In the other, hand, there are players who want defence the base only with walls without training any unit until Castle
2 Likes
yeah, you can’t complain about a headache if you bang with it against a wall.
But it would actually be much smarter and also healthier to go the easier way, find another angle, another strategy, get siege. I mean therefore siege is in the game, to break open bases.
If you don’t like to use it, ok. But don’t complain if you then are stopped by the structures which are supposed to hold of a simple raiding party. It’s that easy. You could have checked before hand if the enemy is walled and got the tech advantage, setting up for a siege push, just get map control or whatever.
Don’t blame the game for your own flaws in decision making.
Yeah it’s the other extreme. But these people usually don’t get mad if they are raided to death. Whilst the other way around - players who just want an all in “i kill you noob” get often very upset if they bang with their heads against walls. Not seeing that it’s actually their own fault.
The alternative is to just mass archers or prepare for the knight transition, because since walls > counter units, the enemy won’t invest in counter units to counter you , and thus you don’t need to react. Then again, not the best gameplay.
Palissades and houses are dark age buildings, siege weapons are castle age units. I have no problem with stone walls because they do what they are supposed to do but they also are a significant investment, and that’s why it’s OK that you need to age up and buy expensive units to break them. But palissades and houses just shouldn’t outclass them in 99% of situations.
Houses aren’t even supposed to do that. They are here just for housing space. Foundations also should’t be that resilient. If those two were weaker then palissades would be manageable even if unnerfed, really.
If I was this dense I would just one trick Saracen, or take the wins I get from people who try to wall imperial age armies with houses lol
I see plenty people complaining that the game is too fast or that the meta is too agressive or that imperial age never happens.
1 Like
At no point did I ever talk about early walling in 2k games.
You keep giving lessons on how to play and explaining things that no one has asked you to.
At no time have I ever complained about one strategy or another. You keep making things up.
Can you specify at what point I complained about counter-strategies? You keep teaching me how to play and you still haven’t even deigned to post the account you play on.
No one is talking about removing wooden palisades from the game. You keep making things up.
I still don’t understand why you deduce that I crash into walls or that I don’t know how to play and you have to explain to me what age of empires is all about. Even less do I understand why you assume that I play meta if you haven’t even seen one of my games. I understand that you are saying the first thing that comes to your mind and that you may not even play aoe. Since you are so eager to explain to me how to play, download my games and at least tell me about specific situations I’ll be happy to hear you talk sense for once. My profile.
I’m still waiting for you to share yours so I can understand a little better what knowledge of the game you are talking about.
3 Likes
If you want to increase the wall cost, then you should buff the building time.
1 Like
I didn’t say he is a noob, not clear to me where you got that from… I said that he hit a ceiling at his current skillset. Not the same thing. One can hit a ceiling at any elo. Be it at 1000 or 2000.
1 Like
One can hit a ceiling at any elo but also one can make wrong assumptions at any elo as well.
On your first post you “taught” me how to counter a walling oponent with a few options that anyone above 16xx 1v1 already knows. Having reached 18xx, I’m sure I know the basics on how to play this game.
The aim of the post is not to discredit the use of palisades, on the contrary, to create a reasoned discussion about the nonsense of the current use and how to make their use suppose an expense of resources according to the rest of strategies, to make them to be used wisely and not as an automatic dynamic as it can be to make houses if you are housed.
2 Likes
In my experience, posts like that usually come when a player hits a skill ceiling. Walling just inherently makes sense, it’s just the simplest most logical way to buy yourself a bit of time pre-emptively. If you were to somehow make walling unviable, you’d be looking at changing this game fundamentally, to the core. I don’t really want to continue discussing your elo here. Well done on reaching 18xx. It seems that the players are now giving you a bit more trouble with early aggression that you’re used to. Happens. Things will only get harder from this point, trust me 
As for my initial advices, those were made with good intent, not to make you seem like a bad player. It’s just that adapting to a new strategy, changing things up will be easier than trying to change the entire game 
5 Likes
Yeah, thing is that we all know how fast a single raid can end a game.
Raiding is actually the best and easiest way to get a win. It also doesn’t take a lot of skill, you just need to find a way into the eco and then move around, try to get picks and idle time.
