Suggestion on Walls

Yes, variety is important.

Perhaps we should promote more that you can end games in the second age with a rush all in or a timing, or perhaps by variety you mean promoting a slow and static playstyle that benefits players who play like this?


Walls used to be too strong and nowadays they’re still good. You can just see how often they are still used, both on ladders and in tournies.

You can’t compare walls in aoe3 and in other RTS games. Aoe3 has a lot of civs which are very unique, and walls can cause further imbalance between those civs:

  • The early eco options are very imbalanced, which means you may be forced to be aggressive if they wall up, otherwise you get outboomed. But sieging a wall while your units are just getting shot is simply very expensive, and the amount of units you’ll lose in that time might just make your push useless once you finally break through.

  • Same goes for the ranged options. Some civs have access to mediocre ranged units in age 2 (e.g xbows) while others can get abus, skirms, leather cannons, yumis, longbows… Building a wall totally negates the effect of your melee units, or to some extent of musks, which allows the defender to go very heavy on their favourite ranged unit and just get great trades vs whatever is sieging. And if the attacker does get through, his hand cav is gonna be way less effective than on an open field because of pathing.

  • Same for late game. If you fail to punish the defender early, or even decide to simply ignore his walls and contain him, you often reach a stage in the game where their civ is simply better. There are civs which you’re simply not going to beat if you let them get away with their plan.

  • Same for reliance on natural resources. Containing is way less effective if your opponent needs so few resources that he can sit in a corner of the map for 15 or sometimes 20 minutes. And this is aggravated by the DE maps which overall just have too many safe resources in base and thus favour this sort of gameplay.

  • Same for siege options. Some civs have terrible siege options in age 2, for instance they have to invest into pikes (useless besides sieging as it’s unlikely the defender will go heavy on cav), or possibly just don’t have a very good siege unit at all (think about russia or otto). If they get bastion it becomes even worse, some civs basically don’t have artillery.

  • Defenders advantage is massive in aoe3. TC fire and minutemen are very strong overall; snare means you can easily overcommit and get trapped when pushing; several civs age up with a tower; the batch training system also makes for big powerspikes (5 extra units suddenly popping for a strong timing to defend, while the attacker’s batch of unit has to cross the map); and so on. Now, do we really need stronger walls on top of all this?

On top of the sheer amount of safe resources, the standard map pool nowadays only has a few maps which realistically allow you to get a good enough middle map stagecoach to punish a turtle play (also TPs bring about 20% less resources than on legacy). It often can just be ignored until, again, 15-20 minutes in the game, which is more than enough time to push out after booming and/or scaling. So again, containing, which should be an obvious answer to turtling, usually just doesn’t cut it.

Also, you don’t even have to go for a full wall. A few wall segments can be very effective to cover your units and mess up with the hand cav’s pathing. Quick walls are also super strong; you can build a layer of wall very quickly to replace one which is being sieged, for just a tiny bit of wood, while your opponent is bleeding units. Or trap your opponent once he’s pushed in your base.
Even out on the map, these quick walls are usually super strong and can win you fights, e.g to protect 2 falcs.

Anyway, I’m not advocating for a wall nerf. I think they’re still very good, but it’s playable overall. The main issue is DE maps favouring turtle play so much, and the pathing issues (worse than on legacy). And obviously, all the imbalances DE has added to civs generally speaking, but that’s more of a global problem.

So don’t touch walls in age 2.
However, bastion being split into several upgrades is a good change. You shouldn’t have to siege 7500 hp walls before imperial; all your units are missing at least a 50% upgrade, while walls are at max HP already. Just give +2000 HP in each age, starting in age 3.

On a side note, I personally think it’s nicer to see players defending an aggression with skill (with good macro, timings, micro, e.g like Aiz does), than just watch someone try to shut down any push preemptively by just dropping walls for less than 100 wood.


It is not being taken away tho?? It is still in game and you can still age up to 5. Going imperial is exactly what making a wonder in aoe4 achieves. Which is winning with style. Not every game will go to age 5, but those that will be a cool way to finish a game.

What we don’t want is every game to go age5 or an easy way to do so. It should be an exclusive win condition in only a few % of game, like only a few % of games are won by wonder victory in aoe4.

Walls are not used in majority of the games because wood gather rate in Aoe3 is slow, and again, it takes very little effort to siege them down.

Walls are global, I don’t see how they are performing balance issues alone.

While I see your point, it’s not a back up to claim walls should be as weak as it is right now.

I don’t think all civs should end up with rushing or going early aggression to other, in fact, a hp change on walls wouldn’t warrant such change either. Can generally just go for semi-ff and beat the defender with veteran units, can also take map control soonere.

