For real devs, please remove the ability to build a keep or keep like landmark in your base!

i beg the devs to remove the ability to build keeps and landmarks that act like keeps in your base, its super cheese, and its annoying, i personally feel its the reason 90% of new players will not play the game after a few cheese tactics, i swear its the bane of my enjoyment for this game, it literally annoys me and most likely every other player who is on the receiving end of it so much, its just straight up cheese and NOT historically accurate!.


1200 stone to keep, it would discourage them to put them in the face, as for the Chinese Barbican, their strategy is not op

1 Like

I would say git gud but I’m also bad at the game xD

1 Like

Don’t try to push your point by saying that new players don’t get into the game for that reason. A cheese, if explored, is “easy” to stop. To stop the cheeses there are guides for it. A surprising and risky strategy (as long as it is not OP) is part of the strategy.

1 Like

im not really pushing it on people, i have had friends leave the game after being invited to try it, due to cheese strategies just like keeps being placed in your base or towers, it just dont make sense.

the issue is when you lose your defending forces, then they slap a keep on your wood line or landmark on your wood line, i was winning a game and literally lost due to one red tower landmark, its literally stupid, like for real how can you justify me having the advantage all game to lose to 1 landmark its stupid.

you guys can watch this as example
Actually this one better done here:

More people will leave the game if you are prohibited from placing keeps and towers near the enemy base.

In this genre you have to look for guides and builds to see it coming and stop it properly. There are also other game modes, which are not ranked, more friendly.

1 Like

Lucifron won against the barbican in the face, watch his stream

If somebody is building a keep in your base you’ve already lost and they’re trying to get you to resign faster. Keeps are fine.


yes some people win but its still very op and hard to deal with

In AoE2 DE, a castle in your base mean “get out of my game”. Same thing here, the keep in your base mean you lost ten minutes ago.

1 Like

xd, a keep costs the same as 3 knights and a spearman

When in doubt, Gameplay is above historical accuracy. It’s correct that the Keep is a good defensive building and it’s also correct that the game should favor aggressive to defensive play a bit more (and not staking games a thousand years) for the sake of show.

You see i understand your statement, but those keeps and castles took many years to build, i live in england where the normans littered the coast with fortifications. But at the same time these fortifications took many years to build. The fact someone can slap a keep in your base after killing your defensive forces just does not make sense to me, sure when you are truly hanging to hope where there is none in a match where you lost the advantage. using a keep in there base is fine, but a landmark such as red tower or even the imperial age english landmark just truly ruins the game for me, it turns the tide so well that you lose because they snipe everything you have.

Name one scenario in history where villagers ran into someones village or town, slapped a keep down in 50 or less seconds, then proceeded to snipe villagers

The 50 seconds in the game is an extended timescale. You can’t create villagers in 35 seconds, it takes 15-20 years. You can’t train militia in 35 seconds, it takes months or years. Seconds in the game is days, weeks, months or years.

One scenario where a civilisation was tower-rushed was the Battle of Alesia, where Julius Caesar defeated the forces of Vercingetorix. Vercingetorix had withdrawn to the hillfort of Alesia, which was heavily defended by a force of 80,000 and a formidable challenge for any army. Caesar rapidly encircled it with fortifications, including 23 towers. The Gauls saw it happening and tried cavalry sorties to stop the construction, but Caesar had placed legions and their allies at the exits of the fort to prevent them from interfering. Once the towers and fortifications were starting to surround the base, Caesar ordered a defensive perimeter round the outside to prevent raiders from outside stopping construction. The towers rained down fire on the hillfort and the Gauls rapidly began to starve. Vercingetorix had to surrender, and the struggle of the Gauls against Rome ended there.

Another example is the Norman invasion of England. The Normans built 500 Motte and Bailey castles in the space of 20 years, extending to almost 750 wooden castles in the early days of their invasion. The components of Bailey castles were mainly wooden “kits” put together in France, then shipped to England and assembled, some wooden castles springing up in a matter of days. Records show that buildings and churches were quickly demolished in towns to make room for Norman castles to spring up. Bailey castles could be rapidly assembled in hostile areas to establish a secure garrison of knights that could rapidly control the hostile locals and subjugate a town that would otherwise force continual running battles with invading Norman forces.

The Norman invasion of 1066 itself depended on the first foothold of Pevensey Castle, which was a hastily-created fortress built on the ruins of a Roman fort, in which a Bailey was rapidly thrown-up from a wooden “kit” that was shipped with the invasion forces. The later invasion of Wales was supported by many Motte and Bailey castles that were rapidly constructed to subdue the surrounding populace. Once a Norman Bailey was thrown up, the town’s resistance was finished.

During the Crusades, building Siege Castles or counterforts in front of the gates of Islamic towns and fortifications was a recognised tactic. During the siege of Antioch, after 1097, a fort was built outside the north-eastern wall of the town, which protected the invading forces against the missiles from the town, and gave them a foothold that helped in their eventual conquest of the town.


Well in reality, if villagers had children sure it takes 15-20 years, but villagers can also migrate from smaller towns or villages to a bigger town for work which still happens to this day.

Yes mott and baileys were easy to construct by comparison, but we are talking about keeps that are made of stone. These tooks years to make, so using a mott and bailey is not a good example, not to mention, these scenarios you are using are already based upon conquered lands of peasanty, after the defending army has been defeated, so what you say is only partially viable.

very simple solution to fix this issue: bring Petards into aoe4.

I remember this being a very effective solution to castle-drop in your base in a pinch.

The aoe blast, not only just massacred the villagers building them, but also just outright blew the castle apart.

1 Like

Your argument about “after the defending army has been defeated” is relevant here.

An attacker shouldn’t be able to just walk into your base with a huge volume of unarmoured, unweaponed villagers and build a Keep if you’re defending properly.

Effectively, if you’re letting your opponent walk in with a load of villagers, and you don’t have the walls, troops and defences to stop them, then you are already not defending and that settlement has been defeated. At that point your only option is to retreat and rebuild elsewhere, just like armies did in the past.

If you are playing well, those villagers should have been trampled under the hooves of a host of knights or peppered with arrows before they even got near the tower-defended walls around your settlement. If they can literally just walk into your base unchallenged, then you need to adjust your play style to be more defensive, or focus on multiple settlements that take time to find and destroy one-by-one, all the time making your opponent play whack-a-mole.

1 Like

While I understand the frustration when this happens, I also think this would hurt the game a lot if they restrict someone from doing this.

This is a risky move and if managed to do just that, then you let that person do it. In the end there is no perfect scenario but I don’t want them to remove choice more in this game, ultimately that’ll kill this game when no one is playing it anymore.