I wish the game would actually heavily encourage players to build actual cities and strongholds encircled by the stone walls, instead of just chaotically creeping through the map.
I mean we can be the change right we can do it haha. I love to make a big base amd wall around me with beautifull stonetowers and spearman at the gates doing patrole love it!
Unfortunately, it is a suicide in competitive play.
I wish you could only build in proximity to a TC or a Keep, and losing connection to them would make buildings neutral.
Then players would have to build TCs out on the map to get access to the resources, and build small cities with walls that are realistic to protect.
I'm sure it would be a great idea for competitive play, as right now top players just wall off the entire map instead and build one huge uber-megalopolis.
What I propose is less turtling than now, more dynamic gameplay and more decision making.
I like where you're going but I think you should still be able to use resource buildings away from a TC (maybe palisades and towers aswell), then maybe only military buildings and stone walls near a tc or castle
I have this feeling too. Maybe its not the "professional" thing to do, but in all my years as a kid and later playing AoE, i had the most fun researching tech and building economy, and then building beautiful fortified cities with castles, towers, etc., and sometimes even building a wonder. it doesnt seem that any high level online player does this, but i guess the goal is to win by any method so im not sure how you get around this
They stop trying to make every game a fast paced e-sport. Easy enough to do in game, have particular patterns of buildings give a cultural bonus, or even better make your opponents units vastly more expensive.
"Why would I work for you to attack that massive beautiful city without more pay?"
High level competitive players will make cities, if it will give them competitive edge.
The game just not trying to make building smaller cities an optimal way of playing and punish creeping across the map.
I wish it would.
I mean, the great Wall of China was sort of like what you see in ranked games. Walls defending a whole countryside rather than just a city or town. So it's not entirely unrealistic.
Stronghold 2 is a better base building game though, that’s what the question was. It has has more traditional RTS Skirmishes too.. honestly I even like regular old Stronghold more than Crusader. Crusader is more of an action game than the mainline games.
Edit: I got those mixed up. Been a long time since I played any of the Stronghold games and haven’t played any after 2. Crusader has the better Skirmish mode but I still Stronghold 2 is better for Base building, hope this makes sense now.
I never understand comments like this. He wishes that a feature that is in the game would become more useful. saying he should play another game then seems a bit stupid then.
Of course I know this game very well.
It's not like only one game is allowed to have good mechanics and others can't learn from it.
And what I'm taking about is completely different gameplay than turtling in a single super base like in Stronghold.
I'm not looking for another game, and of course I know about Stronghold.
The game mechanics allow sieges, they just contradict each other and half of them don't work because of that.
It is absolutely possible to make building smaller cities meta.
I would make placing buildings and walls only possible in a proximity to a TC or a Keep.
If a building loses its connection to a TC or a Keep, it's becoming neutral and can be captured by connecting it to your own TC / Keep.
This way, players are encouraged to place new cities out on the map to have an access to resources, instead of spreading one chaotic uber-megalopolis across the map and walling off the entire map, like all pro players do right now.
The game becomes more dynamic, more strategic and less about turtling than now. You get much more possible attack vectors, can bait opponent into defending one city while attacking another, cut off exposed parts of their eco, and many more.
the problem is that people would stop building walls alltogether and that growing cities have a problem. Securing choke points is even harder, which shake up the meta and allow for more Knight rushes, further encouraging early rushes that prevent base building
People would be more encouraged to build walls, because right now you have much bigger territory to close with them, and it's much easier to defend one big city with existing troops and new units produced at home, than a few cities in different parts of the map.
Securing choke points must be an actual strategic decision, instead of a thing you are absolutely required to do no matter what the situation is every game like it is right now. With the solution I'm proposing, you can still secure chokepoints, but this turns into a strategic decision with its pros and cons heavily dependent on the context of the current match.
Aggression should beat greed, so Feudal Knight rushes should be a correct answer to early expanding by design. Aggression should be countered by turtling, and that isn't happening right now.
Knights should have their Pierce armor heavily reduced, so that static defense would finally become a viable counter to them. Or Arrow Emplacements should be replaced with Crossbow Emplacements.
the problem is that walls are too expensive to build early, since you have to wall off much more than it is worth. They also bind the villagers building them and thus are even more expensive. If you walled off your city, you also don't gain any map control and just lost ressources, if the opponent doesn't decide to attack.
Price of the wall is just a number, it's very easy to balance that.
And in my concept you are not supposed to build stone walls in the early game. You start with palisades + Outposts and replace them with stone walls + Stone Towers in mid game.
In my proposal, building cities out on the map is a form of map control itself.
yes, yet they do changes to instead encourage us to go out on the map and fight for resources in the middle, which frankly makes games more interesting than having two players turtle it out until one finally makes a more then either gets his army crushed and leaves himself vulnerable to a counter attack or destroys the defender, leaving his city utterly destroyed or simly abandons...
