It's really so wrong for Dev keeps changing Arabia

It seems non-sense to me about making the highlands out of the TC, wood distribution, resources location etc, these actions are just a mess in the recent patches.
Right now I found that the map between 2 players are always so unfair.

If you think walling is a problem, it’s not the fault of the map. It’s the problem that you made the walling are so cheap with very good value return, nearly no eco sacrifice.
These are some changes you can make gradually.

  1. Making TC out of the edges.
  2. Nerf the building HP in different ages.
  3. Increase wall cost.
  4. Increase wall building time.

Someone must yield out: walls have already been nerfed few times.
Bad point.
This is not pointing to the argument itself but telling the patch history of walls only.

I really hope the Devs can face the issue seriously.
TG has been ruined for a long time, it didnt get fix and now they keep ruining the 1v1 as well.
If you really want to have good changes on things, gather some opinions from the pro instead of just reading the threads from those causal players here.
And Identify what are facts, and what are preferences, people here always mixing up these and having endless arguments.

1 Like

The map is supposed to be in a way, that one players wins by mapgen or luck with feudal army timing.

Nobody ever intended to make the recent Arabia a map, on which you can scout your base and your enemy base, and then play adaptive.

At this point, Imo the last nerf that walls need is the vils repair rate

no that wont help, generally its better to wall behind instead of trying to repair, as the repair rate is already drastically slower than building…

Increasing wall cost wouldn’t work either. Would just lead to full feudal raiding feasts as then walling wouldn’t pay of against raids anymore. Leading to a state of the game where you would basically permanently raid and counterraid as the vills are so badly protected.

Thes two things can work imo:

A) Increasing bonus damage of the militia line. Probably even making scouts better (attack through foundations eg) against wallers. Maybe reducing the palisades, so scouts and spears both can possibly break them with just enough time.

B) Reducing the castle age powerspike like for example increasing the research time: Giving more time for feudal agression to pay of - forcing the defencive player to be more active in defending one or the other way, as even in the current state palisades give only a brief time to react.

Imo the only thing that makes walls sometimes annoying is drush fc, as there the walls just buy enough time to bypass the short time of vulnerabilty between the drush and the castle age powerspike. And this would be perfectly adressed by the 2 proposed changes which both would give the feudal player more prowess to deal damage to the greedy drush fc player.

1 Like

I disagree with more walling nerfs. Either the nerfs will not be enough and players will adapt their build orders to the nerfs and return to the full walling meta, or the nerfs will be too much and walling becomes nearly useless. But what would reduce the full walling meta is making Trushes a thing again by returning to Towers their pre-DE Feudal Age HP. Trushing might have only been a counter to Full Wall FC against players with forward resources who got greedy and went Full Wall FC anyway, but it’s better than what we have now for a counter to Full Wall FC, which is nothing except another Full Wall FC.

I mean, it’s not like pre-DE Trushes by themselves were terrible to play against. It was because of a handful of civs, as in the Koreans, Spanish, Teutons, and later on, Incas, that Trushing has such a bad image. And half of those civs had their Trushes nerfed. Adjusting the Trushes of the other two civs is likely easy to do.


I never thought I’d agree with this, but it’s better than appeasing the anti-wall gorillas who can’t see how their solutions would lead to more problems. Buff tower play again. Then we don’t need threads about buffing Incas or Spanish as well.


Well I don’t think trushing is actually a good counterplain against walling in general…
But it ofc is against drush fc, that is given.

Thing is trushing is such a high investment and such a volatile strategy, it is also just highly technical to play and play against, it reduces the diversity of the game so much… I don’t like this as a concept against walls. Not at all.

I also think trushing isn’t as bad as some people try to make it here. You just need to know when it’s useful to trush and which areas you want to hit. Then it’s even atm a viable strat. But ofc not if you just blindly send your villagers forward and make towers on random locations.

