Unlike in the pros, normal players need more protection. Maybe 3-4 towers will make the imperial war environment better?
2 Likes
1 tower doesn’t sound bad, but 3 or 4 is too much
2 Likes
1tower on gold and 1tower on wood line
1 Like
Might as well make the game start in castle age then 11
7 Likes
If you need more protection, put up some walls and pump out some military, lol
1 Like
empire wars is supposed to be more aggressive, towers would destroy that
3 Likes
Isn’t EW supposed to be very aggressive?
You can always play Arena and Black Forest anyways.
2 Likes
Maybe I na special map, like texas im aoe 3
1 Like
This really looks like a troll thread to me.
EW is meant to be played aggressive. If you think you need towers to defend your based: Build a tower, mine stone and build more towers. Starting with more defenses is against how EW is supposed to be played.
Also: Towers are probably much stronger in feudal age, then in imperial age. So the idea to start with towers to improve the imperial age battles is clearly false as well.
EW is the most pointless game mode. This is worse than playing fatslob. So a troll thread fits a troll game-mode. Games last like 6-7 real life minutes. Totally an immersive RTS feeling…
This sometimes happen, because of the ladder isn’t fully set. As result you sometimes end up with quick games.
Also this game mode is meant to skip the boring dark age and go right into the action. That sometimes just meant that games end quickly, like sometimes in RM a game also end quickly in feudal age after a big mistake of a player.
1 Like
Well if people enjoy that kind of “strategy game” they can play it. I don’t mind EW. It’s a silly thing, but if people can’t find pleasure in standard rts anymore and only want pure action all about, they can get it.
EW with towers or whatever makes no sense, as at this moment the key strategic decisions are already made like what opener and how to set up your base etc.
The design of the game doesn’t really allows a more strategical playmode with already set up economies, as the economies of different unit comps or booming are so different.
1 Like
You start with 200 stone no? You can just make a tower and sacrifice putting down early town centres in castle age. Adding starting towers would remove that choice from the player. Trying to force a tower during feudal age is a big (and I would argue awesome) part of the meta.
1 Like
Why not just play DotA or LoL then?
2 Likes
More towers, of different kinds, do not have to slow down conflict. Constructing towers in what one could call staging zones means added protection as you gather up more forces, replacing losses, while one ready for the next action. Also aggressive, fast, games means destroying enemy homebases and so having more towers defending them, to at least slow down such attacks, gives a player a chance to do more to protect their homebase; from there they have a chance to strike back. More towers, of different kinds, would be just additional strategic-tactical tools. Why not mobile packable-unpackable towers or different kinds of mobile siege towers?
Because I still play RM as well. It just depends on my mood. What I said in previous post was the reason why the devs added this mode to the game. I can see why people thing the dark is boring. It is really much just doing the same over and over again without much action between players. You might snipe a lonely walling vill or go for a drush, but in the next ages the fighting really starts. In todays meta it is even in castle age before people really commit to fighting. Everything before castle age is mostly considered as tickling your opponent.
This looks like you want to have a more defensive approach to this game mode. Camping under towers isnt really attacking. Also I feel like these tower placements will be really akward. The placing of lumbercamps and stuff like that is already akward.
I can see something can be changed to towers, but we do need to be careful to not change the fundamentals of the game too much. Not sure if we really need multiple types of towers in general. That seems like an idea to discuss in an other thread, which isn’t related to just EW.
How is Empire Wars different? You build a production building, make some of your basic units, try to wall your map, and try to close the game as you advance up to castle and deal the killing blow in early castle.
1 Like
In dark age kind of the first 15 vills in almost every build order are the same. The only difference is probably 3 or 4 on wood.
In feudal age is already much more interacting with your enemy. So what you does depends a lot more on what your enemy does as well.
Also not really sure what type of EW you play, but ending all games is early castle age is only how a game plays out if the match is really unbalanced. Other wise you can really close most games in castle age.
I do not follow a purely defensive strategy or an aggressive one; I believe in flexibility and in defensive-aggression with staging posts or aggressive-defensive as in taking over area by area and securing them before moving on; these are strategies as carried out by many real commanders of history. The real point is if one does not want to use any new towers than one is free not to do so but others could use them just as they might not use new aggressive units and you might do so.
ranked 1v1, it sounds like you’d enjoy a game like DotA and LoL more, where there is no economic managament beyond what items you spend your gold on. you get straight into the action, no boring parts
1 Like