what i said was even on arabia the meta is to full wall with palisades or your buildings, so it is very turtle like even on the most open map. Unlike aoe3/aomr. The only maps where it is open and chaotic is nomad style
If you want fast brainless games that donât require any strategic adaptadion just play Empire Wars.
And donât lie about what the meta is. Walls come up at some point, but
a) itâs way later than you try to manipulatively try to imply
b) you canât get away with âjust wallingâ at least if the opponent has some minimal understanding of the current meta
The walls in this game arenât capable of really âdefendingâ. They just buy some time and can give some intel.
If someone is blatantly running Scouts and Knights into walls and losses because of that, itâs really his own fault. The tools are there, he just has to use them.
But donât demand changes from the devs because you are either not capable to understand that they are there or refuse to use them. Itâs your own fault. Donât try to reflect that on others.
2 Likes
Dude, just grow up and learn to discuss. Calling other playstyles brainless and accusing people to lie, not based on facts, but only because they have a different oppinion than you, is very childish behavior.
I didnât call anyone brainless. I said the mode is brainless.
This might be a bit exaggerated, but the reality is EW is so executional, there is literally no strategic decision to take until like 15 minutes in where most games are already decided.
You literally just lied about what I said.
And ofc I feel rightous in calling out people for lying. When people do it, itâs the right thing to do.
I find it quite ridiculous that you at the same time try to criminalize calling out lies whilst literally lying ad the same time. Shamed be hw who thinks evil of it.
And yes this Forum has quite a history of people trying to built up âalternative realitiesâ to push their agenda. It was already so before the last wall nerf. And the most remembered one was when they tried to tell the devs the Fairitale of the âused to be more openâ Arabia. And when it was proven wrong, trying to use their own categorization as Arabia as an âopen mapâ to argue it should become more open, because yeah⊠itâs an âopen mapâ.
So no, I will not hold back here when this is attempted once more. I will speak out and call out all the false statements done in the itention to shift the perception and reality of the state of the game.
And I find it way more Childish to try this kind of âdiscussionâ here. Cause there is nothing to discuss if one party is just blatantly lying. Donât try to accuse me of not âdiscussingâ with them. They chose to just put out lies, they didnât open a discussion. If you want to discuss something you have to bring up real Arguments, not made-up nonsense.
1 Like
walls (palisade + intentionally build a row of buildings) literally exist in EVERY aoe2 game, every single one, 1v1 or team. You still deny it is the meta?
people do not just happened to be making buildings in front, they are intentionally doing it, to block the base from enemy. Then the buildings and houses and palisade connect and wall up the base. If this is not meta why dont people randomly place buildings anywhere?
2 Likes
Walling is a small PART of the current meta. Thatâs what I said.
Why do you try to missrepresent me so badly? You only dig yourself deeper in with this attempted manipulative tactics.
The lies I referred to was stuff like:
Whch is just not working if the opponent does one of several adaptations to break in.
WHich is also btw why we didnât had any complaints about walls here for several years. Nobody is getting away anymore with âjust wallingâ.
Ofc we try to place our buildings in a way they give as much protection to our eco.
What do you expect? That we just let our eco die to any kind of attack from the opponent? And what would be the sense of such a game? A total raiding feast won by whoever gets out military the fastest?
Next time you complain about TCs and how they are unfairly protect the vills from your army?
Defending is also a skill and placing buildings and walls in away that makes it harder for the opponent to raid is a crucial part of that.
The current state is already that in most cases the attacker has a huge advantage - most of the games are already mirrored scout rushes where both parties try to outraid the opponent.
Which means that IF we should talk about the current meta it actually should be about scout rushes, not walls.
Yeah this is quite well spoken. There are a lot of different approaches to AOE2. Ofc there are the pure âexecutional playerâ (which atm have already the best state given the âhamstering metaâ).
For some reason itâs most often coming from them demanding changes in their favor even if the meta is already in their favor.
I feel itâs very important to point out, that there is no right to claim who should win games of aoe2 because of whatever âskillsâ you attribute to be decisive. Especially if you underimne or neglect other skills. Or at the same time whilst undermining them trying to attest them to have too much impact (as itâs attempted here with walling).
We are currently having a meta where itâs ânormalâ for civs like Bohemians to play Knights as opener in Castle Age.
