Should a keep, cost less than their counterpart?

This is just about trebuchets and keeps …

Who usually drops the first keep?

  • The booming/defensive player

Where do they find use?
Offensive: in the enemy production or eco
Defensive: To secure resources, the base, chokepoints, sacred sites or grant map control

who benefits from it? When trebuchets cost get reduced? Or keep cost increased?

  • The player with the army lead
  • The defending player, if he has to deal with an offensive keep

Keep = 800 resources + 3 min build time
Siege Workshop + treb = 300 + 750 = 1050 + build time 45s, produced in 40 sec
The total idle time of villagers could be even if u want a forward siege workshop, so i don’t take it into account here.

As a reference. In AoE 2 its 650 keep vs 600 treb + siegeworkshop

Right now with its current meta, keeps vs trebuchets favors the booming player with an eco approach
He has not just more resources, so he can afford the keep. it cost the offensive player min equal resources while making him stationary and reducing his pop space.
It would slightly help to accelerate the game when u have the army lead.

I think even it out would be something to consider.
If keeps cost +100 stone, siege workshop -50 wood and trebuchets cost 100 less.
Result total cost trebuchets 900 vs 900 keeps

What u think?


I like the proposal but see a general flaw in only having one counter to a certain strategy. There should be multiple counters to strategy a which then again can be countered by the player executing strategy b,c,d. It’s the same with rams. They should be effective against buildings but not be literally the only option to crack something significant down in feudal age. If the army is big enough and the defending player is not cautious it should still be possible to destroy buildings, maybe with some risky special ability that can be activated for a short time so that units are having their health reduced while fire rate on buildings increased.

I don’t like the ingame decision making as it gets very dull e.g. after one has built a ram for the 20th time. Meta switches and new civilisations are added but that imo does not fix the issue of having too less strategic options ingame.

Im not gonna toggle idea of keeps being OP or favoring someone, but what im gonna say is that trebs should be deleted.

What you’re suggesting will move game more into passive push style shit which game is already is. Trebs being cheaper means ppl just spam trebs and build defensive buildings and stack their army on top of trebs to protect them from cavalry and springs cant touch them because 10 tiles vs 16 tiles. So in essence just creep forward every few minutes while spamming trebs and this style already exists and is dull and boring af and with your suggestion it would make it even more advisable.

Also even if keep and trebs were at same price the defending played would just make their own trebs and snipe your trebs or if you got no keep protecting treb they would just go springs etc it creates many scenarios where trebs would be more used and would slow game.

I literally never seen playstyle you describe outside of english.

You don’t deal with trebs with trebs, like ever.
This is because if want to fight with trebs against enemy that is sieging down your castle with trebs, you have to position your trebs in front of(or to the side) your keeps at where keeps can’t protect your trebs from enemy springalds. The reason why english does that is because they get so many and powerful trebs they can fight against mass springalds.

So I don’t think the change would cause a treb+keep warfare.

1 Like

Trebs got 16 tile range and castle age springalds got 10 tile range. So you can safely keep trebs behind the keep/outposts and let them do their thing.

You’ll have to do more than that thats what I pointed out.

when killing buildings close to your keeps, yes; not when trying destroy enemy trebs that are siegeing down your keep.

There was excellent example of how keep treb shit is going on from beastyqt’s match. It was some weird map.

First game. While its english its still just castle age trebs. So in essence this is how many games look like just build shit around treb to keep it protected and if opponent tries something u can just too easily kill their springs. While beasty counters them with springs it can be just done with couple of horsemen forcing them back while treb doesn’t die

And this isn’t even the worst type of situation. Plenty of times there is multiple keeps front of treb and u cant really do anything. Especially common in ladder

Even second game where HRE is taking down the BBQ. Treb is completely safe inside the base and untouchable

I agree, im also a fan if there are multiple ways to deal with something …
I suggested this idea

I agree, im also not a fan of the trebuchets wars myself, but they will not get removed. Personally i would be happy without them.
The question is, does it make things worst or better overall, considering the status quo.
It would result overall in less keeps and faster take down of keeps, since trebs would be easier to afford and therefore, the stationary fight should be shorten overall.

I would love to see me fighting again under the keep and dive it with rams.

Yeh i also watched it, sooo entertaining :sleepy: . But again, would it make things worst? Both sides have a better chance to take down the defensive structures and then fight again with an army, not with siege.
Would it remove games like that to happen? No, but is making trebs twice as expensive to exaggerate it, the situation any better?

Well keeps cost stone which is more scarce and more valuable than gold and wood, so I don’t think a one to one comparison of the resources says much.

Reason why I avoid siege at all cost. I do NoB’s here and there and sometimes Trebs but I generally just favor ignoring unresponsive slow moving snails than using them. Especially now that my civ has one of the worst siege in game.

Won’t remove the walls or anything. Also if opponent starts spamming outposts, keeps, walls and keep trebs behind it you’re just running your units to meatgrinder. Once keep is down or outpost there is 3 new to pop up.

I actually would favor removing all the walls and keeps together. Would remove these annoying meatgrinder deadlock situations. They’re just dull and boring to play against and all is because the siege was overnerffed to ground.

I have faced some annoying comps like french mongol trade boom on mountain pass and all they wanted was wonder victory and all they did was boom shit out of everything and stonewalls everywhere.

Lowering the price would result either easier time or more of it and im more leaning towards more of this shit.

You are right, but there is a relationship between these two and the question remains.
Would it improve the flow of the game or harm it?

I see there more benefits to it.

You are right that a keep with siege behind it, is a pain in the ass.
Just trebs on an open field are not that much of an deal. If u cant deal with them, u are anyway far behind.

So if you opponent can afford a keep drop and build trebs to apply pressure, he was already ahead.
Trebs alone, are not an big issue. The problem is, when they get combined with walls and keeps.

By making keeps more expensive, u will see less keeps. The bigger build time also helps if u have ur own trebs to deal with the keep, you have a bigger time window to do dmg while keeps are building.

In return trebs should then also be slightly nerfed in their overall performance, so they do less damage on units and everything else. So u cant snipe trebs with trebs and grant a big benefit of sniping something else then buildings