Most 1 vs 1 RM games (especially in arabia) have become a kind of hideout, the walling has become part of every build order. This wouldn’t be a problem if at least walling slowed down the player’s evolution in the game, be it to get to place an archery, a stable, or even go up to the castle age. This dynamic has evolved to the extent that right now walling is the best strategy for the feudal age as it does not significantly delay in the strategy. In my opinion, I think a solution would be to raise the price of the palisade to 5 wood or raise the price to 3 and increase the building time or some kind of balancing. I would like to know opinions on this.
Umm… no. Just no. Walls have already got a ton of nerfs over the past years. If full walling is a problem you often run into, you have several options
→ pre-mill drush, very unlikely that your opponent will be full walled before a pre-mill drush arrives
→ towers, prevents villager repairs, so you can advance your push
→ more proactive scouting, sometimes you can just find the exposed vills that’s walling, harrass it long enough with your scout and walk in with your army
Walls have been nerfed many times since DE came out, you should try being aggresive as ReanuKeeves00 pointed out
Thank you for your comment and for the explanation. No pun intended, but you didn’t need to explain how to play something that I play 80% of my games in 1700/1800 1 vs 1. The bottom line is that a pre-mill drush, drush, towers or any kind of aggression in dark age or feudal almost always ends up being a much bigger investment than it is for the opponent to place walls and respond to that aggression.
It depends if you’re able to push your opponent off some resources or not… and also I suppose, whether you succeed in preventing further walls or not.
As a sidenote, I think that a lot of people overestimate how strong walls are and attribute problems/losses stemming from elsewhere to walls.
I was trolling a bit, I actually agree with you PabloZGZ. But I think that maybe the answer is not so much the palisade cost or building time but the map generation. I believe that Arabia now is too easy to wall
Maybe it depends on the ELO range, as a 17xx 1v1 I find walls too easy to pull off.
You do realize people will just start stone walling instead right?
The build order for stone walls is basically consume 200 stone on your most vulnerable wall segments. Palisade wall the stuff that’s hard for the enemy to reach without overextending. When you click up to castle age, mine stone during the age up if desired.
Because the stone is free until you resupply the stockpile by mining you can do the same as you would with palisade walling. Scouts, archers, fc, whatever. Right now they’re about even in cost until you mine back the stone. If the cost of palisades goes up stone walling will actually be the cheaper in feudal, maybe cheaper overall depending on how high you make the cost.
It’s honestly a miracle civs like Mayans, Incas, Spanish, and Koreans dont stone wall already given the various bonuses they have. But maybe I should keep my mouth shut before the meta gets even more wall heavy.
First of all, thank you for responding. As I said, I fully understand the goal of aggression and the dynamics of dark age, feudal and general gameplay. I don’t know what level you play at, but in 17xx/18xx most people have already realised that preemptive walling is the meta and games have become a constant of playing defensively and approaching aggressions as a way to “buy time”, mislead the opponent or cause token damage to gain, at most, a 5% advantage over the opponent. The choice of walling in, either short or long, without there being a need for it, is the main strategy in 90% of games, often since the dark ages. But walling in itself is not the problem, the problem is that it is practically free, when it should be a choice that is more decisive in the development of the game.
stone walling is bad, really bad.
Easy strat: FC into 3 TC boom into FImp into castle drop + trebs
Kills stone wallers almost every time (unless you are bad in booming).
Maybe if a player is dumb enough to try to turn Arabia into arena with stone walls.
But any competent player would just build the stone walls but otherwise play exactly the same.
You can’t play the exact same though by building the stone walls you have destroyed your eco progression and are behind and your opponent has all the options : apply pressure and break through anyway
sit back and safely boom while ahead knowing that he is so ahead that he doesn’t need to make army for the early part of boom.
Even then, multiple layers of palisades is usually more effective.
But ocf there are some sits where stone walling behind can be benefitial, like a all-in maa+archer rush and you try to get a tech advantage by getting a faster uptime.
But that’s how the gameplay works. Stonewalls are supposed to hold off that type of agression for the time being.
Do you know the cost of building a stone wall using starting stone? 10 villager seconds. Do you know the cost of building palisades + wood cost? 12.5 villager seconds.
And this thread is explicitly about increasing that 12.5 villager seconds to something higher.
I literally listed out the build order that would postpone any eco damage until after clicking up to castle age.
If you have a boomy civ you can just boom away if you have other civs castle drop petards and UU. Imp and castle drop trebs is crazy Vs this strat as the guy above suggested as their base normally so clumped up you can hit a lot with trebs. If their base isn’t compact they are even further behind from monstrous amounts if wall. And they are so behind they won’t compete for a treb war. Beyond a certain Elo if opponent stone walls in the early to mid game its just a free win handed to you. Unless maybe if your Mayans in certain spots
It has been many years since I have seen anyone building stone walls in feudal and very rarely in castles. But I’m glad you commented, you gave a very good example of a kind of decision that determines the development of the game. Something similar to what I propose should happen with palisades.
I agree. Palisades should cost more. No problem with incressing their HP but early walling should impacts more in Eco.
I think stones walls shouldn’t be a feudal building, it has no sense and alreafy is impractical
This game is much more about not losing instead of winning. As result everyone is full walling its based. As result the game is becoming much more passive. I like big feudal wars, but they got mostly extinct. Any change that is promoting more open and aggressive play is welcome in my opinion. Even further walling is great. How the nerf is done, doesnt really matter. It can be done different ways:
- Increase price
- Increase building time
- Decrease armor
- Decrease HP
1 and 2 will hit your eco the most. 3 and 4 will make walls weaker and as result are more easily destroyed by feudal pressure. It is up to the devs which of these options they pick. I would advice the devs to not nerf them too hard. Just nerf them step by step.
One reason i like the EW queue that is coming, is that is will make sure feudal pressure is possible. So i hope we dont get maps that are still easily wallable.
Please stop complaining about walls.
How about 60 seconds per tile of the wall. Perhaps 30 seconds if too extreme. Of both stone and wood. Therefore walls are totally useless. Problem solved. Enjoy scout rushing and ending the game in 15 mins. No cost changes needed, just takes ages to place down a single tile of the wall.
I still don’t get why arabia is so popular.
If everyone walls in dark age why not playing arena instead?