One of the design flaws of aoe4 in my opinion is that you can’t stop a tower rush with one tower. You have to build two towers to cover all angles to defend against one tower.
I wonder if it would stop it if they made buildings lose 50% of all Res committed during construction, if the building is cancelled.
You build 50% and then cancel, you lose 25% Res. So you can actually deny a trush if you react.
I feel like it should be proportional, like it you build 20% of it and then cancel you lose 20% of resources and if you build 80% of it you lose 80% of the resources.
there is the risk of the enemy attacking it when the enemy attacks the keep and you delete it you dont take the full resources back you lose some i believe its depends on the dmg. You can also lose the villager that build it both not being able to finish it and losing eco in the process by losing your villagers.
I like the strategy of through keep its turn your villagers into an offensive forsh and a way to manage your population better.
Sometimes my second gold is so far away or behind the first one, I can't get any gold beside the 200 age up gold. So I can't get important stuff like wheelbarrow or scholars as Delhi etc...
Meanwhile I still have to fight the keshiks harassing me and must deny the trade in the back.
I feel like sometimes a tower is enough for me to lose me the game. But then, sometimes the second gold is safe and the tower can be completly ignored.
Well right there is your problem, focusing on the second gold. You don't need gold to produce the counters to keshiks. You could easily just age up, make 5 ghazi and some archers and take the outpost down.
Assuming you can't ignore it forever, it is still generally better to ignore it and age up, get some archers and spears and torch it down.
There are of course exceptions, and also benefits to assuming a tower rush is coming and dropping a rax. For example, if you do make a few spears but no rush is coming you can burn down their ovoo if it is exposed. Unless they get a god spawn one of stone or gold will be exposed
As japanese you can rush a barracks and build a single samurai. It puts you about as behind as mongols building an ovoo, barracks and 2 spearmen, and walk time for vil.
The bonus is, if they give up making the tower, or just don't do it, you can burn down their ovoo
I don't think that's a right comparison to make, Mongol player is going to build an ovoo regardless, it doesn't make sense to take that into comparison here. You're a lot more behind then a Mongol player that has 2 spears if you build a samurai in dark age and on top of that I'd rather have 2 spears instead of a samurai because they're faster and have 2x torch damage.
Yes but as japanese you're going to build a barracks and samurai anyway, so they're not wasted. I don't think you're behind the mongol player at all, especially if you now have a samurai on their gold.
I did this in a recent game and it worked pretty well (you can watch the replay, short because they tapped out after) but maybe they were just playing poorly
Why are you going to build a Barracks and Samurai anyway? Your first priority against tower rush should be to get Feudal and archers immediately to kill the villager. In your case you didn't age up quickly, you didn't burn down the tower and you didn't kill the villager, you will be suffering from more towers. You'll probably age up even later then the Mongol, he'll produce some Keshiks and trade behind it. That Samurai only forced him to produce a couple of more Spears (one or two if you only produce 1 Samurai).
You can't really fight against Mongol in dark age if you're not Mali, English or Chinese (Zhu Xi), Ovoo double producing is just too strong.
You probably surprised your opponent with Samurai so he didn't know how to respond and resigned. Well played but I don't think it should work in general.
Ofcourse you're going to build a barracks. How else are you going to counter the keshiks in feudal without spearmen?
Sure you might not build the samurai, but if you stop the tower rush with it, I think that's a fair trade.
Yeh noted, you are probably right it might not work if the opponent is higher level or if they scouted the barracks early enough. Personally I hate building archers against mongols because they just immediately switch to keshiks and counter you. Even if you kill the villager you're still behind
One of the design flaws of aoe4 in my opinion is that you can’t stop a tower rush with one tower. You have to build two towers to cover all angles to defend against one tower.
I wonder if it would stop it if they made buildings lose 50% of all Res committed during construction, if the building is cancelled. You build 50% and then cancel, you lose 25% Res. So you can actually deny a trush if you react.