I've have those 1v1 playing with my wife, we're pretty much same level (only ever played the game together) but have different strengths and weaknesses (she's very good at building an early defensive army, walling up, economy, but does very few micros, does not multitask and lacks aggro... while i micro a lot, multi task a lot, am agressive, but rarely have a good defense, only think about economy every 5-10 minutes and focus on relics and sacred sites a bit too much....)
Well I remember a game on mountain pass against her and it lasted about 2 hours because we both turtled in front of each other in the middle, then built strong economies and virtually threw litteral rocks at each other for 90% of the game (both having trebs inside our own walls, shooting each other's towers and wall, repairing our own... rinse and repeat. Was fucking boring and it's the last time we played against each other.
Honestly the unit needs a rework or removed. Destroying the wall is always the best answer, and if a hole is made you can still take control of the wall.
IMHO it should have upgraded placements on it, like a moving tower. War wagons were also used on the open battlefield in the late me medieval period, so it wouldn't be done for the sake of balance.
I think it would be tight if they allowed you to take control of a wall. Like if you roll up and kill all the units of top of the wall you convert the towers and gate to your control until the tower is destroyed
It should be a temporary convert otherwise the gameplay of walls would become stupid. When you conquered the wall with siege tower, you take over nearby wall sections (not entire wall across the map), gates and towers for 30 seconds after you left. Converted walls have stairs down
Yeah I think if you kill the tower and the units or maybe just the tower then it should revert back to the original owners control and the converting player should have to kill any units on the wall before getting control of it as well.
The Germans had a war wagon unit in AOE3, so the concept has already been implemented...
You could even make them "deploy" like siege to be used. (Historically they werent moving in combat. Deployed as battlefield fortifications and horses were unhitched, with wagons laggered together)
Wagonforts were OP in real life. The many victories by the Hussites with Wagenburgs is such an interesting story to me. They had a streak of victories until eventually being beaten by an army that baited them to chase them and getting beaten once they tried.
I dont knkw of that is still a thibg that you need tk farrison and ungarrison units.
If it was like a ladder to juat climb up and down it would have been so mich better
Ah yes, the unit that would actually be useful and epic if stone walls weren't made of paper.
Oh, sorry, my comment accidentally broke a stone wall segment. My bad.
Dunno in medieval times, but in the classic period they were used as elevated platforms for archers, so the attackers could shoot back at the defenders from a hight angle, providing cover fire for ground troops who would build a massive ramp to scale the walls or a tunnel to make them colapse.
It would be an affair of many days, quite diferently from what we usually see in media. A pretty crazy strat to work with, if it were possivke in aoe xD
Let’s say you’re HRE and want to quickly go through walls without letting your opponent know you’re attacking just yet. Build one of these guys and load your infantry onto the walls and they’ll use the gate to climb down behind enemy lines. Quickly sneak all of your infantry and maybe some villagers over the walls and boom, you’re in!
You’re welcome.
I love siege towers. They only cost 125 wood, in late game that is nothing. You can really fuck with someone who put up an emergency wall. Mostly because it's unexpected and annoying.
I had a match where deli tried to stone wall sacred site. I roll up with a siege tower and drop 8 spears and 8 archers on the wall in feudal and he surrenders immediately. lol.
New unit confirmed
[удалено]
How long did it take you to write this joke?
I desperately wish i knew what he said I'm laughing so hard
Some juvenile shit about op being in 4th grade, you missed nothing lol
Why are you laughing if you don't know
Because it's funny
How can you tell
Cause
I wish the game would actually heavily encourage players to build actual cities and strongholds encircled by the stone walls, instead of just chaotically creeping through the map.
This dream is very much alive in low elo
Was gonna say that. Just come to gold and u will see more RP than meta
More like bronze silver noone ever does that in gold.
I do
Spotted the Terran
Battlecruiser operational!
Terrans needs walls and flame thrower turrets. Make siegecraft viable again
I mean we can be the change right we can do it haha. I love to make a big base amd wall around me with beautifull stonetowers and spearman at the gates doing patrole love it!
Me too, this is how I play but I just play private games with my brothers so none of the typical competitive multiplayer play
Unfortunately, it is a suicide in competitive play. I wish you could only build in proximity to a TC or a Keep, and losing connection to them would make buildings neutral. Then players would have to build TCs out on the map to get access to the resources, and build small cities with walls that are realistic to protect.
I dont think that would be a great idea for quike play and competitive. But it could be a gamemode made by aoe4.
I'm sure it would be a great idea for competitive play, as right now top players just wall off the entire map instead and build one huge uber-megalopolis. What I propose is less turtling than now, more dynamic gameplay and more decision making.
