do anyone agree ?
with blacksmith request
you can slow down every tower rush
and opponent can scout what you try to do
this maybe the best option to fix tower imba
2 Likes
It’s not a terrible idea. slows by 30ish seconds, plus the wood cost would make it harder as well.
Then you totally break the game for some civs, even for defense.
Imagine as delhi or any other civ that has to start playing defensive (abbasid also), getting to spend 150 wood on blacksmith and extra time and resources to put a tower on my own gold to avoid french or english rush.
6 Likes
Not really, forces them to make an army instead of relying only on towers to deffend
So tell me, what would yo do as abbasid to defend vs a french if you can’t place a tower on your resources (because if you need to have an army would be impossible to spend that amount of resources and time to put a tower).
You do spears, they will do archers.
You do light cavalry, they will do heavy cavalry.
You do archers, they will do heavy cavalry.
So, in feudal, as abbasid, you simply can’t defend from a french.
Not to mention that towers are very helpful just not to kill archers or spears putting inside your villagers when they engage, but also to protect them of being killed.
Without that towers, a french can just send their horses into your resources and get everytime villagers kills, no matters how much you spent in that feudal army, because he will spend in the counters, and there is nothing you can do in feudal because you can’t produce heavy cavalry or crossbows.
Why instead, you (players), learn to play and scout properly the enemy to check if he is sending villagers to your base?
Most of the times you get tower rushed, is because you neither know that that villager is putting a tower in front of your gold, but out of your sight.
Also, if you play against China is 99% clear that he will try to tower rush or put the barbican. Spend a bit of wood on strategic areas so he can’t build in these areas and that’s all.
2 Likes
Thing is, The Abbassids need some good improvements to their other options, like their military wing so they don’t have to rely on playing defensive and doing the same build over and over.
Yes abbasid need changes, but that’s not the point, change abbasid for delhi and you will have the same. Or even HRE.
Imagine fight against an english and you need to research for towers. You will be dead at min 8 because he will spam archers and spears and you have no way from protecting your resources since english archers are the best on feudal.
I’ve been tower rushed some times and I tower rushed a bit also, and like all rushing strategies if something go wrong, you are probably dead because spent so much resources on that.
If you want to know how to play against this strategy do it by yourself and you will find that everything is not a path of roses when you tower rush.
1 Like
I do somewhat agree but 30seconds also affect how effectively you can have defensive tower up.
I would still much rather see cancellation fee on outposts so if you got tower coming up faster opponent cant just freely cancel it
What’s the point of Dark age? If you remove towers, what’s the real point of dark age? gathering sheep and scouting?
What do you do against maa rush in dark age? or spear mass from mongols?
This also is very true. I tend to ignore those things and let them have it their way, but then again its kind of chinese exclusive thing because of tax collection so even if they deny my gold so what.
Why not make it impossible to build defensive towers in the dark ages close to your opponents base and that it unlocks either in feudal age or castle age?
That would remove tower rush while making sure anyone can build defensive towers in it’s own base to help against early rush attacks.
1 Like
IMO the FUNDAMENTAL issue with these regression is no aggressive play options early? If you remove TR or make it so its a feudal play?? What’s the purpose of dark age?? collecting sheep and scouting? So we spend 4-6minutes of each game JUST scouting gathering sheep and getting to feudal? And that’s not boring to you ppl, uneventful, no sign of threat with the exception of maa and mongol dark age pressure?? And even with maa/mongol pressure if you just speed gather your gold then you’ll age and what ill those tower-less units do to you now? They would just set that player behind to lose and therefore becomes completely worthless strat…
Why does it has to be removed??? The issue is that something is too strong which means it needs to be toned down. Game is called strategy game after all. Devs have already removed strategies from the game because complaints and over nerffing things.
Prof scout - no more deer stealing, no more fights over deer
Stone wall tower rush
Firelancer - Landmark sniping
Scout rush - Landmark sniping
Siege - Soon to be removed too
After this they will nerf wheelbarrow even tho its not exactly same as earlier mentioned ones. Next is probably that we cant build anything outside of 50 tiles of our main TC. Maps start with big wall of china middle with 500k hp which degrades 1hp per second and once its low enough players can get over it
Soon its the siege that will be gone. So the game becomes who masses more infantry or cavalry and does best A click move.
1 Like
There are most likely things they can do to make the dark ages more fun and/or interesting but I personally feel most people see the dark ages as a quick filler age as not too important but still has to be there to get a sense of progression into the feudal age so the chances that we see any changes in the near future is quite unlikely.
