Then stop playing standard games. Play Europe Diplomacy scenario or something if you find it so boring.
is it serious worth talking sbout this we obviosly have a troll among us who just dont like this game and therefore should stop playing it microsoft try to improve and eventho we have some problems ms will try and fix it at some point but stubborn mind stay stubborn as there are not that much unhealthy things and defensive play aswell as offensive play belongs to an rts like aoe2 also i think this should be closed as it unfriendly towards the general playerbase and demening towards ms what shouldt be tolerated
1 Like
Wishful naive thinking is what I call that - tbh…
Dear Sir, Do you know about Aoe2 HD Edition?
I dont think so
played hd since it came out
1 Like
hmmm, time to pick the Cumans then, these feudal rams start to look inviting 
3 Likes
if you see walls go for boom
thats the counter right?
maybe they expected your rush and reacted
maybe yucatan isn’t the right map to rush
2 Likes
I see the point in nerfing it but I feel that stone walls are an investment that can delay a FC so they should be a lot more hit points than palisade walls. How many points is up to them.
I wonder how somebody can be fully stonewalled against a 21 scout rush, even in yucatan. He must have fully palisade walled before. Double investment preemptively…
I mean yeah you can do it, but if the opponent then completely overextends and runs into your walls it’s clearly his own fault.
Don’t blame the game for bad decision making. Stone walls are supposed to stop overextensions in feudal. Instead of being clever and getting the tech advantage the opponent gave you for “free” you chose to make exactly what his strategy is supposed to counter…
It’s a strategy game, it’s about seeing what your opponent does and try to counter him. Not going blindly for a build order and then complaining about it being stopped by the supposed counter strat that was also done blindly.
6 Likes
Bit harsh but true, very true.
lol first time hearing tilt cause of stonewalls maybe because i dont play 800 elo lobby
1 Like
I’m 12++ and it’s the most prefereable strat on my elo.
This should be a troll post, right? Who does 21 pop double stable in Yucatan? Who needs stonewall to defend against it? 11 Even if stone walls didnt exist, you can still keep the scouts out with houses and other buildings.
Yucatan is a closed map. Play it like Arena or BF.
3 Likes
I have a particular strategy and anyone who doesn’t like playing like I do can get lost.
You lose to people who wall and boom because you’re bad at the game and don’t know how to pull off the gas and adapt your strat when the rush fails. Now you’re here at the forums complaining about how all those people who beat you are “noobs” because they used a strategy you can use to beat you.
What does that say about you? Don’t answer that. We know what you think. It was rhetorical.
Walling literally costs you resources that, if your opponent decides not to pressure you, provides you absolutely no benefit. If your opponent is going for walls, take advantage of those resources they don’t have to gain an edge. If you can’t do that, you’re bad. Defensive play isn’t too good. You’re just not good enough to properly punish it.
The more people commit to early rushes in place of economy-focused strategies, the better walling gets, as it’ll deny your opponents more resources on average.
3 Likes
I don’t agree with you. It’s not about strat, its about the game unbalanced towards a more defensive gameplay. Attacking cost is way too high.
That’s foolish to assert, as defensive play cannot win you a game. You must attack to win, because Conquest is the default victory setting. Wonders do nothing, and relic victory doesn’t exist.
I’m sorry you think investing into a strategy that can win the game is underpowered. You’re wrong, but there’s a lot of that going around in this thread. Spend 4k on walls, and see how much I care about how many resources you burn in that category, it just increases the amount of resources I have to kill you with in excess.
1 Like
Why is the current meta to rush for castle age with as few military as possible? You are more likely to see drush + FC strats, then full feudal wars. If there is feudal pressure, then it is really minimal. Even that is just to go to the castle asap in almost all of the games. The castle power spike is just too good compared to feudal pressure. And what is the best way to get to the castle age quickly and save? It is due to walling your base. Yes, walling will cost your some resources. But given the castle age power spike, you are still better off walling.
Only time in which you kind of dont want to play is if you are sure your enemy is going for the FC build itself, so you can reach castle age even more quickly and get the early power spike. The best defense against almost every feudal pressure is just walling and you are probably save till castle age.
1 Like
You know that upon hitting Castle age, you unlock Siege, Knights, TC’s, and Castles, yes?
There’s a lot of good reasons to be in castle age quickly.
When Drush+FC got popular last time, M@A + tower became a meta punish and it all went back to pot again. Nowadays, walling is even worse than it was back then. Your evidence that this will be any different is…?
Or when you decide your opponent is going for FC and you think it’s a good timing to take advantage of your opponent being down 1,000 resources by coming forward and trushing. As I’ve already said, this has happened before, many times, and it’ll happen again. AOE 2 is not a solved game, the meta is cyclical, and when FC strats come into prominence, trush and resource denial strategies soon resurface and kill it off. This is normal.
The new phenomena is complaining on the forum about how the Fatslob strat is good now. That’s the only thing that’s changed between then and now. This is Hilarious. I cannot wait to quote this to people in four months to remind us all how ridiculous the AOE 2 forums are when we’re complaining about the exact opposite problem. Fair warning.
3 Likes
I like hating on walling but I have to recon that thinking straight stonewalls is OP is hella cringe. They take longer to build than palissades and since they cost stone you have to dedicate villagers to mine stone so that you can build TCs later on. And let’s be real since palissades and house foundations are enough to defend againt feudal age agression stone walling in feudal age is just a waste.
Yeah, that is why people rush to castle age. Rushing for castle age is much stronger then staying for longer in feudal age.
Except this change in meta already happened before the release of DE. Walling is becoming more and more important over the years. So it isnt something that just changes over the months. This is something that is already an ongoing process for years.
Can you please quote a post in this thread where people claim Fatslob strat is good. I complain about palisade walls in feudal age, which make the decision to go fast castle almost a no brainer on open maps. And you then you compare this to stone walling a lot in BF and using an old patch. That isnt comparable at all.
I dont know if this is true, but then the best “counter” strat against this is just palisades 3 tc boom and going imp + trebs. (Ofc react to the enemy military, but bec you have the eco and tech advantage you just need to know the basic counters to deal with whatever he sends at your base.
Maybe it is one of the few strats at this elo because I think at this elo players have mastered their rushing build orders but aren’t as good in decision making and scouting. So a counter strat to the standard learning curve seems very viable at that elo range to me. It’s simple: If most oponents just wanna kill your eco with rushing you thrive very well with overprotecting it.