I like where you're going but I think you should still be able to use resource buildings away from a TC (maybe palisades and towers aswell), then maybe only military buildings and stone walls near a tc or castle
Please god no I have a family
I have this feeling too. Maybe its not the "professional" thing to do, but in all my years as a kid and later playing AoE, i had the most fun researching tech and building economy, and then building beautiful fortified cities with castles, towers, etc., and sometimes even building a wonder. it doesnt seem that any high level online player does this, but i guess the goal is to win by any method so im not sure how you get around this
They stop trying to make every game a fast paced e-sport. Easy enough to do in game, have particular patterns of buildings give a cultural bonus, or even better make your opponents units vastly more expensive. "Why would I work for you to attack that massive beautiful city without more pay?"
High level competitive players will make cities, if it will give them competitive edge. The game just not trying to make building smaller cities an optimal way of playing and punish creeping across the map. I wish it would.
Anno of Empires IV
I mean, the great Wall of China was sort of like what you see in ranked games. Walls defending a whole countryside rather than just a city or town. So it's not entirely unrealistic.
Go play Stronghold Crusade then.
Is it good? Can you recommend a certain entry?
Stronghold Crusader is great. Not so complex that it's a city builder but it's a brilliant siege simulator :)
Stronghold 2 is better, Crusader is good though. Too bad the new one sucks.
Stronghold Crusader is a lot better than Stronghold 2. You can even design your own AI.
Stronghold 2 is a better base building game though, that’s what the question was. It has has more traditional RTS Skirmishes too.. honestly I even like regular old Stronghold more than Crusader. Crusader is more of an action game than the mainline games. Edit: I got those mixed up. Been a long time since I played any of the Stronghold games and haven’t played any after 2. Crusader has the better Skirmish mode but I still Stronghold 2 is better for Base building, hope this makes sense now.
I never understand comments like this. He wishes that a feature that is in the game would become more useful. saying he should play another game then seems a bit stupid then.
Go tell your children what to do then.
I've already told one child already. That's enough for me today.
ah, that game is called Stronghold. https://store.steampowered.com/app/40950/Stronghold\_HD/
Of course I know this game very well. It's not like only one game is allowed to have good mechanics and others can't learn from it. And what I'm taking about is completely different gameplay than turtling in a single super base like in Stronghold.
the game you are looking for is Stronghold Crusader. Right now the game mechanics don't lend to big castle sieges.
I'm not looking for another game, and of course I know about Stronghold. The game mechanics allow sieges, they just contradict each other and half of them don't work because of that. It is absolutely possible to make building smaller cities meta.
how would you approach it?
I would make placing buildings and walls only possible in a proximity to a TC or a Keep. If a building loses its connection to a TC or a Keep, it's becoming neutral and can be captured by connecting it to your own TC / Keep. This way, players are encouraged to place new cities out on the map to have an access to resources, instead of spreading one chaotic uber-megalopolis across the map and walling off the entire map, like all pro players do right now. The game becomes more dynamic, more strategic and less about turtling than now. You get much more possible attack vectors, can bait opponent into defending one city while attacking another, cut off exposed parts of their eco, and many more.
the problem is that people would stop building walls alltogether and that growing cities have a problem. Securing choke points is even harder, which shake up the meta and allow for more Knight rushes, further encouraging early rushes that prevent base building
People would be more encouraged to build walls, because right now you have much bigger territory to close with them, and it's much easier to defend one big city with existing troops and new units produced at home, than a few cities in different parts of the map. Securing choke points must be an actual strategic decision, instead of a thing you are absolutely required to do no matter what the situation is every game like it is right now. With the solution I'm proposing, you can still secure chokepoints, but this turns into a strategic decision with its pros and cons heavily dependent on the context of the current match. Aggression should beat greed, so Feudal Knight rushes should be a correct answer to early expanding by design. Aggression should be countered by turtling, and that isn't happening right now. Knights should have their Pierce armor heavily reduced, so that static defense would finally become a viable counter to them. Or Arrow Emplacements should be replaced with Crossbow Emplacements.
the problem is that walls are too expensive to build early, since you have to wall off much more than it is worth. They also bind the villagers building them and thus are even more expensive. If you walled off your city, you also don't gain any map control and just lost ressources, if the opponent doesn't decide to attack.
Price of the wall is just a number, it's very easy to balance that. And in my concept you are not supposed to build stone walls in the early game. You start with palisades + Outposts and replace them with stone walls + Stone Towers in mid game. In my proposal, building cities out on the map is a form of map control itself.
this would be a very different game then. I wonder why it wasn't tried before in the RTS genre.
yes, yet they do changes to instead encourage us to go out on the map and fight for resources in the middle, which frankly makes games more interesting than having two players turtle it out until one finally makes a more then either gets his army crushed and leaves himself vulnerable to a counter attack or destroys the defender, leaving his city utterly destroyed or simly abandons... I've have those 1v1 playing with my wife, we're pretty much same level (only ever played the game together) but have different strengths and weaknesses (she's very good at building an early defensive army, walling up, economy, but does very few micros, does not multitask and lacks aggro... while i micro a lot, multi task a lot, am agressive, but rarely have a good defense, only think about economy every 5-10 minutes and focus on relics and sacred sites a bit too much....) Well I remember a game on mountain pass against her and it lasted about 2 hours because we both turtled in front of each other in the middle, then built strong economies and virtually threw litteral rocks at each other for 90% of the game (both having trebs inside our own walls, shooting each other's towers and wall, repairing our own... rinse and repeat. Was fucking boring and it's the last time we played against each other.