Why donât we discuss that?
1 Like
iirc Wall has been nerfed, it is just that overall people have gotten better at the game
1 Like
I recall AoE4 having a tournament where the game was adjusted so that static defenses were either significantly more expensive or outright unavailable (I believe walls and keeps were in that category). As I recall, it resulted in games lasting longer because players were more reluctant to move out. One of the advantages of static defenses (like walls) is that if you attack and lose your army (or if they attack while youâre out of position), you have a little more time to prepare against the counterattack. AoE2 and AoE4 are different games, and castles/towers are probably enough by themselves to ensure that basic level of protection. But the point is, removing defensive buildings doesnât guarantee a shorter game.
Honestly though, I think AoE2 already has maps where walling is difficult/impractical. Maps like Land Madness (where every woodline is surrounded by a tile of unbuildable rock terrain). And then there are some water/hybrid maps where walling is less of a priority.
I think one of the biggest advantages of walls, is that it limits the mobility advantage of cavalry. Get rid of walls, and youâll see a lot more cavalry because one of the best ways to guard against cavalry raids is static defenses.
I often make infantry against walls, and they still suck. Rams and petards (and sometimes mangonels) are the only way to get into the opponentâs base in castle age. However, if the opponent prepared with mangos, youâre out of luck.
1 Like
I donât know the other games but in aoe 2 walling is important to prevent one fightâs outcome almost ending the game. While the percentage of games ending in feudal might increase, that might not be good for the game as players might lose interest. That being said, some minor changes to make the decision of investing into walls a bit more non-trivial could be interesting.
I agree with your points about other problematic things such as deer pushing, knights monk siege, non gunpowder uu seldom being used in open maps etc. But I wouldnât say walls go up only when its almost time for castle age. Except probably Hera, Viper, Daut level players everyone else walls much before clicking up to castle age. The wall might get completed around the time players click castle age but it starts well before and its also an equally important and repeated aspect of the game like the ones youâve mentioned. Maybe its not top priority but certainly not that less of an issue to be ignored. Some changes to walling might result in some of the other things getting fixed as well.
1 Like
At moment the decision is mostly taken by the availability of res (wood).
When you go up 18/19 pop there is just no wood to spare to get any walls down, so you have to do it later.
Ideally the idea is to first get at least 5-6 farms down before starting to wall, this allows a very fast castle age timing. Ofc you can start earlier, sometimes even later if you feel comfortable to send several vills out to rush the walls shortly before getting up to castle.
The âtrivialâ part of understandin why you want to get the walls down then is the concept of trying to safe as much res then for the castle age powerspike and the walls help defending against the late feudal pushes.
Which would actually be my biggest critique point on the current wall designs, that they often actually help snowballing early advantages to the faster timings rather than allowing âslower civsâ to get past the rough early game.
I would like to have that decision back, the option to wall early (once you clicked up to feudal or even shortly before) with probably sacrificing a bit of the feudal timing for it.
The question is ofc how would this be achievable? I think one idea could in theory be to make walls more expensive but also strengthen them a bit Especially the currnet Dark Age walls are basically made from paper and are way too easy to break with basic feudal units. And I feel it would be a better way to approach this to just make it more expensive to get them down that early than making them almost useless.
At the same time increasing the cost of walls might make it a real decision to take in feudal than as you corretctly represent:
No, they certainly arenât. Walls only cost 5 wood, and that makes repairing them really easy. It completely disables MAA rushes.
Also, the big problem with walls is that anyone can build them and still rush with ease (that is, if the enemy has no walls). It removes a core part of the game if both players wall, then try to rush. The units get no value unless they fight each other. And sure, you could make siege towers, but youâd have to get lucky and hope the enemy didnât already place something else behind the wall.
The last time i checked it was 3
The complexitiy of repairing stuff usually doesnât comes from the ressources to repair but from the reaction time, availabilty of nearby vills and if they are exposed to threats like ranged support when trying to repair. The most famous case where ressources actually play in is with TCs mostly because it costs 4x as much res to repair them than normally.
In case of Dark age Walls with 150 HP and Maa⊠they will always break in if you have a âfull wallâ. No way you can have enough nearby wills for all angles to be there in time and keep the maa out.