That being said the use of tower rush is just wrong in my opinion and it removes the fun factor for the majority of people, as a matter of fact the only people who probably enjoy tower rush is the top players in the world, which are less than 5% of the total player-base.
Tower rush is NOT fun and it makes the game boring & unplayable, not to mention that they are using a defensive building that is intended to be used for defending your base and resources and not attack your opponents base and spam those around their base. You can disagree on this as much as you want, but I’m pretty sure that most people would agree to simply remove tower rush from the dark ages or simply make it more difficult to perform with either higher cost to build a tower or similar things like that.
Yes, the developers has to be careful on what they change and how they change things like this, but I 100% believe that preventing tower rush from being used in the dark ages is 100% the right thing to do.
We can have a debate on all other points you mentioned if they were the right way to address but the tower rush thing? Nope just wrong to use it like that.
1 Like
That’s not an objective fact is it? Do we even have a community poll or something to denote how much ppl like/dislike TR?
Also Tower rushing in Dark Age is ONLY strong for 3 factions China, Mongols, English*. And predominantly only the first 2 do so at high levels.
IMO building defensive tower/walls and making a barracks in the dark age SHOULD become extremely extremely more common! It’s waaaay to convenient to take Dark Age for granted whereby you set yourself up for Feudal. AND in most cases those same ppl that cruise thru Dark Age are also looking to swing by feudal as well straight into Castle, AKA HRE mains, English, Rus, Mongols (semi since they do TR), Abbasid*, Delhi…So everything is about castle age +?
Hijacking because this is interesting. Fun/no boring etc are completely subjective matters. No player in RTS or any game has ever liked everything game has but they deal with it. Like earlier I mentioned AOE4 is called strategy game and part of strategy is to figure out how to use things to gain advantage and win the game. Removing TR removes one strategy from the game which is bad for game. Game will die much faster rate when there is only one thing to do which is constantly same thing standard play no alternatives.
This game has headed towards constant one dimensional play for every civ since the first patches started to pour in. Less and less we can utilize unique units, structures or things that allow more variety of gameplay and different strategies and heading towards pure standard play
They have already listened and changed many things that comes down to this more casual 40min boom then big fight mentality and watch where is leading the game? Every match is more and more one dimensional than ever before. Next patch removes siege units. Next TR?
Have you ever heard that offensive is best defense? Your argument “but its defensive structure makes no sense” This argument makes absolutely no sense at all in stand point other than “I dislike this and I try to make valid argument”.
If we go to history like many AOE fans like to go we can find many situations where structures and other fortifications were build offensively to gain advantage over enemy. So from history standpoint theres absolutely reason to have it and moving outpost from darkage to feudal age will remove any form of offensive outpost rush strategy from game. Which again game is strategy game.
How player takes up the challenge to win against opponent depends on several key factors and strategy what they chose to do.
Same way it depends how player takes engage against specific type of units. In certain situations units like crossbows can easily destroy lancers but in other scenario they lose and this comes down to how player may have placed their buildings to block cavalry as much as possible.
Or if player uses TC to jump in and jump out back on other side to create “easy” distance. Same applies to keeps etc. These are strategies that can win you a fight.
TR is no different from this. Outpost should be usable offensively or defensively. If its too strong offensively then make it more balanced and its been very clear that developers hardly have any concept what is balanced and what isn’t because they go way overboard with several nerfs especially if they read forum suggestions where ppl “oh i dont like it its OP I want to play sims for 50mins and then fight”.
Moving outposts from dark age to feudal also affects certain scenarios where opponent can easily deny your gold with early units so you’re forced to invest on army early on which can actually be more devastating for you. Next you probably want barracks removed from dark age too?
Also removal of outpost can make denying / defending fishing eco really hard. Some civs get feudal faster even with fishing eco so gl trying to deny fishing when there is ship shooting arrows at you while you got spears
So no bad idea just because you don’t find it entertaining or fun. I don’t find it entertaining or fun when ppl build 5 layers of wall and keep rewalling with palisade when I try to rush them with lancers. Do I think its op? No. Towers are strong and need little bit of nerf to see how things go but removal absolutely not
i think the TC should come with two towers so that the base resources are protected. these towers can’t be garrisoned and just fire 1 or 2 arrows.
i agree TR is a strategy but give defensive options as well. spawn two towers with each tc. mongols get to place two towers. Don’t give resources for the towers just be able to place two towers with tc.
The Main TC already shoots arrows 8 tiles away from its edges? Relic purposefully placed stone and gold far away in order to facilitate CONTENTION.
1 Like