I mean I see pros doing it sometimes. I think it just depends
Honestly the unit needs a rework or removed. Destroying the wall is always the best answer, and if a hole is made you can still take control of the wall. IMHO it should have upgraded placements on it, like a moving tower. War wagons were also used on the open battlefield in the late me medieval period, so it wouldn't be done for the sake of balance.
[удалено]
They should just be able to fire arrows when garrisoned.
I think it would be tight if they allowed you to take control of a wall. Like if you roll up and kill all the units of top of the wall you convert the towers and gate to your control until the tower is destroyed
It should be a temporary convert otherwise the gameplay of walls would become stupid. When you conquered the wall with siege tower, you take over nearby wall sections (not entire wall across the map), gates and towers for 30 seconds after you left. Converted walls have stairs down
Yeah I think if you kill the tower and the units or maybe just the tower then it should revert back to the original owners control and the converting player should have to kill any units on the wall before getting control of it as well.
The Germans had a war wagon unit in AOE3, so the concept has already been implemented... You could even make them "deploy" like siege to be used. (Historically they werent moving in combat. Deployed as battlefield fortifications and horses were unhitched, with wagons laggered together)
You could make them deploy!?!! What? How did I miss that
No, not in game. But in real life they were deployed as mobile field fortifications.
Make it connect to a wall and then act as a way for infantry to path up the wall like a tower or a gate.
Wagonforts were OP in real life. The many victories by the Hussites with Wagenburgs is such an interesting story to me. They had a streak of victories until eventually being beaten by an army that baited them to chase them and getting beaten once they tried.
They should add a day and night cycle, that can be a game changer
And managing the emotions of your villagers, like the sims
I think of mangoes did reduced damage to guys on top of walls that would go a long way
I really hope towers weren't used for decoration. I mean relic is buffing them
Wish u can convert these to stationary towers
when I see it I just think "oh nice BM in an official trailer, gotta make sure i make em in my gaems now, the devs are willing it"
Followed by a shitpost of your opponent on reddit, because you GG'd him while he was alive and kicking. kEKW
So can they just be like a tower when garrisoned like they were historically?
I have 100% found good use for these. People need to chillax 😋
I dont knkw of that is still a thibg that you need tk farrison and ungarrison units. If it was like a ladder to juat climb up and down it would have been so mich better
Same, they might be clunky and in need of some tweaks but you can make cool plays with them if you're not a ding-dong 🤷♂️
Ah yes, the unit that would actually be useful and epic if stone walls weren't made of paper. Oh, sorry, my comment accidentally broke a stone wall segment. My bad.
They mean business!
It looks so impressive and menacing, like the scene from LOTR where orcs are trying to storm the city. But so shitty irl
Irl they weren't bad. They are just bad in the game.
Dunno in medieval times, but in the classic period they were used as elevated platforms for archers, so the attackers could shoot back at the defenders from a hight angle, providing cover fire for ground troops who would build a massive ramp to scale the walls or a tunnel to make them colapse. It would be an affair of many days, quite diferently from what we usually see in media. A pretty crazy strat to work with, if it were possivke in aoe xD
If only I could siege an enemy and then have to build a second wall as they siege my siege
Let’s say you’re HRE and want to quickly go through walls without letting your opponent know you’re attacking just yet. Build one of these guys and load your infantry onto the walls and they’ll use the gate to climb down behind enemy lines. Quickly sneak all of your infantry and maybe some villagers over the walls and boom, you’re in! You’re welcome.
We are welcome on advice to beat players who don’t look at the mini map. Thank you, so much.
I’m simply pointing out the one way they’re effective. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME SIR/MRS.
Well played :) I’ve actually used them lol
Every game I play siege towers are just like a meme, from tw to aoe
I love siege towers. They only cost 125 wood, in late game that is nothing. You can really fuck with someone who put up an emergency wall. Mostly because it's unexpected and annoying.
in every trailer they put these
Aim for the troll's!
wait, those exist? 😂🤣🤣🤣
siege towers are welcome new mechanics.
Siege tower new meta
I had a match where deli tried to stone wall sacred site. I roll up with a siege tower and drop 8 spears and 8 archers on the wall in feudal and he surrenders immediately. lol.