And I think just because of that, that trushing is actually not the best strat to push against walling. As walls can heavily reduce the amount of areas to hit. Also one of the most common strats against trushes is containment which often includes building even more walls…

It is a counter to walling… unless you’re complaining about a slow moving civ using walls to keep you from raiding past castle age. In which case you’d have to completely rebalance the game. If you haven’t noticed, walling hasn’t impacted cavalry civ win rates

What are you talking about?
You speak about it as it would be new or more these days, but that’s clearly not the case. Players walled all the time since the game is out.

And I also don’t understand why this should only impact cav civs. Walls are actually even more durable against archer fire…

And btw an early tower buff would actually nerf archer play, since it is one of the counter strats against archer rushes to place defensive towers at highly exposed ressources.

Of course you can “kill” walls with a trush, but man that’s such a high investment for only that purpose… that’s not worth it imo. It’s a terrible play just to kill walls, actually. It only works so nice against drush fc as you can force the opponent to stay so much longer in feudal than he wanted to. But that has basically no influence to the general viability of walls. It’s just that one strat that it counters because of the denied timing.

Did you play before DE? The biggest nerf made to towers was how easily vils took them down. 11. Fix that. That doesn’t impact archer rushes. Or quit bellyaching about walling. There’s a game next week coming out where buildings aren’t walls just for you.

I really get confused of why people here are always against anything.

I have already emphasized “gradually”
for example, increasing the woodwall from 2 woods to 3 woods, even you build 50 woodwalls it just increased you cost to 50 woods.

I really doubt that the assumption there’s no room to nerf the wall is valid.

I agree that changing Arabia this match went a bit far. Its nothing like aoc version anymore… Were are the ponts, cliffs.

Just make new version. Like green Arabia, aewbai ultimate. Whatever but leave the old ones intact.

Than we can rotate the different Arabia version in the map pool.

1 Like

what surprises me the most is there are like 10x the number of super open, unwallable maps in the EW pool, why cant we have even 1/3 that variety in RM? instead we have this constant perversion of arabia

im sure the EW pool all appeal to this subsect who are obsessed with anti walling but then why not put some of those super open maps in the main pool, for the minority to play, and simply leave arabia and runestones alone, instead of almost forcing players into such open, unwallable maps.

im assuming the majority of complaints are from mainly pros and high elo players (or viewers who literally dont play and just want to watch exciting matches) that are so heavily obsessed with anti walling. i cant imagine the majority of base players are interested in pushing for maps like land madness

dont get me wrong either, i like EW, and i play about 1/3 of my matches on EW, but then i know exactly what im in for, so i pick appropriately, i dont want to go over to RM and have to face some retard open arabia, with every res forward (and on unwallable hills) and then have to either deal with laming (which doesnt exist in EW) and/or deal with an endless scrushing from the top scrushing civs, while i snail along with some hot garbage like port…

at least in the older iterations of arabia, i didnt need to lose 100+ elo before i got a map gen or easy enough opponent that this disparity didnt exist

1 Like

I don’t play rm anymore, dark age is killing the fun for me when I need to just execute a build order for 10 minutes before the game really starts.

But empire wars map pool could use more water maps

now they have guys to increase the cost of the wall again, however, keep changing the Arabia is really really aweful.

the game is objectively being made worse with every patch. The combination of making every map more open and nerfing walling removes vast swathes of strategy from the game. Maps like Arabia should allow for a whole range of strategies, as that’s the map which the game is balanced on. At this point more or less every arabia / runestones game i play all of my opponents choose the same 5 cavalry civilisations, execute (poorly) the exact same build orders they’ve seen on whatever youtube video and then send them into your base in box formation. This fundamentally isn’t strategy. The game is being turned into something call of duty esque, with 15 minute games dominated by whichever player pick the franks, Lithuanians, Magyars etc


I disagree with this logic. We 100% should not balance the game for only professional or high ELO players.


Isn’t the recent patch (at least the arabia and wall / house changes) mostly inspired by pro suggestions?

I think they literally made what hera was promoting all the time.

Let’s see how this will work, devs will get a direct feedback if they should listen to the pros there. Maybe it’s just a try. Make what Hera proposes and look if it works.

1 Like

Yeah, I love Hera but there are about .001% of people on earth who have the APM/multitasking to competently play in the way he thinks AOE2 ought to be played.