Scout rushes arent falling out of favour because of walling, but because they generally struggle against m@a opening.
You need 4 scouts to fight 3 m@a, by that time they already can have a spear forward and you cant fight them until you have your own archers/skirms out.
You can of course send your scouts forward, pick off any archers and rely on walling and later skirms/archers to defend yourself, but thats more difficult to do and fewer people are comfortable with it. M@a into archers is just the easier build.
However, any scout agression does rely on you being able to (quick)wall the m@a out. Any further nerfs to walls might even nerf scout rushes.
2 Likes
and why is man at arms opening popular?
because it literally hits before walls go up. even the commentators will point out that man at arms openers don’t even have to kill villagers to be effective, they just have to force idle time from the opponents villagers.
Same is possible with scouts. But scouts cant fight m@a, therefore you have more fighting power with m@a and an easier transition into archers.
1 Like
not normally no. you have to hit feudal, drop a stable (50 seconds), and then start making scouts (30 seconds) and then send them across the map. which means at best they are hitting nearly 2 minutes after you hit feudal.
because man at arms comes earlier. its also more expensive. 3 man at arms is 280 food and 100 gold.
So how are you going to defend against m@a if walls are nerfed even further?
Nerfing walls buffs all early agression, not just scouts. You would have to nerf m@a if you wanted to buff scouts
1 Like
Frankly given how much resources are poured into a man at arms opening it should be strong. you’re talking 280 food and 100 gold. more or less, in the way early game.
but i do acknowledge your point.
My suggestion is to nerf walls against villagers, not every unit
Walling in resources can be prevented though. if you pull it off, you earn the advantage you gain. Not to mention its a big investment, because your villager isnt working during all the time it takes to walk over to your opponent.
2 Likes
I don’t get why is everyone getting triggered over “nerfing walls” What the OP proposes is literally aimed at avoiding this as much as possible while making palissade laming easier to counter. Why do you think villagers already get bonus damage against stone walls? Because otherwise you could deny ressources for eons with stone walls. But palissades are sturdy enough that it’s not worth trying to get back your ressources until castle age, because either you waste villager time by attacking the wall with villagers, or you waste it by making men at arms you wouldn’t have needed otherwise.
Also I know this game isn’t supposed to be the most realistic, but seeing a wooden wall survive getting knifed down way longer than a stone wall is kinda cringe.
Because walls becoming too weak will completely ruin open maps. If you get raided and your quickwalls are too easy to beat down, then basically whoever attacks first just plain wins the game.
1 Like
stop relying on quick walls then? rely on walling in advance, scouting, and building something that counters what your opponents building.
quick walling is not even supposed to be a thing, if it was the devs wouldn’t have nerfed it.
Are you going to copy paste this everywhere? This isn’t even the subject of the topic.
and yet you were the one who brought up quick walling. i’m just pointing out that your argument is based on something that many people, even the devs, have a problem with in the game as is.
Because people are talking about nerfing walls, and that is one of its implications. You telling me how to play is on the other hand not relevant to the topic.
The OP proposed that :
So if you’re scared of people bringing villagers to their m@a rush while going for hardcore lobying to save the Inca villager rush at any cost I just don’t know what to say anymore.
so one of the implications of nerfing walling is that quick walling, which shouldn’t even be in the game, and the devs are taking steps to remove from the game, would be nerfed. seems to me like a reason to nerf walling more, as it helps complete the objective of removing quick walls from the game.
that was more of the collective you then the specific you.
I don’t agree that this should be an objective. At least not on its own, right now it is far too useful to be removed.
You know how good players are in this game. As soon as there is any new way to take an advantage, players will find it and exploit it. I am not sure whether the suggested change would be actually that bad, but I’m just against further nerfs to walls because they have already been nerfed a lot.
Which is still not relevant to the topic.
and yet the devs seem to disagree.
its useful in saving people who don’t prepare from raids. that isn’t a good thing honestly. if you aren’t prepared you should be punished. walling in advance isn’t going to hurt you much and it will save you from unscouted aggression
Many open maps are already very easy to snowball. Many games are already decided in feudal (even if some choose to drag out the game to castle). Do not really see any benefit in games closing out even faster.
yeah, so if you prepare, and wall in advance, and scout your opponents base and see what he’s building, you can counter it effectively, snowballing into your own advance.
so scout your opponents base and see what he’s building and counter that.
if you make pikes and your opponent patrol moves his knights into them, should he be punished and watch his army get shredded?