It’s very simple to fix tower rushing, they did it in AoE3. My view is that it was a developer oversight and now the new devs are too scared to change it.
Its objectively way more complex and limiting than AoE2. Aoe2 doesnt work on limitations like these
1 Like
If my practice time revolves around rushing to towers, that’s less strategy, not more. I can’t do other things as much.
I say this as a pretty piss poor player
But if your only way to win is towers and you are unable to counter it without going full on towers then you just need to get better
Because outside of Sicilians every other civ has a better early game strat than towers
1 Like
I shouldn’t even have to think about it. If you think proxy buildings in the enemies base is a respectable strategy, we will never agree.
It’s not an oversight. Being unable to build buildings in your enemy’s town simply isn’t fun. The game is supposed to be fun, and the original devs understood that.
2 Likes
Did you personally ask them? Why was it removed in AoE3, by the same dev team, Ensemble Studios?
Could you play with Treaty mode enabled? I think that prevents players from building outside their local perimeter, but I could be wrong. If so, I think this solution should address your concerns, right?
You are right about treaty mode. Of course it still doesn’t solve the problem, because ranked games aren’t played in treaty mode, and you can’t attack at all.
1 Like
Well in aoe3, you are allowed to build your TC or tower on the other side of the map. The ring only prevents you to build next to an opponent TC.
The whole point of the swedish and japanese economies is to build houses all over the map.
In aoe3, it is also common practice to build a proxy building as close as possible to the opponent base to receive shipments.
I see the point, and agree it is kind if lame to tower rush. Devs as well, and they nerfed Incas villagers fighting capabilities (in feudal) and towers hp.
But overall it is fine because it forces to make military and not peacefully boom on open maps. When opponent army is cleared, you can bring 10 villagers and hammer down the tower.
A few years ago in tournaments, I liked watching a pro tower rushing as a response to its opponent walling into fast castle.
If villagers are not good enough to destroy the towers when the opponents have no army, then tje devs will surely increase the damage of villagers against towers to make it better. No need to change the formula of the most loved game in the franchise.
2 Likes
Tower rush + proxy buildings could be the weakest strategy in the world, but it still shouldn’t exist at all, because it is counter-intuitive and makes no sense with how the villagers gather resources. End of story.
Portuguese literally did that, they carried stone from Europe to build their fortresses and outposts on conquered coasts
4 Likes
Fine, allow towers, but the villagers have to all carry their 10 stone each to the build site 
By that logic, every building should need villagees to carry the resources to build them
It would be perfectly fine for other game, that game wont be AoE2
3 Likes
Are you TRYING to make the game unfun and frustrating to play?
2 Likes
No, he just hates tower ruahings and is moving goal posts to try to make an argument to make them completely unviable
2 Likes
It sounds like you only consider the game from one point of view, the attackers. Do you think proxy and tower rush is fun for the defender?
Yes. Defending against a tower rush is fun because you get to build your own towers and/or rush down the towers with villagers.
1 Like
Tower rushing isnt dominant and adds another variant to the simple and relatively stale feudal meta
I dont mind them at all
1 Like
Yep, that’s certainly more fun than attacking with an army. So interesting.