Tower rush should be nurfed as this way

Please no. This would completely defeat the possibility of TC dropping. I hate the strat too but don’t want it to be destroyed.

Whilst I don’t like plain tower rushes, nerfing them even more might make walling and boom even more viable. I don’t mind a nerf if need be, but tower rushes are THE thing to do if your opponent has an easy-to-wall base and he just booms and you don’t (and can’t)…

1 Like

and exactly THIS is the point most people before you missed. If you nerf towers even more or even put it after another military building, drush fc incl. walling will just be op. Just watch higher levels, you rarely see drush fc any more in the current meta since people know how to punish it. On the other hand, having a decent enough map on 1500~1600 Voobly, drush FC basically punishes opponents most of the time since people are scared of coming forward. This even works perfectly for flank play in TG, opponent might have a mil archers, but will be in feudal forever.
Sorry guys, but decent players mostly know how to defend Tower Rush more than drush FC. Saying “you only loose to a tower rush if youre making mistakes” (-theviper) is imho waaaaaaaaaaaay more true than “tower rushes are OP”…

Hmm I don’t know if I buy this, if someone walls themselves off they are essentially relinquishing map control. And you can still harass someone from behind walls with ranged units. The current Tower Rush strat is not just OP but just has a cheesy and cheap vibe to it tbh because the investment to return ratio just seems way unbalanced. You essentially send a couple of vils and can deny resources to your opponent and do a fair amount of damage without investing into military, it just seems kinda wrong. Obviously the devs also recognise this to some extent which is why they are trying to come up with ways of nerfing it.

On another note I think one thing that has always been a double edged sword in age of Empires was the ability to freely build wherever you want, a lot of other RTS games don’t allow you to freely build wherever you want. And while I do like the flexibility of AOE and its overall design (its still by far my favourite game of all time) I wish certain things would be slightly different about it. I think the BEST way to address issues related to cheesy strats with tower drops and castle drops is restricting where military buildings can be placed. I think your TC should create a “zone of influence” around it that would allow you to be build military buildings within that zone. I think this zone should be fairly large but it shouldn’t extend to literally the edge of your opponents base at the start of the game.

alright, how long does it take to get archers out? And i don’t mean 2, i mean at least 4. You’d have to go to feudal at 23 vils roughly (at least according to viper), which gives you roughly 5 (+/- 2 vils) vils faster feudal than your drush fc opponent (its common to go up around 30 pop). So… You wanna tell me that within 5 vils (5x 25 secs = 1min 25 secs), you build 1 or even 2 archers ranges and maybe even get fletching PLUS train 4 archers? the point of going forward with towers when facing drush fc after all is to punish that your opponent is not in feudal and does not have many resources outside the castle age upgrade. This is made ad absurdum with ranged units since it takes too long to train and until you’re harassing your opponent from outside the wall, he/she is in feudal and will just simply…tower up to defend (and it’s at least very common not to drush fc without a barracks :D). So IMHO, this “need military building for tower” destroys the most viable counter strategy for drush fc.

"You essentially send a couple of vils and can deny resources to your opponent and do a fair amount of damage without investing into military, it just seems kinda wrong. "
Sorry man, you might not invest military, but villager time. And I am pretty sure there is a reason why so many pro players don’t go for towers without military: It’s too risky loosing 3-5 vils after all (if you go straight for towers and lose those vils, you might as well call gg straight away if your opponent is on a similar level since e.g. 4/20 vils is 20% of your eco…

1 Like

And More Wood less stone
To block economic booming!!

If you do this, then towers will be easier since stone is the hardest ressource to get (some villagers you had to put on stone will now be on wood, wich is gathered faster) and you will free up stone for TCs, so it would be a buff to towers

I feel like towers should be at least as much commitment as going archers or scout. And that commitment goes both ways.

If we put Towers behind a tech, the same way we did with bombard towers, that might work. Make it a Town Center Tech to slow down villager production. Then, you tech into it. You can make it a bit cheap, like 50 gold.

That would slow down towers for both defense and attack, making dropping a tower more of a commitment, and also making it a bit harder to counter, so the player on defense would need to tech into it first themselves.

On the other hand, if the player walking didn’t tech into it, they would have more villagers available, so would have a better eco.

Yea but why do you need to punish the FC player in the manner you describe? Why not boom upon realising they are going FC and try to take control of the rest of the map. After all if they have invested in stone mining and building walls and you haven’t you should already be having a better eco so you can leverage that to your advantage. This idea that people who put up walls need to be crushed in the Feudal age and wiped off the map otherwise they win is what I am not buying.