In late game, with recent x2 mortar buff, it’s even easier to deal with walls regardless of what they do, most civlisations in the game have decent options to compete in age 4.

Containing in DE is one of the rewarding strategy in fact, most of the maps have decent native posts and trading post option to take advantage of.

I don’t think essentially all games should end or have game endin decision in early age 2, can adapt into playing different ages and take advantage of opponent not having map control, like in the other Aoe games.

Defender advantage is definitely weaker than other games in Aoe3. Main town center isn’t as strong, you don’t even need to make rams to deal with buildings, outposts are way too expensive and easy to deal against, overall Aoe3 is one of the hardest game when it comes to defender advantage among with the all overwhelming nerfs such as CM change that didn’t correct the cost.

I see your points here, however it’s not making justified to have one of the weakest early game walls in Age 3, and map control is still a game deciding reward most of the games.

Completely disagree with the approach of not making any walls and not taking build of walls into skill metric, it’s more of a prejudice about walls that also keeps it weak as it is right now. It’s also important to take it into conisderation that wood gather rate in Aoe3 is way too slow that prevents build of walls in most of the cases.

I agree, though with Terran houses you can “wall” your base. But the suckess of SC2 is due how most matches are fast, along with a lot of lil things that make the game great.

I think Aoe 4 walls are good example of good walls, I ll return to this.

First, sorry I didnt read the whole thing. I agree with you @FoggierWizard41, walls are bad. They are cheap but fragile, stone walls are no different, however I found as some of you stated that some players in threaty for ex tend to “spam” walls making the game tedious and longer.

Pve speaking, I like to make “castle/fortress” like things but walls are crap, have low health no resistance and even infantry can destroy them. This as many of you probably know is an Aom heritage.

So back to the thoughts and suggestions:

  • a) Make ranked games only have wood walls, so people who spam them dont have extra hp but people that use them vs rushes can fend off.
  • b) Make walls like aoe 4 walls, wood walls stay as they are. Stone walls arent an upgrade but a new building, that uses x3 times the space wall do, so they cant be “spamed”, building cost increases too but they have resistances vs artillery.

Note: Why resistances?, well I think hp is abused in this game, pretty much anything that wants to last longer gets more hp, thats a no no for me.

1 Like

Don’t think it’s right approach to compare wonder to imperial age, one is an age up politician, other is a game winning condition like trade monopoly.

I don’t think a wall change would make it possible for every game to age 5, it’s easily possibly to contain and gain map control, also Aoe3 units train faster compared to any other game with the tempo from shipments so that it’s not that likely for all game to imperial, wasn’t the case with legacy walls either

Why not just revert Wall bonus from mortars?? Without touching the HP. Europeans were the best taking them down and they didnt need the buff

1 Like

Honestly a three step wall would be nice.

wall is strongest in aoe3. What are tou talking about. I am a long time aoe2 player and I also have 4k hours of aoe3. Aoe2 walls require stone, a limited and precious resource. It also need vills to construct tile by tile, it has to be repaired by a vill slowly, who could easily be sniped. Gate is open to all units, enemy can pass through as well if gate is open. Rams can destroy walls super quickly.

In aoe3, wall is only 5 wood, super super cheap and wood is an unlimited resource. It builds very fast especially if you delete pillars. 5 wood is for a whole section not a tile. So you can wall the whole base very easily. It can automatically repair itself without having to send a villager. It can be upgraded by many cards, and a gate can guarantee enemy units won’t come in without worrying about your own unit opening the gate.

You will never see stone wall being abused in any aoe2 game. It is just not possible. You wont see 20 layers of walls and every tile of the map is filled with walls like you see in aoe3 especially your game. It is not worth it to spend stone in that way. Stone is precious and it is better to build castle with it. While in aoe3 since it costs wood you abuse it and spam the whole map with walls without much sacrifice


As someone who was pretty damn good in aoe2, completely agree

Aoe2 walls have 4 balance parameters - 1 stone is finite and teching into stone limits unit production early. 2 infantry and cav both chew through weaker palisade, 3- have nerfed palisades through the years or forced open maps as turtling is very boring and awards the defender to much apm advantage before and forces FC to not be easy. 4- most complex but defending walls takes apm and eco. You have to repair and both players engage in mini battle of micro ranged units and vills, and defender trying to buy time as by early castle mangonels attacking can always stay out of range and crush walls fast. So in aoe2 walling is a trade off not viable for ever with lots of input from the players on both sides. Side note- gates allow enemies so no cute bullshit with back and forth vs hand infantry, this is personal taste i see it ok on aoe3 balance wise