Actually because vills are so hard to replace, especially in the early game, raiding is somewhat OP. I think by far the most games I play are actually decided by a raid.
It’s somewhat ironical that people try to nerf the counter strat: palisades around your base, so you have a time buffer! Because actually not the walls are OP but the strat they are supposed to counter is OP.
And for my personal experience in the last months I must state that even though I try to wall off the raids too many of my games are actually decided by them. The game has so much depth, but most of the time you lose or win it because you just got a lucky raid in or you are raided yourself in a brief moment of inattention. That’s sometimes really annoying especially if you played flawless for like 40 minutes before, you set up a big pushing force and slowly chew through the enemy base- and then you see a mass of 50 hussars running through a single hole in your wall and raid you to death…
And then you read topics like this where player want their cheap one-trick pony raiding buffed by nerfing walls. The counter strat which is already nerfed to the ground. Walling in dark age is basically death in castle, stone wall in feudal means death in imp. It’s that easy.
How can that be OP, if performing it “too early” means basically insta lose against an experienced player?
And why we have this stupid “nerf walls” threads every few months after they already have been nerfed to ground? I mean they nerfed it so far, that you can’t basically be fully walled against scrush civs before the first scouts arrive. If you would begin walling that earlier, you would damage your eco even more than losing 1-2 walling vills. And your rush would be so much delayed that it would basically do no damage at all. So in current state of the “OP” walls you are actually forced to let the first wave of raiding in to NOT lose the game immediately by your build.
It’s totally weird to call walls OP if they are in that state, cause basically any other tech advantage you want to perform asap. Only walls you can’t.
Have you ever heard people saying: “After hitting castle you should wait with your xbow upgrade! It’s damaging your eco too much! Wait until you have 80 vills!”
And this is the current state of the “OP” walls.
1 Like
A palisade takes 7 seconds to build, which seems to me a more than reasonable time for the period a palisade is needed.Perhaps the construction time could be decreased by a second or half a second. I have not thought about it in depth.
I think increasing its price from 2 to 5 is what would really make its use require a better consideration of how, when and why to use palisades; the use of the palisade would make sense in the game. Completely walling the perimeter of the base costs about 60 wood when it should cost at least 120 to at least resemble the investment cost of a military building.
3 Likes
60… That is just the resource cost. Factor in all the walking time it takes as well as the construction time compared to the military building, and then you get the true cost of the walls. Now also factor in that the earlier you build something ‘non-essential’ the higher its hidden cost is, since any early disadvantage in eco has greater benefits to your enemy. So it’s pretty fair actually.
2 Likes
I feel like walls are now in a good spot. maybe like people have suggested before we could have less of a repair rate and or changes to how fast of a fuedal fighting window there is.
Feels like most games i play in, whenever a player gets into the others base it’s so late that they can’t get much damage done before castle age comes in. I think walls should be tough to get through and delay attack but not to the point that fuedal attack feels so puny compared to the next age. I think if you nerf walls anymore than currently in either speed of build or direct cost of wood people will just adapt by playing even more aggro and not walling at all except for walling in specific resources as it will slow down castle age time too much and be too risky to wall. Probably people will then just do outposts and go up to castle age and then drop TCS as meta. There would be some issues arising from this.
If for you to manage two or three control groups with different types of armies in different areas of the map while going completely limited in resources and having to maintain the production of villagers, army production, houses, etc. does not require skill I would seriously like to see your stats and even more your games because they must be more interesting than those of viper, hera, tatoh, etc.
Welcome to age of empires II random match 1 vs 1. This is not farm simulator.
You and I play different games. Any of the changes I’m suggesting you won’t even notice them because you don’t even understand what I’m talking about, you’re only able to distinguish “nerf palisades” without understanding the reason, the form and the content of the suggestion. If you want to play eco for 40 minutes I recommend you playing lobby browser “Arabia no rush min 50”.
4 Likes
If you take this “60” from SOTL video then you are wrong, his video was even before the walls nerf, which means the calculations now are way different.