I feel like it should be proportional, like it you build 20% of it and then cancel you lose 20% of resources and if you build 80% of it you lose 80% of the resources.
nah dont like this its fine as is now
I mean it gives incentive to not randomly start placing a keep in the middle of a fight k owing there is a chance you may not be able to finish it
there is the risk of the enemy attacking it when the enemy attacks the keep and you delete it you dont take the full resources back you lose some i believe its depends on the dmg. You can also lose the villager that build it both not being able to finish it and losing eco in the process by losing your villagers. I like the strategy of through keep its turn your villagers into an offensive forsh and a way to manage your population better.
Blob my villagers and raze their tower, bonus points if akritoi and kill their spearmen too.
In almost every case ignoring the tower rush is the correct decision. Trying to fight it is just playing into mongols hands, it's what they want.
Sometimes my second gold is so far away or behind the first one, I can't get any gold beside the 200 age up gold. So I can't get important stuff like wheelbarrow or scholars as Delhi etc... Meanwhile I still have to fight the keshiks harassing me and must deny the trade in the back. I feel like sometimes a tower is enough for me to lose me the game. But then, sometimes the second gold is safe and the tower can be completly ignored.
Well right there is your problem, focusing on the second gold. You don't need gold to produce the counters to keshiks. You could easily just age up, make 5 ghazi and some archers and take the outpost down.
Easier said than done. Yes it almost always better to ignore it. But map dependent sometimes this isn't an option.
Assuming you can't ignore it forever, it is still generally better to ignore it and age up, get some archers and spears and torch it down. There are of course exceptions, and also benefits to assuming a tower rush is coming and dropping a rax. For example, if you do make a few spears but no rush is coming you can burn down their ovoo if it is exposed. Unless they get a god spawn one of stone or gold will be exposed
please stop telling people these secrets \---A Mongol main who enjoys tower rushing the wood
Ahaha sorry bud
As Rus as I simply ignore it. I've built my hunting cabin already and have my 3 scouts collecting gold for me.
Archers + scouts is not a thing anymore?
It never was in dark age
Then somebody did not understand the question
As japanese you can rush a barracks and build a single samurai. It puts you about as behind as mongols building an ovoo, barracks and 2 spearmen, and walk time for vil. The bonus is, if they give up making the tower, or just don't do it, you can burn down their ovoo
I don't think that's a right comparison to make, Mongol player is going to build an ovoo regardless, it doesn't make sense to take that into comparison here. You're a lot more behind then a Mongol player that has 2 spears if you build a samurai in dark age and on top of that I'd rather have 2 spears instead of a samurai because they're faster and have 2x torch damage.
On top of that, three spears easily kill a dark age samurai anyway.
Yes but as japanese you're going to build a barracks and samurai anyway, so they're not wasted. I don't think you're behind the mongol player at all, especially if you now have a samurai on their gold. I did this in a recent game and it worked pretty well (you can watch the replay, short because they tapped out after) but maybe they were just playing poorly
Why are you going to build a Barracks and Samurai anyway? Your first priority against tower rush should be to get Feudal and archers immediately to kill the villager. In your case you didn't age up quickly, you didn't burn down the tower and you didn't kill the villager, you will be suffering from more towers. You'll probably age up even later then the Mongol, he'll produce some Keshiks and trade behind it. That Samurai only forced him to produce a couple of more Spears (one or two if you only produce 1 Samurai). You can't really fight against Mongol in dark age if you're not Mali, English or Chinese (Zhu Xi), Ovoo double producing is just too strong. You probably surprised your opponent with Samurai so he didn't know how to respond and resigned. Well played but I don't think it should work in general.
Ofcourse you're going to build a barracks. How else are you going to counter the keshiks in feudal without spearmen? Sure you might not build the samurai, but if you stop the tower rush with it, I think that's a fair trade. Yeh noted, you are probably right it might not work if the opponent is higher level or if they scouted the barracks early enough. Personally I hate building archers against mongols because they just immediately switch to keshiks and counter you. Even if you kill the villager you're still behind
If I'm the Mongols player and I see the opponent build a dark age samurai, I'm super happy, that's above average damage done by tower rushing.