There are also famously Japanese MAA which can break down palisade foundations while you try them building against those you must have your âminiature wallsâ down before they arrive. And still need to be clutch in repairing them.
These defensive tasks are way more complicated when you actually have to do them. You speak over them in a manner that makes me wonder if you ever even tried that play. I doubt it. Because you pick the wrong âskillsâ out in complaining about how âeasyâ it would be. And completely neglect the actual skills and requirements for this play to be even theoretically successfull.
Wrong order again. You rush, then you build the Walls. If you do it in your order you will die to the current meta.
Again the wrong order, but I agree that it actually removes a core part of the game if everybody does the same. Atm at least half the games on the ladder are scout rush mirrors. It would be nice if there was some variety to that.
For me the interesting games are thoese when players try different strats and try to figure out paths from that to continue. Especially of interest for me are games where one side is aggressive and the other defensive with an attempt to get to a later powerspike they can use to turn the tables.
There is a lot of ways to get value from military units. You donât have to necessarily kill vills. Often itâs just enough to cause idle time or sometimes even just disturb the enemy buildup. Just having map control is also valueable - and most of the time you also get free intel about what your opponent is doing. Also the opponent walling is also some value for you, cause he didnât invest this in a better eco/timing.
The key question is always if you get back more or less in value than you invested. And thatâs a part of the game which a lot of âaggressive minded playersâ often refuse to understand. There must be the chance for the defender to get out as âwinnerâ from this early game. He invested in Walls, a few defensive units (most often skirms) and also a lot of vill time (idling/building/walking/repairs). If you then want to get at least 2 Vill kills in addition for your MAA Rush you would ALWAYS go out on top from that feudal exchange. And thatâs the skirmish game thatâs played there.
MAA is an extreme example cause most MAA Rushes end with ether only causing idle time and others end with 3-4 vills killed. The standard rushes often just give more consistant (positive) returns. Especially the Scrush is usually referred to ânever be badâ. Cause even if you hit on full feudal walls whith 3 scouts that are repaired, you still have actually in total a advantage, You have the map control. You caused Idle time. The opponent invested into a lot of walls which donât give them any direct value. And you get a lot of intel about what the opponent is doing, possibly even can spot any army, villagers or monks trying to sneak out his base.
Ofc if you decide to make 13 scouts and run them into repaired feudal palisades you will most likely lose the game to 4 Knights and a monk that can heal them up.
But thatâs exaclty the tactical component added by walls which wouldnât be there without them
And this brings us also back to MAA. Cause in early feudal there is nothing to actually stop MAA from completely idling your external ressources than the miniature walls. If they werenât there basically all games would be maa rush into archer mirrors. The argument they would be too good (and btw itâs not the walls, itâs the people who execute that defence) in defending MAA rushes falls a bit flat when you consider that itâs literally the only way to defend against it.
And maybe itâs not wrong that the community has become a bit too good in defending against the early militia line rushes. But then letâs talk about potential tweaking concepts that target that very specific point rather than trying to abuse this specific point to cry for general changes that will have impact on a lot of different situaitons.
1 Like
⊠you didnât need to make four paragraphs to make a point. Also, you shouldnât have to make walls after rushing anyway. They shouldnât have to be made every single game. The reason it annoys me so much is because turtling is no longer separate from rushing and booming. Aggressive players are forced to wall, even if they have a terrible time with it (Like me. The AI beat walling out of me when I used to attempt fast-castle few years ago, so now I usually forget to wall, or it always has holes).
1 Like
Neither they are made every game nor itâs required to be successfull.
Itâs part of the currently dominating meta to get them down by end feudal, but there are a lot of games where they turned out to be either totally unncessary or the one how didnât do the walls was able to use that to his advantage.
But itâs very obvious and already explained here why these late feudal walls synergize so well with the current meta.
If you hate walling yourself, you have to try keep the enemy at his base all the time. Look for Buildorders that are designed for that, maybe forfeit a bit of timing in order to make sure you are always the one with the initiative.
Itâs a strategy game and if you are bad at some specific skills you usually have 2 options: A) try to get better or B) try to make it a non-factor.
The good thing about the ladder system is that it enables to give you competitive partners at your current skilllevel. And you can âmanipulateâ that to get for your sake more satisfying games by chosing in theory subotimal strats so you will be paired with opponents that donât force you to get out your comfort zone.