Aoe3: 5w click and forget, with defenders advantage (skirms zone age2 pressure, culvs beat artillery thx to los advantage) with more apm on attacker side while costing trivial resources. Little skill to place 25w to zone off parts of the maps vs age2 civs who dont have easy access to long range artillery. This forces the game into a standstill in a manner deemed unacceptable by aoe2 community back in 2020. Its also, ugly as sin and has turned off many of my aoe2 freinds who see cheap walls backed by infinte eco and go “yeah thats not rts i like”

Ofc some do like walls but its not secret the majority of playerbase finds them unfun to push into 3 layers outside of treaty where you have plenty of res to throw. Ive advocated that walls should scale in cost (irl we dont wall everything for a reason) to make or to repair. Maybe bastion be its own set of walls seperate to force long term investment. No more pillar exploit to ensure breakthroughs are large and mitigate the pathing issues in aoe3. Just where i would start.

All balance has trade offs and this would need some looking at, but i can say for a fact from low to high elo the majority of players find the walling system unengaging, “lame” and often houserule less walls in friendly games to help the game be dynamic.


Then remain playing AoE 2?

It isn’t as if the other game stopped existing.

Walls in their current form are “fine”. Beyond the pillar nonsense and the fact that you can’t chose the type of wall you want to build.

However i disagree, fundamentally there are civs here that are NOT good at timing and or rushing and for them the wall is the making or breaking point.

Games don’t even go into Age 5 most of the time, and i personally think we are at a sweetspot

always the lamentation of people without good arguments is “well dont play it then” as they have nothing but their own opinions instead of anything analytical to add. If you like something thats fine but attempting to handwave others viewpoints as “go play other games” is just pointless to even respond tbh. Ive played aoe3 since legacy on and off fwiw
The majority of players in aoe3 dont like the wall system as is, and i explained it i thought pretty well why people dont enjoy the system outside of treaty. Are you suggesting walls dont give defenders advantage, that 5w for 1500 hp is a bad deal, that on more resources heavy DE maps walls have far greater value than their intended roles when designed?
What civ needs multiple layers to be viable atm? no one is harping on a layer or strategically walling vs raids. This is good rts mechanics. The majority of complaints come when someone continuously walls for trivial resources, forcing them game into a stalemate where all strategy is taken away and it becomes a “can my civ/deck brawl in age4 long term?” Is the health of a game best served as " lets not rewards apm, unit micro, to hell with any sort of punishment. its a 10 minute time out while both players boom without much interaction?
Because that is a very common occurrence in both 1v1 and teams these days, and from my observing many players of teams/1v1 i find the majority wish there would be more engagement and punishment for the multiple walling in a manner that rewards only the defender.


That is not true at all, all good treaty players I’ve have seen builds horse artillery and/or falconets. While it is true that Culiverns nail them very well you just build culvs of your own a beat theirs. Does get annoying having culv wars though. I always try build horse artillery on treaty and my brother builds them even more then me and we both always have good KD with our armies. And I am not a noob on treaty, I’ve played with people ranked pretty high and have won.

1 Like

This is the crux of the problem with walls. Good use of walls allows you to win culverin wars because of LoS


We had ample discussions on walls on the forum before they got nerfed. The nerfs did not drop out of nowhere.

i feel like italy getting nerfed is the cause of this thread.


for aoe2?
yeah there was a long time of discussion around the DE meta moving towards defensive play and ways to promote a bit of punishment for the “eternal wallers”
poor DauT’s mayas for a bit after tho XD

I think, noting your culv example, in aoe2 the mangonel wrecks buildings and there is no “culv” unit (i guess monks sort of work in this capacity for some civs) in age3 so until trebs and bombards (which also available to most civs), the attacker always can siege safely with careful placement and force the defender to react via walling further back conceding ground or taking a critical strike. this means turtling is cost effective to a point, and map control cant be sustained with walling for ever. It prevents the walling form always being optimal. i think as long as the things that kill walls is mostly too late in game, walls will be far advantageous in its current form in aoe3

I can agree , walls have been criminated by a popular amount of players that can’t either win on the late game or have trouble to execute their timings against walls. from my point of view walls are also a way to determine the skill gap and add on various strategies into the game.


I’d like both types as separate choices too. Bastion walls could be tougher (to infantry/cav) though should be still pretty vulnerable to artillery, so their perk over wood is that they only (just as) weak versus artillery whilst Palisades are weak all round and are just good for quick defence.

no, for aoe3 DE. The meta was ridiculously biased towards wall spams in supremacy at some point. Everyone was layering walls. Very easy to shut down any agression. Some civs were essentially worthless in late game lol.

1 Like