If walls get more costly. Make them stronger?

Then make them much stronger. Like 2 to 3 times the HP. If Palisade wall costs like 10 wood per wall tile, then make them have 3 times the HP. For stone walls, if they cost ten stone per tile, then 3 times the HP.

Otherwise, walls would be totally useless if they cost lots and only have like 5 HP. (I am over exaggerating, but I don’t want walls nerfed into oblivion)

The way some people speak here they want walls to be totally worthless. If walls become costly, I want value for my money. I want strong powerful walls that will delay the enemy.


At that point wouldnt you be pushing for resource specific walling?

We have lots of threads who want to nerf walls even more, by making them more costly. So if walls get more costly, I want them even stronger to compensate.

They won’t stop until walls cost like 50 stone per tile, and 100 wood per tile for wooden walls. (I am over exaggerating, but that’s what it sounds like)

The problen with that idea is thst you are just nerfing scouts. They will just put each res in a box with even thoughet walls instesd of full walling

I also considered this.

But unfortunately this would make drush fc even stronger as the nature of that build is to stack up ressources early. Why not stack wood in the beginning to make walls and then go uo to castle? Maybe 1 vill later than currently, but as the walls would hold longer even stronger than currently.

And quite the opposite for all feudal rush builds: As they would start walling way later into the game they are much more vulnerable to all kind of agression, possibly even against drush fc if it takes too long to fight off the drush. I think the current cost of walls are already on the limit for rushing buildorders.

I mean you could argue that who plays rushes shouldn’t be able to start walling when cicking up to feudal, but then we would have the problem that the pure defensive builds would have a strategic advantage over the more agressive builds which I don’t really like.
Walling behind rushes is very important to buy a bit of time against possible counterraids.

I wouldn’t like it if drush FC would become the all dominating meta.

Yeah but these proposals are silly. If anything the last nerfs to walls actually already lead to more drush fc. Devs should have noticed that the whole “nerf walls” narative is actually flawed. The game doesn’t work like it is presented by these people that demand wall nerfs all the time.

The whole point of nerfing walls by making them more costly is to nerf defensive play. Increasing the health counters that.
Furthermore I don’t think the devs are going to increase the cost by the huge amounts you’re suggesting

Not every civ is offensive. Some need to boom hard, and wall up before they reach full strength.

It takes away from the game play if walls are garbage. In real life walls were harder to take down. Was only until the invention of the cannon that walls were able to be taken down more easily.

As this picture shows.


I think if we just increase palisade cost without buffing, people will move to pure house walling in dark age.

Increase palisade cost by 1 wood and very very slightly increase hp that should do it.

The higher cost will make it slightly harder to wall up all sides. Even thought the walled up sides are then sliglty more durable, what really, matters is of you got fully walled or not, and not if it has a few more hp or not.

So any cost increase will have much more weight than a hp buff in terms of walling nerf.

Is walling a problem thought? I think it’s at a good spot right now.

Quick walling is the problem making meele units life gard

How about foundations can be walked on when below 25% build.

Increase of wall cost wouldn’t reduce amount of walls. Actually the opposite: More drush FC => more walling.

That’s what a lot of people don’t get. Either you nerf walls to the ground so they are terrible or they will be played basically the same, cause it’s not their cost that makes people building walls but strategic choices.

And if walls become to expensive to build up behind your rush all feudal rushing buildorders are nerfed heavily, because you want to be walled behind your agression. Naturally all the more greedy builds that allow you to begin walling earlier get an advantage there.

Sieges didn’t bloody last 2 years. Actual sieges were a rarity.

While I agree with what you’re saying about giving slower civs a shot, if you buff walls like that all that will happens is civs like vikings will just sit back behind walls and boom hard with their stellar economy and then run you over from there.

The best way to help slower civs is to speed them up.


You can also buff counter mechanics. Most slower civs have bonus to their counters.

Better counters => less walls.

Yeah let’s slow rhw game down. No thanks. That’s more likely to drive people away

Why do people think the game is too slow i saw s Suggestion that would come with town watch that nerfs their dark age potential against drushes but makes them slighthy better in feudal

Edit: i think it was like 10 hp more and an armor but still if you delay your Walls and get them in feudal instead of dark age it would be punishing

What a nonsense. If anything better counters would increase the pace of the game.

And I also doubt that people would be driven away by a pace decrease. I think most current players can’t enjoy the game in it’s full potential because the pace is too fast for them.
The game is so demanding in macro that even in the highest level of pro level macro > micro. That tells anything about the “slow pace” of the game.
And why devs made the decision to make age4 more casual…

How? If counters are better people are going to play defense first because offense is easily countered and a waste. means less early game agression and more Turtle play

Turtling is about greed, getting the eco advantage to snowball the game with a power unit.
Counters is to get the military advantage, getting a better position - only one of the possible followups is to add walls and boom behind it.

In conclusion actually better counters will lead to less turtling. Not to mention that walls are less important if it would be more viable to open with counters.

Defensive minded players often use walls this days because the counter openers are kinda terrible. That’s where these complains about walls come from.

And that’s actually one of the points to ask. Why do we not have buildorders for spears into xbows for example? I think it should be a goal of the devs to make this viable cause then naturally we will see less turtling as the more defensive minded players would have alternatives to their current openers that feature early walls.

No. They use walls because walls and booming up faster is better then trying to win in feudal.

1 Like

Because yea in the balance you see games should be descided in feudal eventho its better if there is a semi random chance that prolongs it what makes it also more interesting

Oh I’m not saying the game should be decided in feudal. Most games are decided in cadtl. But if you buff counter units, why rven bother with feudal agression?

With my idea or atleast the idea that i liked with the weaker dark age slightly stronger feudal age version of pallisades it wouldt change by a huuuge margin it would be more punishable to build them late and if you have them they can still be torn down

Edit: not sure if a slightly bigger investment in units would make that massive difference