Should more civilizations lose walls?

So, cumans and goths don’t get walls. But, with the removal of the ability to make walls, you open up ALOT of possibilities for making civilizations more asymmetric.

So, here are some examples of civilizations that could lose walls, but with some tweaking could do really well!

  1. Mongols. They have a tech called nomads that they get in the imperial age that prevents their lost houses from reducing population headroom. If nomads became a civilization passive, then they could build a row of houses, and then put a palisade wall on the far side. This acts perfectly against a light rush.

  2. Huns. They were nomads, and they already don’t need to build houses. If villagers could garrison Hun barracks, stables, and archery ranges (and fire out of them) then huns could lose stone walls.

  3. Vikings. WHY DO VIKINGS HAVE WALLS. Or for that matter, architecture and masonry? Or the cannon galleon? And their monks don’t get sanctity, which means no extra hitpoints. On one hand, sanctity is something vikings did not have for sure (blood thirsty fellows). On the other hand they were hardy burly fellows who deserve to have lots of extra hp on their monks. But I digress. Vikings really could lose walls, and have their palisades buffed with a unique tech. Also… if viking longboats could act as transports… ugh… so good.

On to unique techs!
Civ bonus: Palisades have +50 extra hp and +1 armor each age, starting in the dark age.
Civ unique tech: Palisade walls are made from living trees woven together. Palisade walls heal over time.
Civ unique tech: Your palisade walls now deal 3 damage per strike to melee attackers due to iron spikes being embedded in them.
Civ unique tech: You unlocked fortified palisade walls. Palisade walls have +50% hp, and 5/5 extra armor

Pick your poison, mix and match. The important thing is that this allows the civs to be less symmetrical on something that really ought to not be controversial. Walls. Just walls :frowning:

1 Like

There is no need to do such drastic changes. This is Aoe2 and not Aoe3 where native americans wouldn’t get any siege. Huns are already the civ that research less techs (75) in the game.

The Vikings have walls for good reason, they also represent the Kingdom of Denmark, which was historically a formidable power. The Eastern Roman Empire recruited the Vangarian Guard from their best, to give you a subtle hint how renowned their fighting capabilities were, and yes they had walls.

1 Like

It just seems that this is another ‘it’s not historical’-argument for removing walls from certain civilizations, while it is usually better to look at these sorts of things as matters of game-balancing. Goths, for example, do not get walls because it would make it too easy for them to boom greedily and get to their spam (‘too easy’ here not meaning ‘a cakewalk’).

To remove walls from Vikings would be disastrous for an archer civ that already lacks mobility due to having very poor cavalry. This would make it too easy to simply avoid the main deathball of archers and raid the viking player to death, and there is nothing they can do about it. I think this is the same with Mongols.
For Huns, the fact they do not have to build house also means they can’t house-wall; taking stone walls from them would mean they would have poorer defensive options than the Goths do (since the latter can wall with houses). I know the Huns are a more aggressive Civilization, but this is taking away the option of being defensive at all.

I think game balance-wise, there aren’t that many Civs that we should take walls away from. Besides, not having stone-walls is a death-sentence when playing against a meso-civ going EEW in Imp, which is already so deadly.


Removing stone walls from the Mongols would be an intriguing exercise, as they are already castle dependent. There are many formats of gameplay where this would be disadvantageous to all involved, and I play some of those formats to blow off steam so I can vouch for the extra effort that Goths players force on a team within said settings. The Mongols were historically exceptional at applying the strengths of those they conquered, such as Chinese hand cannoneers, so I do not see why a stone wall would make for an exception. It is true that they do not get hand cannoneers in the game, but it would not suit their build.

Does it matter ? It has been ages since I’ve constructed a stone wall .

In some team games, people will use stone walls to cover their trade routes, to give one example.

1 Like

I guess you’re right, I could see it being interesting for Mongols since they do have mobile units.

1 Like

A. Nope


Tbh people just don’t do it enough. Sometimes I just lose to hussar spam or cav archers in late game because I’m open from everywhere. I should have used one or two vills to start walling once I reached imp.