent is fully walled very early.
After some thought and reading through the comments making the Militia line have bonus damage vs Palisade walls could be a really good answer here IMO. Militia/MAA really dont have a place in the game unless you are doing a Drush and even then it is usually only 3 milita/MAA. Giving players a reason and option to make MAA in feudal to support a push against a Palisade walled player could be nice as a “feudal siege” idea.
Enough with wall nerfs. Make them stronger at least if they cost more. This is why I only play black forest, michi, arena, a Europe Diplomacy game, CBA, or some other crazy scenario. Because the game doesn’t end with hurr durr scout rush. I find that boring. I like siege combat.
the whole problem is that walls can literally hold back anything you can throw at them except a committed all in.
3 men at arms? a single villager can hold that with repairs alone.
1 Like
Then make 3 maa + 5 archers man.
Really what bs are we discussing here? I don’t understand why people still not capable to adapt to bad openers like walling early.
And if you scout it (what you should) you can also just make a blank fc build and forward the opponent.
That’s so basic strategy, everybody should know that.
the problem is the fact that a single unguarded wall is capable of indefinitely holding a 240 investment value without archers to b egin with should show you why walls are problematic.
the fact that MELEE CIVS have to rely on RANGED units to break through an unguarded wall and you don’t see a problem with it?
i don’t see why the opponent should be able to just repair a wall and not have to actually defend it with troops.
oh yay the answer for melee civs to walling is either 1) make archers or 2) go castle age.
Without counting the high multitasking required for push and keep doing eco vs just keeping eco and repairing
It’s just the opposite, actually. Only players who never tried to play defensively against others with decent rushes and adaption (maa + archer or what else) would ever claim that playing defensively is easier.
It has a reason the best players in the world in viper and hera are also considered the best defensive players in the world. Cause that’s way harder to execute already.
You can get to 1500/1600 elo with basically only learning to execute a perfect rush buildorder and a bit of macro behind it.
With defensive play it’s way harder to reach that elo, cause you need so much more skills and flawless execution, as every single mistake can easily cost you the game.
Calling it unguarded is a stretch if there’s a villager guarding it. A wall left on its own falls quickly to swordsmen. Now I think it would be cooler if that villager could defend with their hunting bow than their hammer, but the idea of one person within fortifications being able to hold against 3 poorly armed attackers is not unreasonable.
As an interesting side note, wouldn’t the MAA player be better off splitting and hitting 3 walls. That way they can idle 3 villagers, and are not countered by a tower. It’s also more likely the defender will forget to re-task a repair villager and one could break through.
As far as changes on PUP. Making walls more expensive and giving houses negative armor are both more of a scout buff. If MAA have trouble with walls then their bonus damage to buildings should have been increased.
and repairs is cheap.
on one side you have a player who has invested 240 resources (assuming a man at arms with 3, not counting man at arms itself) and has to split his attention between attacking and managing his eco.
on the other hand you have one person who has to assign one villager to repair and forget about it.
1 person who is actually armed and not just some villager? sure. but when you’re holding it with just a villager? come on man.
it would take a whole minute and a half to break in, the defender wouldn’t need 3 full time repairers.
how? 3 men at arms can be held at bay by a single villager repairing. this is going to be a scout buff sure, but it will absolutely be more of a men at arms buff, as they will benefit most.
I checked that, actually 5 scouts still can’t break in a house wall then, as they are slighly outrepaired.
And I think because of the reduced armor of the houses we will see less house inclusion in walls then anyways.
I also never was a fan of this, cause 4 maa were always able to break included houses in walls, so ti was a unnecessary risk and also slowed down the walling process at the same time.
Yeah. I mean what do you expect from a 3 maa rush to accomplish? ^^
And in the last months I see a lot more of feudal play already. I don’t know why there are still people complaining about “walls too strong”. Do they play the game? Cause imo we see almost no early walling atm anyways. We only see drush fc which isn’t really nerfed by a wall cost increase. Actually it’s affected the least of all openers by that. I don’t know why people still have that narrative that walls would come up “too early” cause you basically see no early walls anymore currently.
Who tells these fairytales about early wallers?
I meant to say MAA bonus damage could be increased, apologies.
As far as scouts, the armor change means they now deal 6 damage to houses (Feudal Age, before Blacksmith upgrades), compared to 4 before. That’s a 50% increase.
MAA go from dealing 7 damage to houses to 9, which is only a 29% increase.
And the cost increase seems more likely to delay walls for a fast scout rush. MAA will still have a hard time crossing the the map before walls are up. This one is more situational I guess, hard to say for sure.
i don’t know, how about some real damage or actually forcing a response from the enemy that requires military and not just “let my villager out repair them”.
and yet if devs are nerfing walls it clearly means they agree walling is still problematic.
you want to know why? because walls negate military. so why invest into military when its shutdown by a wall?
ahh but men at arms is already the prime opener and houses are usually used behind walls - which scouts won’t do much too, but men at arms will.
1 Like
That’s just so wrong. It only gives some time to react against incoming raids. You still have to react and the investment and risk isn’t nothing either. Especially against maa archer the margin of benefit with house walling behind is already quite low - if executed perfectly. In most cases you need 4-5 vills and perfect placement, also sometimes need to go risk life of your vills cause the maa break in so quickly you often can’t finish the houses.
It’s really not that simple as you try to make it here, it’s already highly more demanding than just attacking the walls with your maa and place the archers close so they can range wills if they dare to come near.
You try to flip reality here. 3 Maa are not military, they are just a small rushing force to herass the opponent while you try to get the better castle timing. That’s why you make only 3 maa and no archers behind it cause you know exactly how insanely strong the fc powerspike is. If you want to complain over walls, make real military and no “joke” army. Then you will see, that walls are much weaker than you try to claim here.
But I think you already know that, you just want to get guaranteed value of your maa rush, which usually is indeed very strong against every not walled opponent (it’s basically the same idea as the drush fc build, but a bit delayed).
MAA rush is also super meta currently, opposed to early walling, so I wonder which is more “OP”…
false. when a single villager can outrepair 3 men there is an issue with walls.
yeah by sending a villager to repair. big whoop. compare that to the investment from the offensive player.
men at arm archer actually requires a response but the problem is that a simple 3 men at arms play requires archers in the first place to do anything.
and 1 villager is not a military resposne therefore they should not be able to shutdown a military force.
the fact that 1 villager who has no military training shutsdown military trained units IS THE JOKE HERE.