It’s just taken from the fact that walling does affect your eco, and if you do it too early, you can easily give your opponent a permanent advantage.
Or more that people have seen a lot of similar threads from newly reached 1700’s and it’s getting old 
also, a pallisade costing 5 is insanely expensive for what it would actually provide lol, its not even funny
actually… That’s a great idea… What about military units can build outposts?
This would help get sight and give time to react to a possible raid.
Atm it’s risky and vill time consuming too much to get outposts early - all the walking time and the risk being caught by the opponent is way too high (also wild animals can be dangerous sometimes).
WIth military units building outpost you get rewarded for taking map control and moving out by having more information about possible incomming raids - the thing you fear the most when moving out.
It would be a great solution in emphatising a more active gameplay without damaging the depth of the game.
1 Like
The problem is the walling in with palisades from the 5th to the 13th minute, when wood is a required resource for one strategy or the other. Let’s use this assumption:
For example in the case of a pre-mill drush+fc defence, minute 8 of game, I usually identify it before with the scout, but if I haven’t, I simply see that my opponent is in dark age and has 150 points more than me, I know he comes pre-mill drush I quickwall the resources in short or I make a palisade from the resources towards the tc forming a micro perimeter, and his drush doesn’t manage to kill villagers or get enough idle time, but I have placed 10-20 walls, in short I have spent 20-40 wood. My opponent has early invested 175 wood in the barracks, 180 food + 60 gold, rejected with only an early investment of 20-40 wood. The moment I see the score difference, I can decide whether to keep doing a 20 or 21 or 22 pop up (or even do a 24 up with archery by creating 8 archers and going to castle age on 17: 30-18) and place an archery and train an archer , and maybe, a skirmisher, but in addition I also have the possibility to place farms or a hidden stable and train scout to, together with the initial one, hunt the villagers that of the opponent who are walling, kill the archers that are heading towards my base, etc.
(this is a summarized example of a fairly common real scenario, I have left out multiple factors that trigger other possible scenarios, I don’t want to have to explain 1000 lines dealing with possible variations like if the initial scout dies, if the premill kills a villager, if the opponent leaves the fc and transitions to a m@a+archers, forward villagers, fakes drush+fc, civilization bonus variations, early civs vs late civs, other early info gathering with the scout, etc.).
Based on this assumption, if the price of palisades increases from 2 to 5, instead of investing 20-40 wood, it will be 50-100 which will make my ability to respond, the decision I have to make, require more knowledge of what the opponent is doing, or what he could do, and be clear about what I am going to do, but also that of my opponent, who in the case of playing a drush+fc strategy, will see his transition to castles delayed by the amount of walls he will have to place.
What happens with this, and what real repercussions can it have on the game?
(In a game in the period between the 5th and 15th minute)
1. Minimally increase options in the feudal age. Building wooden palisades delays the placement of farms, and increases the time it takes for a drush+fc or fc strategy to complete. This would cause that, if normally, in 90% of the cases a player going drush+fc does not transition to actively building armies to repel aggressions in feudal age, and if he has to do so, he can do it prioritizing going up to castle age before and then producing armies (archers or skirmishers while going up to castles). In the scenario I propose the option to prioritise army vs. going directly up to castles happens to have a probability of effectiveness of (40% army - 60% fc), in this case, making it more viable for the drush+fc player to somehow transition to army production and respond more actively to a feudal threat.
2. Passive defence with towers or small groups of defensive units (skirmish) or even going straight to fc still makes sense and is still very viable.
3. There is the possibility of increasing army production in feudal and the door is opened to combine units (archers+skirmishers, m@a+archers+sc, etc). The player defending against drush+fc maintains the ability to respond and has a more realistic chance of forcing the opponent to respond in feudal age, upgrades and feudal armies would become more valuable in the game.
4. The possible strategies to play in feudal are expanded. Early map reading opens the door to directing more elaborate offensives. By favouring knowledge of the opponent’s map, it makes it easier to opt for a more elaborate offensive.
5. Strategies with towers. By increasing the possibility of delaying the going up to castle age and creating army in feudal. Towers can be viable for breaking through walled areas or for denying resources and controlling areas of the map, etc.
6 Likes