We have people complaining there’s no ability to be aggressive due to how OP walls are. But Watchtowers gave you that ability to do so. If watchtowers were stronger you could do a Tower Rush to help end the game early before it even reaches the castle age.
If watch towers had stronger stats, you could punish wallers by making watch towers near their wall. Denying them their turtling.
probably because a walled in tower required basically going to castle age and making siege to counter.
I think that’s the way it should be. It allows both good defence and aggression early in the game. Both are happy.
Because everytime someone loses to a strategy they didn’t bother preparing for → pls nerf
example thread:
and then things that are actually broken never get fixed and we end up with 5 viable civs and 2 strategies because everyone wants everything to be nerfed lol
so the best response to a feudal aggression build that can deny your gold should require a castle age response?
and you don’t see how that is fair?
drop a tower near your resources to deny you them and you can’t do anything.
But it makes people who want to end the game early happy. There no guarantee this always happens in every game.
but the question isn’t “does this make them happy”. the question is “is this BALANCED and fair for all parties involved?”
when a build requires a response that you don’t even have access to at the time, that is probably not a balanced build.
if we gave Magyars Paladins in feudal age it would end the game early as well. does that mean it makes sense to give Magyars paladins in feudal? no it doesn’t.
For 0 reason. They were not OP.
Towers have been nerf for quite a while. The problem is that, in a Arabia where you get your woods forwards, two sneaky towers are enough to completely neutralize your wood income, or gold, or stone.
Its about gamedesign, not tower strengh. Having a strategy that breaks your game like that is not very fair gameplay wise.
Why did you quote my post?!
Also your point about this thread is also invalid. I support the suggestion so more strategies become valid, but you seems to claim the opposite.
I do agree many balance threads are made because someone lost against that strategy / unit, but you clearly picked the wrong example.
this is still the same pre nerf and now. the only difference is now you absolutely have to wall in your tower every time, else it collapses like paper.
Nothing wrong with your post, I wanted to point to the thread. Sorry.
Also: Nerfing things that are generic won’t make more strategies viable
no, the best answer to a feudal aggression build varies.
if your opponent is going for archers or scouts, and you can wall them out, going to castle age is fine, so is committing in feudal age to deny them a mass and military momentum, and allowing them to go to castle age faster but needing to reclaim map control.
if your opponent is going for feudal towers, you can just… make military. You should have absolutely no issue pushing back an opponent with five idles, and once you do those villagers can’t tower you.
trushing works as a counter to a FC where the opponent is trying to ignore feudal aggression entirely, by constraining their map and preventing them from taking advantage of being in castle age early.
even if they don’t drop a tower to defend, a few well-placed towers can make dropping effective TC’s anywhere very difficult. it forces your opponent to clear your towers before expanding their economy, during which time the earlier Castle Age provides them no economical benefit. moreso, it actually hurts their economy since they spent TC time getting to castle age, beyond any damage the denial of resources has done.
if you can’t do anything about your opponent denying your resources, it’s because you committed to a passive approach and they punished you properly for it.
OK, vs a blank FC often works. And still even with the nerfs.
Towers themselves are OP in feudal actually. But it’s intentional, cause the investment in defensive towers restricts your further gameplay a lot.
The HP reduction doesn’t really reduces the usage of defensive towers in feudal.
Offensive towers on the other hand have been played more and more “walled-in” which took away some from game design intentional drawbacks, bonus damage from militia and ofc the lack of murder holes.
So the actual gameplay of tower rushes made them much stronger than they were intended to, the HP nerf just compensated for the adaption of players to wall in their gard towers to protect them from their supposed counters.
Maybe there was a better solution, like giving them 2 minimum range instead, but the HP nerf made sense in the context that they were played differently than the intended way, which made them stronger than intended.
I have made no contention whatsoever on the current balance of Towers and if anything, they’ve been overnerfed. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest they got good enough to require another nerf given how they weren’t overbearing even prior to said nerf.
I was contending that what he said, on the face, was wrong. You don’t go Castle age to counter tower strats. You use Tower strats to punish early castle age. He had it backwards.
They were nerfed because of the outcry of people who pick the same (probably the one with the highest winrate) civ every 1v1 and following the exact same build order every game.
Trushes and countering them requires a lot of APM - which those civ picking build order slave don’t have, they are elo tourists because that one strat brought them into an elo they don’t belong
Both is true. Going castle is a reasonable strat against a tower rush. Especially against the old incan trush it was the only way to really deal with it after the containment.
I’m not counting #yolo all in strats. That’s not a trush. That’s an Incan trush, and it plays completely differently with different goals. That’s like comparing the Saracen Monk Rush with a standard Smush.
Against a standard trush, you do not want to rush up to castle. You need to commit military to prevent towers from coming up in the first place, or, if a tower or two has already gone up, prevent them from spreading further, and very hopefully trap the villagers.
Going up to castle quickly and letting the trusher control more of your map negates the advantage you could gain by going up early (by restraining your expansion) and worse, negates the losses your opponent accepted to send those villagers forward to trush in the first place by essentially idling your TC to go up to Castle age. Once your opponent has gotten a ton of towers down, Castle age becomes required, but it’s a way better approach to play proactively, control the map, and never let the towers land in the first place.
That’s why towers counter FC. That’s why feudal aggression counters Towers. That’s why we have a complaint thread about how walls are too good, because wall + FC beats generic feudal aggression.
What I do know about the balance of towers, as they are right now, is that M@A Trush was viable with the current tower balance last time FC was popular. So I don’t think they’re suffering too much even if they’re a little weak right now.
Because playing against trush is even more annoying and boring than playing against full walls.
But now with Korean bonuses removed and Incas villagers bonus delayed, do you think tower rushing would return prominent if they were buffed to, say, 850/900HP? Or even restored to their original HP?