I propose this change to utilize the use of siege towers and to buff defensive/booming gameplay. This will make placement of walls to be more strategic.
4 Likes
because defense players dont have enough advantages at the moment? lol
Advantage? Keep is nerf, if i’m pushing i have the time for making a good eco
so at the current meta the aggressor has an advantage, is that what you want to say? 
If you know how to play, of course
maybe against someone who doesnt know how to defend 
just a few examples
- faster reinforce
- TC fire
- harass reinforce units
but yea, of course the attacker has big advantages
Can we stop this wild crusade about “defensive players”?
Age of Empires has always weaved both defensive and aggressive plays to craft strategically engaging gameplay. It does not come down to who rushes and who doesn’t; those are typically cheese strats, and fully utilizing defensive buildings is CORE to the FULL AoE experience.
The more you people try to strip defensive structures and units of any value, the less depth this game will have. And depth is already something it struggles with.
2 Likes
In fact, that’s what this guy who created the post tries to explain, having walls like that would increase the depth of the game, and would give a purpose to sige towers.
People don’t understand that AOE is not Starcraft and just want offensive strategies, but this is a medieval game, which shouldn’t just be pinned on APM.
And I would like to say that I’m not saying it for myself, my APM are around 200 and up and I definitely have no problems from this point of view, but I’m talking for all types of players, we are eliminating the possible strategies
1 Like
the game is becoming only cavalry, I love the game and I continue to play, but we should have in mind an idea of what we are playing
Pretty much.
As simple as AoE2 was in many ways, their mechanics held more significant depth than AoE4, making battles more meaningfully engaging. Houses and structures doubled as walls, giving meaning to their placement besides just farms or influence bonuses. Height of terrain gave damage bonuses, which allowed players to utilize terrain to their advantage, even securing it and planning ahead. Trees could be destroyed by certain Siege units, giving the units more use as well as creating a strategy involving trees. Towers dealt damage without emplacements, allowing them to be used more actively aggressively–while this is possible in AoE4, it requires more foresight to utilize Outposts in that way, due to set 30 second upgrades for Placements and Stone upgrade. As a result, this makes players perceive them mostly as defensive structures, halving its potential and thus avoiding depth.
All of the things I mentioned above play into the battlefield itself, making the terrain and structures you put on it far more significant strategically. Currently, there is far too much of a focus on the rock-paper-scissor gameplay alone, making the game feel less strategic and more centered around economical booming and the spamming of counter units. The only other half is to all in through aggression, utilizing the same counter units. So is barely any variety in gameplay strategies.
3 Likes
On demand los blockers are a balance nightmare. Siege towers can be made more useful but simply giving them direct buffs.
Why dont these defensive strategy haters just quit aoe4 and instead play other rts games that dont have wall feature just like starcraft.
Imagine playing a medieval game and the walls and keeps are just for aesthetics.
Turtling/defensive play is a thing since the dawn of rts games.
3 Likes
Exactly. The hard attacks on Keeps currently are flabbergasting, because the developers are listening to them. They came from SC2 and want the game to go in that direction; but the people who bought this game for what Age of Empires stands for obviously wants Keeps and Towers and building to be a significant part of the game.
I cannot comprehend how this lack of communication with actual players is a thing. It is already understood that they have backchannels with the professional players alone, so this entire situation is straight #######
3 Likes
yea of course, a wall costs how much? and now tell me how much it costs for the attacker…
do the math please, you wanna boom or buy a nice city, play anno or sim city
You could quit also the game… lol what a stupid opinion
I m just fed up about 1 hour games, its painful to play and boring to watch thats all.
Of course attack always harder than defense, it’s basically like in reality. What the defense player gave away is map control. the issue with turtle strategy could be resolved by map design or not let players wall to the edges of the map.
If you want short game, just make no wall, no keeps rule. Whoever agree with that rule play with you.
1 Like
of course, you are one of these guys 30 mins no rush lol
if you talk about map design.
why are the holy sites and markets in corners? put them in the middle of the map, so it isnt literally in the base of the opponent and a holy site win is more possible.
also trading, you wanna trade? defend it at the middle of the map and not at the backbase …
but as I already said, the turtle fans get everything they want and are scared getting rushed.
There are so many counters to defensive players, play attrition strategy, raid their market, capture sacred sites. So many ways to play agaisnt it.
I don’t understand why this guy is crying over a simple strategy. It’s as simple as spearman counters horseman.
You don’t like the rules of aoe4? Then play starcraft lol, they’ll welcome you there with colors.
Imagine playing chess then complaining why horses move in L-direction, why bishops move in diagonal. Lol
1 Like
what kind of strategy are you talking about? show me the costs for the defender and for the attacker, I am sure you could count.
Suggested this idea 2 years ago and got like 20 likes… guess it wasnt popular enough.
1 Like